« Those wacky Albertans | Main | C-minus »
November 28, 2006
Trust them, they don't know what they're doing
At time of writing, The Agenda's (unscientific) online poll from yesterday had 89 percent of 700 respondents disagreeing with the following motion: "The Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."
Said motion passed in the House of Commons with 89 percent in favour.
What can be inferred from this? Chiefly, I think, that Canadians recognize that this has nothing to do with whether Quebec, or Quebec(k)ers, or "the Québécois" in fact comprise a nation. If it did, it is safe to say that the last six media releases on the Prime Minister of Canada's homepage wouldn't concern, in reverse chronological order: the appointment of Peter Van Loan to replace some poor conscience-ridden sap (there's an Onion headline in there somewhere — "Canada's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Announces His Existence, Resigns"); the PM's plans to attend the inauguration of the Mexican President; Canada's new Partnership Against Cancer; tackling crime through bail reform; the establishment of an Advisory Committee on the Public Service; and, on November 10, the new strategy to deal with drug-impaired drivers. No, if it meant anything, I think the Prime Minister would have explained by now just what in bloody hell is going on.
Does it mean the nation of the pur laine Québécois? Surely not. As Andrew Coyne says, ethnic nationalism is… a little passé in Canada in 2006. Does it mean the province of Quebec and all who inhabit it? Maybe, but what's so special about Quebec? You can define a "distinct society" in terms of what surrounds it — you have to, in fact — but a nation has to exist on its own terms, independent of its current political situation. Explain to me how Quebec fulfils that requirement and not New Brunswick, which has forged a successful provincial identity out of a far bigger linguistic plurality than exists in Quebec.
But maybe it doesn't even matter. Maybe every single ethnic, linguistic and civic community in Canada — the entire Canadian francophone community; anglophones in Montreal; Canada itself; Kapuskasing — is in fact a nation, in which case we're back at square one, except for the new transfusion of piss and vinegar Duceppe, Boisclair, & cie now have coursing through their veins.
It blows my mind that so many people can compliment Harper's strategic brilliance while freely acknowledging that the whole thing is pure bullshit. It reduces Canada to the status of Texas Holdem. In one sense, though, Harper's right — or, sorry, the various random MPs speaking for their Prime Minister are right. (And really, why shouldn't Laurie Hawn face off against Garth Turner to close out the debate?) The motion means anything people want it to mean, and as such is meaningless.
We are assured this was all necessary. I assume that will give us comfort if the whole sham ends up screwing us once and for all. (I should probably clarify: I don't think it will. But the cynicism of it is all very depressing nonetheless.)
Posted by Chris Selley at November 28, 2006 09:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/583
Comments
The First Nations certainly do have the best point at the moment. I think they are entitled to a similar motion, especially since they are defined by the word "nation" to begin with.
As of the passing of the Quebec motion, I'm all for more nations with Canada. The word should be diluted to a point where its absolutely meaningless and irrelevant.
Any peoples seeking nationhood for their body should be entitled to a motion before the house so long as an Agenda poll can find 11% of the sample population to support them.
Will of the people be damned. This is the rise of will of the nation. I think I will affiliate myself with either the Hockey Nation, the Bay Street Nation (it already has pull), or maybe the Unemployed Nation.
Posted by: Medland at November 29, 2006 09:05 AM
Interesting - you see, "Ianists" already consider themselves a nation - we see ourselves as being soveriegn over our own Ian uniqueness and identity.
And not only over our uniqueness and identity, but over own self.
Anyone else want to become an Ianian or Ianist?
Posted by: Ian Scott at November 30, 2006 06:46 PM