« What's up, Chuck? (larf, guffaw, chortle) | Main | Those wacky Albertans »
November 22, 2006
Mais pourquoi?
There's this:
Harper said the issue of Quebec's nationhood should not be decided by the federal government but by the Quebec legislation. However, he said the Bloc has forced the government to take a position.
And then there's this:
Conservative strategists also hope Harper's decisive approach will restore some of the Tories' lustre in Quebec, making them a more palatable federalist alternative than the warring Liberals.
Interesting. Quebec federalists partial to the whole "nation" thing would probably have found Harper's Conservatives an even more "palatable federalist alternative" if this decision hadn't been made at the point of a separatist gun. The Prime Minister had ample time to decide this was the right decision, and he opted against it.
But in what way, exactly, did the Bloc force the government to take this position? If his original motion — "Quebec is a nation," basically — had been defeated, Gilles Duceppe could have gone back to the people of Quebec and said, "See? They don't think we're a nation. Let's separate!" If it had passed, Duceppe could have gone back and said, "See? They said we're a nation. So let's separate!"
Neither outcome would have been positive. But seeing either as a code-red national emergency presupposes that Canada is no stronger than tissue paper — and more to the point that Quebeckers are complete idiots, vulnerable to transparent separatist ploys like cats are to catnip. How many referenda will it take to prove it's not true?
Word was some Liberals would have supported the Bloc motion, and the CP reports that "NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party will support both the Bloc and government motions."
For the love of god, why? Whether Layton or any other MP thinks Quebec is a nation should be totally beside the point when the Bloc's motives are so painfully obvious. It's not the statement; it's who made it. Politicians disagree with each other on principle all the time — that is to say they disagree with each other as a matter of principle. Most Canadian MPs will say almost literally anything in the interests of partisanship. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to ask them to stand together to defeat the Bloc's motion, even if they agreed with it, in the interests of their country.
But given that "nation" seems to mean whatever you want it to mean, I'm going to go ahead and look for a silver lining here: If "the Quebecois form an independent nation," as Harper said today, then so necessarily does Canada. This Quebec nation presumably comprises its francophone majority and minorities of all stripes — anglophone, allophone, native-born, immigrant, aboriginal. Except that its majority is anglophone, that's Canada. I'd like to think the Canadian entity outranks the Quebecois entity, but on a day like today I'll settle for equality. In reality, however, I refuse to believe that politicians have dominion over anything of the significance some are ascribing to today's events.
Posted by Chris Selley at November 22, 2006 10:44 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/580
Comments
I represent the nation of Medland. The rest of my nation will likely be meeting around the Christmas Eve dinner table. Jack Layton has said he supports us and might even bring Olivia by for dessert on the 24th. Long live the nation. Recognize it.
Posted by: Andrew at November 23, 2006 07:54 PM
I hereby annex the nation of Medland, bar Layton and his wife from its territory, and replace its leader with a Petain-esque shill. All hail the nation of Selley.
Posted by: Chris Selley at November 23, 2006 10:02 PM