Quebec Nation Notion

House of Commons passes Quebec nation motion 27/11/2006 11:32:31 PM , CTV.ca The House of Commons has passed a motion that defines the Quebecois as "a nation within a united Canada." The vote passed 266 to 16. The majority of Conservative and Liberal MPs supported the motion, along with the Bloc Quebecois and New Democrats. The vote passed 266 to 16. Among the MPs who voted against the motion were Liberal leadership candidate Ken Dryden and independent MP Garth Turner. Tory MP Michael Chong had earlier resigned from his post as the intergovernmental affairs minister so he could abstain from voting. Peter Van Loan, a Conservative MP who represents the Ontario riding of York-Simcoe, has taken Chong's place. "I believe in this great country of ours, and I believe in one nation undivided, called Canada," said Chong in a press conference hours before the vote. "This is a fundamental principle for me, and not something I can, or will, compromise -- not now, not ever. While I'm loyal to my party and to my leader, my first loyalty is to my country." The motion is largely seen as a symbolic recognition of the Quebecois nation. But Chong argued it "is nothing else but the recognition of ethnic nationalism, and that is something I cannot support. It cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial nationalism, or it does not refer to the geographic entity, but to a group of people." CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said the impact of Chong's resignation could "reverberate across the country." "You don't want to lose a cabinet minister, particularly the minister in charge of intergovernmental affairs -- the minister who actually deals with the provinces and is responsible for national unity," Fife told CTV's Newsnet.

Independent MP Garth Turner told The Canadian Press that other Tory MPs are upset about the motion as well. Chong's riding is Wellington-Halton Hills, just west of Toronto and adjacent to Turner's riding of Halton. Turner was kicked out of the Tory caucus earlier this fall. Harper tabled the Quebec motion in response to the following Bloc motion, to be introduced Thursday: "That this House recognize that Quebeckers form a nation." Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff voted in favour of Harper's motion on Monday -- a move met with loud applause in the House.

Gerard Kennedy, another leadership candidate, has said he motion is divisive to national unity and could advance the separatist agenda. Gerard Kennedy says 'nation' motion is divisive Updated Mon. Nov. 27 2006 10:18 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff Liberal leadership contender Gerard Kennedy opposes a motion approved in the House of Commons, that recognizes that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada. The motion was approved by the majority of MPs Monday night. Kennedy argued it leaves open the possibility of advancing the separatist agenda. The motion provides "official recognition to the idea of nation without defining it and that is irresponsible," Kennedy said at a press conference on Monday. "It puts that official concept in the hands of the people who would use it for things that are frankly at odds with what most Canadians believe in," he said. Kennedy said he felt obligated to voice his opinion. "It's a wedge for future politics by Mr. Harper," Kennedy said hours before the vote, introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week, passed in the Commons.

"This is not a small thing -- this is about the identity of the country. It should not be played games with and I will not go along with that." Part of the problem with Harper's "irresponsible" motion is that the notion of a "nation" is not defined, Kennedy said. "How will it inform our challenge to bring this country together when there are four or five interpretations possible?" he said. "This puts us into word-smithing, into semantics, and it puts us into games playing that I think has harmed this country in the past and should not be part of a future.'' The former Ontario education minister believes the motion raises expectations of the eventual constitutional entrenchment of Quebec nationhood. "It's not good for Canada. It's a motion that puts a mark on the Constitution, whether it happens with the motion itself, (it) creates an expectation. It also changes the definition of the country," he said, appearing on CTV's Canada AM earlier on Monday. "Canada is not some political chip to be played around with. Without any definition of what nation means, it will disappoint. It will create divisions that we don't have today," he said. Kennedy said he decided to make his opposition public after considering how his position would affect his campaign. "I don't know what the impact will be, but I know that I can't be a leader come December the 2nd or the 3rd and give a legitimacy to this idea moving forward," he said. "I have an obligation, I believe, to my supporters to win but I have a bigger obligation to be the kind of leader that actually stands up for the things he believes in." Liberals choose their new leader this week and Kennedy is the only leadership contender to reject the motion. But the motion was supported by his seven rival candidates, as well as the Tories, most Liberal MPs, the NDP and even the separatist Bloc Quebecois. "I wanted to make sure the Liberal party in future is not captured by the expediency that lays behind this motion,'' Kennedy said. Kennedy's decision to buck the tide of political convention could give him a boost at this week's leadership convention as the voice of those opposed to recognizing Quebec nationhood. But his main objective is to emerge as the leader of a unified party, he said.

"I have said we should not have this kind of debate in the middle of a leadership race. So what we need is a clear dialogue between the Liberal party and Quebec, and it's not possible to do so under those conditions," Kennedy said at Monday's press conference. Kennedy is the only one of the four major contenders with virtually no delegate support in Quebec, where he won less than 2 per cent of the delegates elected two months ago. But his stance could also reignite a divisive convention battle that the Liberals thought they had sidestepped with Harper's motion. "This is a really difficult thing for the Liberals as they try to grapple with this issue because they've always been such strong federalists and now we have this issue of concept of a nation coming in. It's splitting the party," CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said. Leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff has enthusiastically welcomed Harper's motion, saying that that the push to recognize Quebec's nationhood began with his campaign. His principal rival, Bob Rae, and the lone Quebec contender, Stephane Dion, have warily supported the motion despite reservations. Ignatieff started the debate over Quebec's identity by coming out early in the campaign in favour of recognizing the province as a nation and eventually enshrining that status in the Constitution. The Quebec wing of the party subsequently proposed a resolution, which will be considered at this week's convention, recognizing the province as a nation within Canada. The resolution, which sparked a ferocious round of bickering within the party, also calls for creation of a task force to advise the next leader on the best way to "officialize" that status. Ignatieff supported the resolution but his political foes, particularly Rae, Dion and Kennedy, opposed it, out of fears it would lead the country into another bout of constitutional wrangling. Last week, the Bloc tried to drive the wedge deeper by introducing a motion calling on the Commons to recognize Quebecers as a nation -with no mention of Canada. Harper pre-empted the Bloc by introducing his own carefully worded counter-motion, specifying that the Quebecois form a nation "within a united Canada."

What does nation really mean? Experts perplexed

Updated Fri. Nov. 24 2006 2:00 PM ET Canadian Press …………………………….. University of Toronto political theorist Ronald Beiner says nailing down a strict definition is not the important part. "It's best to fudge it. You (Quebecers) have a sense of nationhood, it's imperilling our civic community in this country, so as a matter of prudence let's make some grand statement of our recognition that you have this distinct national entity, and hopefully that will keep the country going for another few years." The "nation" debate has raged on the world stage since at least the middle of the 19th century, when various colonies started getting restless. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson famously weighed in during his 1918 speech to Congress, advocating for the self-determination of nations, or the idea that peoples or nations have the right to a sovereign state. In Canada today, only the Bloc Quebecois and their political soulmates in Quebec City are tied to the nation-state idea. Internationally, more and more experts say the concept is irrelevant and unnecessarily divisive in such a homogenous world. Liberal leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff, the latest to put the issue on the table through his policy platform, says Quebec is a "civic nation," not an ethnic one. In his 1993 book Blood and Belonging, he describes civic nationalism as: "a community of equal, rights-bearing citizens, united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values." That suggests anglophones and other groups who have emigrated to Quebec would be included in that mix. But Ignatieff has everyone head-scratching with his leadership policy platform. "Quebecers, moreover, have come to understand themselves as a nation, with a language, history, culture and territory that marks them out as a separate people," Ignatieff writes. That sounds more like ethnic nationalism, given those factors of language and culture might not apply to the Bronfmans and Garcias of Quebec. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's definition also appears to creep toward ethnic nationalism.

The unexpected resolution he proposed in the Commons on Wednesday referred - even in English - to the "Quebecois" rather than Quebecers, suggesting a linguistic element to Quebec nationalism that excludes non-francophones. "They know they have preserved their unique language and culture and promoted their values and interests within Canada," Harper said. "The question is a straightforward one: do the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes." Harper's Quebec lieutenant, Lawrence Cannon, didn't clear matters up when he alternately referred to Quebecers and Quebecois, and said any "taxpayer" who cast a vote in the last Quebec referendum is part of the definition of nation.

Quebec nationhood: a loaded history Updated Wed. Nov. 22 2006 7:19 PM ET Phil Hahn, CTV.ca News Staff A renewed debate over Quebec's status as a nation has re-opened a political can of worms as federal parties are forced to deal, once again, with the divisive question of national unity. In an impassioned speech Wednesday in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a motion recognizing that Quebecois form a nation within "a united Canada." Harper's motion was a response to one about to be tabled by the separatist Bloc Quebecois, which states that "this House recognize that Quebecers form a nation" - but not within Canada. Harper said the Bloc's intent is clear: it's not about Quebec as a nation, he said. "It's about separation. For them, 'nation' means 'separation.''' The opposition Liberals and NDP declared their support for Harper's motion, for the sake of a united Canada. And the eight Liberal leadership hopefuls were unanimous in saying they couldn't support the Bloc motion because it doesn't mention the word Canada. However, they remained divided over a resolution adopted by the Quebec wing of their own party to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada -- and which calls on the party to set up a task force to advise the next leader on how best to "officialize" that status. Flashpoint

The debate became a flashpoint in the Liberal leadership race when candidate Michael Ignatieff declared that Quebec should be considered a nation within Canada -- and that it should be recognized as such in the Constitution. While many of his Liberal rivals support that view, they're not nearly as enthusiastic about dragging such a loaded debate into the party's convention next week. Leadership hopeful Bob Rae, all too familiar with the failures of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, said it would be hazardous to reopen a Constitutional debate; and that a question on Quebec nationhood would eclipse issues that are far more important to Canadians. Stephane Dion, the lone Quebec leadership candidate and Chretienera unity minister, called Ignatieff a "trouble-maker" for turning recognition of Quebec nationhood into a campaign issue. Ignatieff, meanwhile, blasted Rae and others for portraying him as someone who would immediately, carelessly, kick off constitutional talks. Other notables joined in the wide criticism of Ignatieff's position, including Justin Trudeau, who dismissed Quebec nationhood as an "old idea" ill suited to a modern, vibrant Quebec. Professor Michael D. Behiels, an expert in Canadian federalism at the University of Ottawa, said former prime minister Pierre Trudeau realized long ago the divisiveness of the concept of Quebec nationhood. Trudeau, who stood for the principle of "One Canada," was fiercely opposed to "Deux Nations" (Two Nations) - a policy proposed by the Conservative Party in 1967 as a way to reconcile the role of Quebec within Canadian confederation. The phrase evolved into the "distinct society" concept in the 1980s, which lay at the heart of proposals to amend the Constitution during debate over the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. Trudeau used the fracas that the debate stirred up in the Conservative Party to his advantage, Behiels told CTV.ca. "It drove a lot of Conservatives out of the Conservative Party and it allowed Trudeau, in a sense, to stand four-square for national unity and against separatists and against two nations. And that basically marginalized the Conservative Party for the better part of the rest of the century," he said. The Trouble with 'Nation'

Many argue that the trouble for federalist politicians is that the concept of "nation" is too vague, and makes for a messy, divisive national debate. In a cultural sense, the word is used in Quebec even by Premier Jean Charest, an ardent foe of separatists. Liberal leadership candidate Ken Dryden, who says he will support Harper's motion, nevertheless said the debate is a "cause of divide across the country." "The principle problem is you have a word like nation that's the same six letters in English and French, but have very different meanings," he told CTV's Question Period. "In English, nation is a country - sovereign, independent and separate. In Quebec, nation can be absolutely something within a country. There can be many nations in a particular country... leaving us with an open-ended definition that is trouble not just for (Liberals), but for everybody." Sectional Politics Behiels, meanwhile, said the question of Quebec nationhood was bound to bubble up sooner or later. "It's deeply ingrained in the Quebec wing of the national Liberal Party" he said. "I think the Liberal party is basically seeing the results of 20 years of flirting with Quebecois nationalism, ever since Trudeau's departure in '84." "The party really has not dealt with this issue clearly and forthrightly since." A failure to deal properly with the Quebec secessionist movement, said Behiels, has led to the divisiveness and "sectional politics" we see in our political landscape today. "Here we have two national parties -- the Liberals and the Conservatives -- which are no longer national parties. Largely because, in a sense, the separatists have come to dominate all of the political space in Quebec." Critics say Harper's move to recognize Quebec as a nation "within Canada" will bolster the separatists' argument that they are not being recognized and strengthen their resolve to form an independent society; but supporters say the prime minister's move will protect federalists from being backed into a corner by separatists' demands.

The Tory move appeared to cool, for now, the heated issue facing their Liberal rivals who were wringing their hands over how to deal with the debate during next week's convention. Liberal Leader Bill Graham said MPs have to "transcend" partisan differences to ensure Canada remains a united, strong country, and that it's up to MPs to fight for the rights of a united Canada. Ignatieff, meanwhile, was beaming Wednesday as he wholeheartedly endorsed the prime minsiter's motion. When asked if he sees Harper's motion as a lifejacket to his leadership aspirations, he replied: "I'm sure Mr. Harper is not in the biz of throwing me any lifejacket at all. We're political adversaries, we're always political adversaries. But you'll have to ask other candidates in the race how they'll react. I've been clear from the beginning -- and I'm gratified with the result."

Duceppe says 'nation' motion plays into his hands Updated Sun. Nov. 26 2006 2:17 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe says he wasn't caught in his own trap when Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized Quebec as a nation this week, instead he said it was a big step forward for sovereigntists. Speaking Sunday on CTV's Question Period, the Bloc leader said the original motion which he made got the ball rolling. Duceppe's called for recognition of Quebec as a nation -- but without mention of Canada. He said he knew that motion wouldn't be passed, but it led to a motion by Harper that pleases the Bloc, and that Duceppe said he intends to support. The carefully-constructed wording of the Tory motion recognizes the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada. Some have suggested Harper out-foxed Duceppe by upstaging him with the new motion. But Duceppe said Harper was playing into his hands. "I told my members on Wednesday, if they say no, then we will tell people that they don't agree. If they say yes, one way or another, it's also a victory. But to say yes, they have to unite between themselves, exactly what they did. So when Stephen Harper told the press that it was a lobster trap, I would say he's not realizing it was a beaver trap."

Duceppe went on to say it's a historic moment because "for the first time in history" the House of Commons is recognizing Quebec as a nation. "Canada is the first country recognizing the Quebec nation -- that Quebecers form a nation -- and in the near future other countries will do so." Question Period co-host Craig Oliver pointed out that the motion, which is expected to be approved by the House of Commons on Monday, gives no new powers to Quebec and is simply an opinion of the House. Duceppe responded that the Bloc will use the wording of the motion to its advantage, and will attempt to force the government to address concerns passed unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec. "Will they answer those demands? Will they respond to those demands? If not, if at the end they're proving that means nothing, Quebecers will take note that they've tried to fool them with just a word without any consequences," Duceppe said. "That will be part of the debate. They have the burden of the proof now to say, well, we recognize that Quebecers form a nation, and because of that, we're answering to that demand." However, Conservative Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, the Tories' Quebec lieutenant, said the motion brought by Prime Minister Stephen Harper is markedly different from the one the Bloc put forward. The Bloc motion, he said, recognized the Quebec government as a nation-state, while the Conservative motion does not. "What we're saying is the Quebecois do constitute a nation, and within that have opted, over the last number of constitutions we've had in our country, and basically over the last two referendums, they've identified clearly they're willing to belong to Canada, so that's our fundamental distinction between both."

Duceppe: Harper's motion a gift for separatists by David Akin on Sun 26 Nov 2006 05:18 PM EST

MPs will begin voting on Stephen Harper’s “Quebec motion” shortly after 8 pm Monday night. Today on CTV’s Question Period, Bloc Quebecois Gilles Duceppe explained why his party will vote in favour: BQ Leader GILLES DUCEPPE: The most important thing, I’ve been in Ottawa for quite a few years and I've been fighting in Ottawa to have the House of Commons recognize that Quebecers form a nation. For the first time in history, now the House of Commons is recognizing that … Canada is the first country to recognize the Quebec nation, that Quebecers form a nation and in the near future other countries will do so. Question Period host CRAIG OLIVER: It has no impact in law, in jurisdiction or anything else. It's just an opinion of the House of Commons. I mean you're trying to make it far more than it really is, are you not? DUCEPPE: I mean now we will ask questions to the government? Will they respond to those demands? If not, then they're proving that means nothing. Quebeckers will take note that they tried to fool them with just a word without any consequences. That will be part of the debate. They have the burden of the proof now to say, well, we recognize that Quebecers form a nation, and that because of that, we're answering that to that demand. OLIVER: So what are you going to do now? I know what you're going to do. You're going to make, as usual, demands which will be unacceptable to federalists and then you'll be able to say Canada failed us again because you're going to say put this in the constitution, are you not? DUCEPPE: Not in the constitution, but why Quebec shouldn't have the right to speak at Nairobi last week instead of speaking in the corridor? We have as a nation the right to speak and to say, taking 45 seconds, is that too much for someone representing a nation? We'll have a debate on that. And we'll have debates on many

demands made unanimously by the national assembly in Quebec. And the other countries, when we were talking about distinct society, I remember having a debate in Toronto back in 1992. I said Quebec is not a distinct society, it's a distinct nation. The other countries, they don't know what distinct society was, what that means, but nation they know pretty well.