| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Great White North | |||
| Canadian lawmakers vote “bombshell’ Quebec motion | |||
| 2006-11-27 | |||
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, after a surprise announcement last week, presented the motion asking that lawmakers “recognize that Quebecers constitute a nation within a united Canada.” The move was seen both as a symbolic benchmark and a political ploy by the conservative government, but branded by newspapers as a ”political bombshell” that could encourage Quebec’s separatist movement. It is the first time a prime minister has recognized the concept of “nation” for the province, even if only as a symbolic gesture, said Antonia Maioni, who heads Canadian studies at Quebec’s McGill University.
Harper’s popularity in the mainly French-speaking province has dipped dramatically lately due to his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming and a foreign policy deemed too friendly to the United States. But Michael Ignatieff, a prominent member of the opposition Liberals, also jumped on the issue of a resolution for Quebec, earning the ire of some his own party members. The issue has split Liberals, who are to vote in the coming week on a new leader, with Ignatieff one of the leading candidates for the post, which could put him in a position to challenge Harper for the prime minister’s post next year. But some of Ignatieff’s rivals are accusing him of opening a ”constitutional Pandora’s Box” over Quebec’s status. In a move meant to embarrass the country’s federalists, the separatist Bloc Quebecois were about to present their own motion on Quebec’s “nation” status that did not mention Canada, before Harper pulled the rug from under them with his proposal which mentions Quebec as belonging to a “united Canada.” Although they objected to that phrase, the Bloc on Friday announced they would support Harper’s motion. “Our motion will be defeated. But what is important is that the Quebec be recognized as a nation,” said Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe on explaining his about-face. The prime minister’s motion is expected to sail through the Chamber of Deputies since all political parties have expressed their support. “We are delighted that this week Canada will become the first country to officially recognize the Quebec nation,” Duceppe said, adding that the acknowledgment would become yet”another weapon” in the regional group’s arsenal aiming for Quebec’s independence. Quebecers will eventually decide their own fate, not Ottawa, he added. Quebec separatists, now in opposition in the province, have promised to hold another referendum if they return to power in the next provincial election, expected in 2007. On his part, Harper on Friday tried to reassure English-speaking Canadians who accuse him of putting the country’s unity at risk that his motion is neither a constitutional amendment nor bill of law, but merely a statement of recognition and a gesture of reconciliation. Recognizing that the concept of Quebec as a nation was difficult for many Canadians to swallow, Harper suggested a sociological definition for the term “nation”: a people sharing the same language, history and culture. Canadians often forget that French-speakers founded their country, he said.
| |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 Does this mean we need to build a fence up there too ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-27 23:25 |
| #9 Don't know how it is now, but in the early 90's, something like a third of Montreal was on some form of government welfare. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-11-27 18:39 |
| #8 The way I understand it if Canada dumped their vaunted healthcare system (with 10 month maternity waits) they'd be very self-sufficient. Moreso without Quebec. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-27 16:29 |
| #7 This is similar to the Scotland independence thing. Bottom line is money: who is going to pay for the People's Paradise™ after the Revolution? Revolutions without good economics following is moronism. We have hundreds of examples throughout the world of failed revolutions, including Frawnce, heh. Well, Alaska will take the Yukon, and you guys can divvy up the rest as you see fit. If it can't be farmed, it's gotta be mined. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-11-27 16:01 |
| #6 The thing most folks fail to understand is that the sovereigntists are not, for the most part, separatists. They want embassies and a flag and all that French crap but they want the rest of Canada to keep paying for their sorry asses. Unfortunately, most of Canada has been stupid enough to go along with this until now. What I would like to see is a straight up or down referendum on whether Quebec should be expelled from Confederation. I think I know which way that one would go. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2006-11-27 14:58 |
| #5 If Quebec went independent I would expect half of France to immigrate overnight to escape the burning cars and Islamic future. As it is a bunch might still emigrate and push Quebec towards independence. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-27 14:31 |
| #4 You don't have to deny them anything. Just charge them $$$$(C). That will make them cry themselves to sleep for sure. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-11-27 07:20 |
| #3 No need to deny. They will just pay. If they have something acceptable to pay with. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-27 04:11 |
| #2 Fine. They're land-locked. Deny them mass-transport across Canadian territory... |
| Posted by: Cholunter Elmineck7388 2006-11-27 03:33 |
| #1 This thing is going on since ... at least 60's. Let 'em separate, for god's sake. They will end up with a territory about the size of West Virginia as Cree and Mohawks will take their chunks and join the rest of anglophone Canada. So, there would be continuous Canadian territory in any case, with kinda landlocked sliver of what would remain from Quebec. With no Albertan money coming to their piggybank, it would be a fun to watch. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-27 02:20 |