November 27, 2006

Is Quebec a Nation?

Before I begin, let me provide you with a couple of definitions from my Oxford dictionary:

Nation: large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government.

Federal: 1. of a system of government in which several States form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs; concerning this whole and not the separate parts. 2. relating to or favouring central government, as distinguished from government by separate provinces, etc.

The French definition of Nation was taken from here and is: L'ensemble des personnes nées ou naturalisées dans un pays et vivant sous un même gouvernement. It loosely translates to: Assembly of people originating or naturalizing in a country and living under the same government. Strictly speaking, not quite the same as the English definition.

The issue: is Quebec a nation? I cannot speak from a French viewpoint, since I’m not a Quebec Francophone. But I would like to explore this notion from an English perspective.

There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about recognizing Quebec as a nation, since Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation “within a united Canada.” Here is Hansard’s transcript of the speeches by the party leaders in the House. This act effectively took the wind out of the sails of a motion that was to be tabled by the Bloc Quebecois (herein referred to as “The Bloc” as they are more commonly known in English Canada) the following day to just recognize Quebec as a nation, with no mention of Canada. Was this an end run by the Conservative government, or are they playing right into The Bloc’s strategy? Politicos are taking sides and fewer and fewer are mincing words.

This issue has dogged the country since the time before the Confederation of Canada in 1867, going back to when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on The Plains of Abraham in 1759. A primer on the formation of Canada can be found on Wikipedia.

I cannot accept a Quebec Nation, not only because of the definition of the word (for reasons that will become clear), but also because of the logic the Separatists are using.

The Separatists use the argument that they are from a French tradition, with a distinct language and culture, therefore they are separate from the rest of Canada. Using that logic, if you accept Darwinism, and the fact that homo sapiens got their start in Africa, as well as the fact that people of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, et al live in the Americas, then by extension, we are all African-Americans, regardless of the colour of our skin!

The lunacy of this statement gives you a glimpse at the untenable Bloc position that Quebecers are one of the founding groups of Canada, therefore they must be recognized as a nation. They refuse to allow that Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and even Ukrainians were also founding groups of Canada. Also, that Canada is currently a country that has large groups of ethnically diverse immigrants. Canada is a country of immigrants, with diverse languages and cultures, made up of people where a significant portion of the population do not claim English or French as their first language. If the rest of Canada confirms that Quebec is a nation, by the Spearatists definition, does that mean the predominatly English-speaking people of Westmount, a neighbourhood in Montreal, also be recognized as a nation by the Quebec Assembly (provincial government)?

Should we declare any concentration of an ethnic group as a nation? Should the Chinatown of each city be declared a nation (the Greater Toronto Area has at least two major areas, with several smaller ones)? Should a predominantly Ukrainian neighbourhood in Saskatoon be declared a nation? What about a bunch of environmentalists in Vancouver? Where does it end?

According to the 2001 Census data, 9.97 million people cited the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) as their origin, and 4.71 million have French (French, Acadian) origins. But you must also consider that 2.74 million are of German descent, 1.32 million are Aboriginals, 1.27 million are Italian, 1.09 million are Chinese, and 1.07 million are Ukrainian. Using Separatist logic, all of these groups, and more, should be recognized as nations.

Although the French definition, and common viewpoint within Quebec, may allow Quebec to be a nation within a united Canada, that is certainly not the view of Separatists and their arguments to get Quebec voters onside. There can be no acceptance of the Bloc’s notion of Quebec as a nation, because let’s face it, if they are able to get official, legal, recognition as a nation, a sovereign nation is just an adjective away.

This act is isolationist. If the Separatists are trying to be isolationists, what reactions would they invoke? Will it cause other provinces to pull the plug on publicly-funded French programming? Will those Francophones living in other provinces be isolated from their “homeland” because of this short-sightedness? Isn’t this something the Bloc would vociferously campaign against; that which is exactly what they’re trying to do to non-Francophones within Quebec? What better way to promote Quebec/French culture than to spread it amongst all Canadians, using the province of Quebec as a basis of a concentrated grouping of the culture?

The Bloc, a.k.a. “Blocheads” as coined by some political commentators, would lead you to believe that recognizing Quebec as a nation protects their language and culture. But the gains Francophones have made within Canada outweigh any possible additional benefits. They have gained equal language status in the Federal and New Brunswick governments, with Ontario providing more and more services in French. Access to French language and culture is available across Canada, if not from cable companies, certainly from satellite providers. The Quebec government has a lot of autonomy in their governing at the provincial level (they control some aspects that no other province has the legal authority to do). What possible additional benefit could they want? Equal status as Canada on the world stage? Representation at the United Nations? The Bloc think they can do all of this while retaining the Canadian Dollar as their currency, and retaining their Canadian passports.

The Bloc was formed by Lucien Bouchard and his cronies in 1990 for the sole purpose of separating Quebec from Canada. When he formed the Bloc, he stated that it was a temporary party and that it would only last until the next Referendum. The sovereigntists were narrowly defeated in 1995, but the Bloc did not dissolve. They just won’t go away until they do win a referendum, which apparently they will hold at least once every decade. Reminds me of a two-year old that kicks and screams and cries until they get their way.

The reality is a sovereign Quebec would not last long. Economically, it is unlikely they could make a go of it, while still retaining their current standards. Some nations from around the globe that have tried might give some insight into Quebec prospects. A Quebec currency would have little effect on the world markets. Exporters and importers would demand to do business in US Dollars or Euros. Inflation in Quebec would likely rise to unmanageable levels. The standard of living would decline. Quebec’s only resource is its mineral deposits, which are finite, and its hydro-electric generating capacity. They are a net importer of oil, so their treasury could not fall back on oil’s rising prices. But as their population grows, less and less of Quebec’s resources will be available for export. In the end, if they do not return to the Canada fold, they will be forced to join the United States (who would remove their new found freedoms), or the European Union, where they would have to fall in line with the other member states.

Canada deserves Quebec, just as Quebec deserves Canada. Not in a derogatory, nyah nyah manner, but in an ethnically diverse, tolerant, and prosperous sense. All the cultures that make up a Federal Canada make the country the envy of the world. What other country has taken within its borders and made citizens such a diverse group of cultures, where the people have learned to live and govern together? Where multi-culturism, rather assimilation rule? Sure its citizens have their difficulties, just like any family. But that does not mean it should just be chucked onto the garbage heap. The Quebec culture has come to symbolize Canada, just as much as the scarlet tunics of the RCMP and maple syrup have. It's part of the citizens' Canadianess.

Let me leave you with one final definition from my Oxford dictionary:

Notion: general concept under which (a) particular thing may be classed.

Quebec is a notion, not a nation. Much like Newfoundlanders, Acadians and Albertans are. I'm not trying to diminish Quebec's contributions to Canada. On the contrary. The country is stronger with Quebec, as well as all these other groups and more, than without. The acts of a few “Blocheads” kicking and crying and screaming RE-COUNT should not change this. If anything, the Blocheads should be sent to their room without any supper.

Wings Over The World

8 comments:

David Wozney said...

Wings Over The World wrote: "...Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation 'within a united Canada.'".

The motion that was delivered Nov. 22, 2006 is: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.".

There is a difference between Quebec and the Québécois.

Quebec is a province. The Québécois are natives or residents of Quebec.

Natives or residents of Quebec are a people group.

The word "nation" in the KJV NT Bible is translated from the Greek word pronounced as "ethnos" which is defined in the Greek Lexicon as
"1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
a. company, troop, swarm
2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
a. the human family
3. a tribe, nation, people group
4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians".

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?number=1484

Outport Outlaw said...

Very well written post, I agree with your comments to the T. I really wish those people in Quebec who are proud to be Canadian, cheered as loudly as those who are determined to tear apart this country.

Wings Over The World said...

To Mr. Wozney....

My apologies. You are correct. The motion set forth by Prime Minister Harper is as you stated. I confirmed the wording through Hansard records.

I would also like to point out that the ctv.ca link I posted also got it wrong when they used the term "Quebecers" when they cited the motion. And in fact, Hansard records this particular group as "Quebeckers." Just goes to show you that you can't trust journalists.

I certainly intended no offence by using the term Quebec, instead of Quebecois, where appropriate. In fact, using the term Quebecois is more appropriate, since it includes those that identify themselves as such, but do not live withing the borders of the province of Quebec.

With regard to the definition of nation, you've supported my point. We all have our own definitions/concepts of nation, and those definitions/concepts may not translate word for word between languages or even cultures, which makes for such a charged debate and nebulus prospect.

More and more is being said that Mr. Harper's end run on the Bloc Quebecois is actually playing into their hands over the long run by opening a Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait and see how the Separatists use this to their advantage.

Wings Over The World said...

To outport outlaw,

First, thanks for the props. It's that kind of encouragement that will inspire me to write well.

Second -- hear, hear! Unfortunately, the silent majority usually only come to the rescue at the last moment (like during the last referendum). What we need them to do is get their voices heard before it's too late.

Anonymous said...

Good comments by all. I would be very disappointed if Quebec ever decided to leave from a cultural perspective as I truly value their importance to Canada, making Canada what it is, the greatest country in the world.

I am also concerned for what happens to the rest of us should they separate. Our country would be divided culturally and physcially (from Atlantic Canada). There is also the billions of Federal dollars invested in Quebec. Therefore, I believe the separtism debate is for all of Canada and not simply for Quebeckers to decide.

Regarding a separate Quebec, does Quebec have autonomous rights to the minerals in their Northern regions of which were not part of Quebec when it was founded? I would argue the Federal government should have some authority over all the resources in their land? What about the First Nation's people in Quebec and their land claims? I'm quite sure they don't want to leave Canada. And how about the portion of the federal debt attributed to Quebec. Do they take that with them when they leave? There are so many questions to which there is never a clear answer.

Quebec will have a difficult time as an independent nation economically. They are currently propped up by Ottawa (as are most provinces) to a large degree. Separatists argue that trade with the US will support them and they have a point but I live in the US and there is a very strong anti-French sentiment(French Canadian or otherwise) that could carry over into commerce, particularly if they separate. Quebec has long been a more left-leaning province on social aspects so without the Federal blanket, keeping the social programs for it's population which contains the poorest poeple in Canada would obviously mean very high taxes. In all the years I've listened ot this debate I've never truly seen a separitist show a vision of Quebec that would make sense. It's an ideology driven argument, not rational based. As much as I want Quebec to remain and recognize it's uniqueness, I also believe it could be devastating for the population of Quebec if they left. As for the rest of us, it might be tough, and I truly hope it doesn't happen, but I'd be more worried if Alberta or Ontario left.

Wings Over The World said...

Anonymous,

All very good points. Thanks for your input.

Of course, your comment about Alberta or Ontario leaving raises an interesting point. Alberta had already made separatist overtones sometime around the last Quebec refernedum (plus or minus a few years -- may even go back to Meech Lake). Their oil resources would be able to fund such a move, but I wonder how they'll fare over the long term as the oil reserves get drawn down.

The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, has had to tough out balancing his budgets since he came into power a couple of years ago. His latest kick is to get some of the $13 billion that the Federal government gets from the province to distribute to the poorer provinces (transfer payments). I wonder if this could be the impetus to Ontario supporting a break up of Confederation? Does he think that a separate Ontario could maintain that kind of revenue generation so the "country" of Ontario can be more prosperous with a higher standard of living for its inhabitants? He'll have to take into account what assets he would be able to gain from the federal government with respect to Customs & Immigration, Defence, and Foreign Affairs....An interesting topic for academics to investigate, but a potentially nebulus one if the result supports Ontario backing out of Confederation.

Anonymous said...

As a resident of Quebec of more than 25 years, I originally supported the movement for more "respect" for French in the province and country. However, in the past many years, the feeling I get now from francophones has changed radically. Whereas I originally felt it was NOT necessarily "anti-anglo/anti-Canada", but rather pro-French, I now feel it has defintely shifted to a very unpleasant tribalism and anti-anglo/anti-canada sentiment.

The very convenient ommissions of certain facts, the distortions of facts, the re-arranging and manipulation of history, and so on perpetrated by separatists in this province is astounding.

I must also agree with Wings regarding the idea of "nation". This is always used by French Quebeckers in the sense of an independant nation: "National Assembly" for example, National Library, National theatre etc.
In passing I blame the neophyte Mr Ignatieff for raising the issue and in effect forcing Mr Harper into his declaration.
Having visited many parts of this great country, I see no reason why Quebec is more "distinct" than Newfoundland, or the far north for example.
Although this particular debate has died down, I fear it will come back to bite us. I also dearly wish the CBC would stop referring to the St Jean Baptiste holiday as the "National holiday"!!!!

Mme Marois meanwhile has promoted a law on "Quebec Citizenship" which contravenes certain domestic and internationaaly recognized human rights issues, as well as attempting another step towards "citizenship" in an independant country

I suggest everyone take a look at Lincoln's 1861 inauguration speech. Although referring to secessionists in the US, from paragraph 12 onwards it is eerily and almost directly applicatble to the separatist issue in this country.

Although I dearly love ALL this country, I am slowly beginning to think it is time to let the fundamentalist have their country..but it should comprise only a small portion of the current quebec provincial territory.

enough said for now.
I am very sorry I cannot leave my name, but there is a valid reason.

Tym_Machine said...

After years of debating the topic with a good friend of mine, mr Howard Galganov,after all these years of trying to defend official bilinguism "à la Trudeau", I came to the conclusion that the ROC should hold a referendum on whether or not Canada should separate from Québec or in plain terms, kick Québec out of the confederation for all its attempts on trying to leave the confederation on its own.

After all that time standing up behind official bilinguism since I am French Canadian and wanting to defend my country the way it is today, I rally behind practical issues and pragmatism. The reality is unplacable: Canada is not a bilingual country if we take out of the equation Quebec. Canada without Quebec is a country with a small French minority that has been assimilated to the point of being just another folkloric reality of Canada.

Even though I would vote no on such a referendum if I was aloud to do so(currently, I am a francophone living in the province of Quebec but I might move in a nearby future), I now support the idea of the ROC holding such a referendum on the topic. Hell, if Québec was aloud to hold such a referendum on its own territory, the rest of the canadian provinces should be allowed to express an opinion on the topic whether or not the outcome is positive or not.

However, let's say Galganov would be prime minister of a Canada without Quebec, he would not impose laws as we have in Canada like law 101 which violates individual rights to annonce in the language you want, freedom of speech to express as you will and private property as well.

My prediction would be that it would not pass due to Ontario and that would surely piss off my friend Howard who is currently militating for such a partition of Canada. Ontario is still hooked up on the liberal freak show and still hooked up on the trudeaumania nostalgia even to the point of electing Stéphane Dion who once called law 101 a great canadian law with 47% of all the Ontario vote according to a recent Ipsos-Reid survey(and hell, they would give a higher majority to Justin Trudeau just for being the son of Pierre-Eliott). However, such a proposition would score really high in Western Canada in provinces such as Alberta for instance for two reason: first, they are sick and tired of federally imposed bilinguism for a minority that does not come even close to 1% of the whole province population and secondly, because they might want to give every chance to Quebec to separate from Canada so they could separate themselves from the liberal mess that Ontario and the Maritimes still wants to impose on Western Canada, a party that has been so hurtful for Western Canadian to the point that in 2006, they ALL voted for Conservatives MPs in Alberta (then angryphones will accuse Quebeckers of having all the same opinion on everything such as label us all separatists...well I wonder if we would have been as unanimous about the Bloc or the PQ as Alberta has been with the Conservatives (electing Klein during 16 years and voting all Harper in 2006 even in "Redmonton" what the angryphones propagandists might say...)


Regards,

Tym Machine
www.tymmachine.blogspot.com