No Member of Parliament, much less the PM, has the right to undermine the sovereignty of the nation - such as awarding nationhood to Quebec. To do so is the crime of sedition. At least that's my son's POV. So he tried to email Canada's Sergeant of Arms to challenge him to stop the vote, only to find out that there currently isn't one - he died last August and his responsibilities carried out, on call, by Audrey O'Brien, Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons. Will she escort the PM from the House of Commons tomorrow? *Yeah, right." Her email is obriea@parl.gc.ca for anybody else who thinks Canada matters just the way it is!

He has infomred himself about the differences between what is internationally recognized sovereignty, du jour sovereignty and de facto sovereignty. To cede Quebec sovereignty is to diminish Canada's sovereignty. To do so is the essence of sedition and is illegal. It was briefly made legal in the Province of Quebec for the purpose of the referendum almost 20 years ago, but the results were never to be binding on the government of Canada. Inuvik was granted nationhood status within Canada, but only because it won a law suit against the government.

Here's the text of proposed email you might like to send to Audrey (He again points out that it's not a question of whether or not this motion matters in the overall political scheme of things, it's that the motion itself is illegal.)

To obriea@parl.gc.ca

Attn The interim Sergeant of Arms Canadian House of Commons,
Clerk of the House of Commons, Audrey O’Brien

Thank you for your time.

It has come to my attention a motion on Quebec as a nation within Canada is to be tabled before the House by the PM on Monday.

I want to take this opportunity to remind you of your oath to the Crown.

The proposed question by the Prime Minister is the very essence of sedition and is illegal.

As such you will need to escort him from the House prior to his incriminating himself, for his own good and the good of the nation.

It is your duty to maintain security in the House. Being forewarned that a crime is planned I look forward to your taking appropriate action when the critical time comes.

Failure to uphold your oath is likely to result in a civil suit against you filed by defrauded Canadians who remain loyal.

Sincerely

And I do not admire Ignatieff for raising it. Politicians bring up this subject to manipulate voters. The Bloc and separatism was dying in Quebec and with the help of 'nation' status, they jumped on the opportunity to increase the number of people they will elect. Harper countered it with a bill of his own that does not give them any more legal rights for statehood that what they had before the motion that will be voted on today. But by granting, 'nation' to Quebec, it gives the Bloc ammunition to pursue their agenda of separatism.

Quebecois elected ten federal conservatives MP'S in the last federal election which decreased the number of Bloc seats. People just want jobs, affordable housing, access to higher education at reasonable costs. What French-speaking peoples want from life are no different than English-speakers.

Now I expect the Liberal leadership race to be mired in unity instead of substantive issues.

When are Canadians going to smarten up and realize national unity was decided long ago. Canada already is a nation state of ten provinces and three territories.

Nation in French is a geographical area, but the word is ambiguous enough that it will raise expectations that will not be fulfilled without going through Constitutional reform.

Opening up the pandora's box of separatism, is divisive. Politicians love to rile us up over nothing.

Harper's bill does not advance Quebec statehood, but the word, 'nation' is enough to create expectations. The Bloc adores this type of fuzzy wording. Not once has a clear cut question been put to the people of Quebec about separation.

Personally, I think the whole thing is a smokescreen. Every move Harper has made in office has been lifted directly from the GWB playbook. And, believe it or not, this one is no exception. My suspicion is that the intent of this motion was to cause confusion around the concepts of 'nation' and 'sovereignty'. Muddying the waters in this way should make it a lot easier to combat aboriginal claims on crown land (e.g. EA's for oil and other resources in the north-west part of the country), and pave the way for stronger federal policies in all areas that affect nations-within-our-nation, such as immigration. Nothing will actually change vis-a-vis Quebec, because Quebec has always used its 'special status' as a negitiating lever with the feds. There is little desire among Quebec's leaders to see the sovereignty cause succeed, as long as it remains a powerful tool for negotiating with Ottawa. *Any* formalization of Quebec's place in Canada removes this lever.

OTTAWA, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Canada's minority Conservative government lost one of its cabinet ministers on Monday because of the government's motion to recognize Quebecers as a "nation" within Canada.

The government's survival was not placed in jeopardy by the resignation of Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong, but the move underlined tensions over the motion, which was designed to head off a parliamentary maneuver by the separatist Bloc Quebecois party, which wants independence for the largely French-speaking province of Quebec.

Chong, ironically, was responsible for national unity issues, including Ottawa's relations with Quebec and the other provinces. He said he remains a Conservative member of Parliament and loyal to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Reuters

"I believe in this great country of ours, and I believe in one nation, undivided, called Canada," Chong told a news conference.

"While I'm loyal to my party and to my leader, my first loyalty is to my country."

National Post
Quebec motion a 'political wedge', says Kennedy

Chris Wattie, National Post
Published: Monday, November 27, 2006
Gerard Kennedy has become the only Liberal leadership candidate to oppose a motion to recognize Quebecers as a nation within Canada, calling the resolution vague, divisive and a “political wedge” by the governing Conservatives.

Mr. Kennedy, a former Ontario cabinet minister who does not hold a seat in the House of Commons, said he did not expect his opposition would sway the vote on the resolution.

But he said he wanted to make known his opposition to the resolution, introduced last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“It's a wedge for future politics by Mr. Harper,” Mr. Kennedy told a news conference in Toronto just a few hours before the expected vote. “It treats the future of this country like a political trinket.”

Mr. Harper introduced the surprise resolution last week in response to a resolution put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc motion called on the Commons to recognize Quebecers as a nation but made no mention of Canada.

But Mr. Kennedy said the Tory resolution, which has been supported by all the other Liberal leadership contenders, “could mean something or might mean nothing.”

“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.”

The Liberals will choose their new leader this weekend and Mr. Kennedy is the only candidate to reject the motion, which he acknowledged could hurt his chances of winning the leadership.

and

CBC
Dryden joins Kennedy in opposing Québécois motion
MP Ken Dryden has joined fellow Liberal leadership contender Gerard Kennedy in opposing the parliamentary motion stating the Québécois form a nation.

"Earlier, Kennedy confirmed that he opposes Prime Minister Stephen Harper's surprise motion recognizing the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada.

"I'm here today to say I can't support the Harper-Duceppe motion because I don't think it's good for Canada," he said, crediting the idea jointly to the prime minister and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe."

Also Aboriginal issue

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should clarify a motion that recognizes the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada to ensure it does not trample upon the status of Canada's First Nations, an aboriginal leader said Monday.

Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, told CBC News the AFN is concerned about the motion expected to be voted upon by MPs on Monday night.

considered a nation inside a nation with special rights ( Language etc.) but the same people will argue against granting the same recognition to the first nations.

1. The motion is nothing but a political ploy to attempt to buy Quebecois votes; it'll fail because Quebecois are a little more sophisticated politically than the rest of North America - the vast majority of Quebecois polled recognized the move for what it was instantly.

2. Granting "nationhood" to Quebec would be, in any case, an empty gesture, since the word "Nation" has no legal meaning.

3. Quebec already considers itself a Nation. Being recognized as such by the Canadian government would be nice, but frankly, it doesn't change anything unless it leads to changes in the way Quebec is treated. Since that's unlikely to happen, well...

4. This is not the first such attempt. The last time was the failed Meech Lake accords. The failure to ratify Meech Lake by the rest of Canada was widely seen as a slap in the face by Quebec.

5. (for Rational): At Confederation, a promise was made to Quebec: That Canada would remain a country of two, equal nations. That is why the people of Quebec, in 1867, backed the actual formation of Canada. Quebec is simply asking that simple historical fact to be recognized. The situation is similar to the First Nations in that Canada has reneged on a number of treaties; Quebec feels that Canada has reneged on its most fundamental promise to us: to treat us as equals. We were used by cannon fodder by the Canadian Etat-Major during WWI and WWII (just like Canadians were used as cannon fodder by the British), we've been called every name under the sun, we've had to endure two centuries of virtual and actual serfhood. Yes, we're pissed.

Don't forget that Francophones make up about 22% of the population of Canada and 83.1% of the population of Quebec. Within Quebec we form a majority greater than that of Anglos overall in Canada (59.1%), or even Ontario (71.9%). But the Canadian population has systematically refused to recognized the overwhelmingly French character of Quebec, it's cultural uniqueness, and its sense of itself as a distinct people. Even the First Nations, who otherwise have had it much worse than we have, at least get that. Numbers from the 2001 Census and here also

I agree that the rights of the First Nations have been trampled in the past, and that both protection and rectifying action must be taken. BUT: I fail to see where that is in any way or shape in conflict with Quebec's aspirations. Considering that we both want pretty much the same thing from the same people, and that it is those people who are refusing to give it to both of us, I think there's much more of an interest in the First Nations and Quebec to join forces, rather than to swallow the Anglo propaganda and work at cross purposes. You'll also find that the majority of Quebecois would agree with me on that, even if our politicians are sometimes blind to it.

To us in Quebec, that word is code for "English-only", the same way that the word "Broken Borders" in the U.S. really means "Dirty Brown People". The word "Canadian Unity" is most often heard from the rabid anti-Quebec faction to mean "Assimilation". And them's fighting words, good buddies...

Also, giving Quebec more sovereignty does not diminish Canada's sovereignty; the Egghead who said that doesn't know squat. Canada is a Confederate state. There are clear separation of powers between the LEVELS of government. Quebec is already sovereign in its own sphere; for example, we have our own system of civil legislation, distinct from the rest of Canada - we also have our own school system, etc... Changing the details of which powers go where is NOT sedition, it's called "Constitutional Negotiations". Considering that the Constitution is still in flux ever since Trudeau unilaterally repatriated the Constitution in order to change the rules of the game. Constitutional negotiations are still ongoing. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords are proof of that. The fact that English Canada defeated both, simply because they recognized, in extremely mild language, the fact that Canada was founded as a country of two nations (That's how it was sold to Quebec, at the time), was an extreme insult to Quebec, essentially saying to Quebec: "You may have been a fundamental player in the founding of Canada, you may be a fifth of the population, you may be the only place in North America where the French language is still vibrant, but you are no more important to us than Prince-Edward Island (which by the way we don't give a crap about either!)."

To Ontarians, Canada is nothing but Ontario with unimportant bits of land attached on either side. To the Prairies, Canada is Ontario, which is oppressing them by not allowing them to become exactly like the Bible-Belt they admire so much, especially in the case of Alberta, which sees itself as Canada's Texas. For BC, Canada doesn't exist; I've said for years that BC would secede before Quebec did. It's only in the Maritimes that you'll find real Canadian patriotism, where ALL parts of Canada are actually recognized as parts of the whole. So "Canadian Unity"??? You must be kidding me.

Oh and by the way, before you paint me as some kind of extremist "separatiste", understand this:

1. I speak English almost certainly much, much better than you speak French.

2. I currently live in Bermuda, and plan to move to Halifax next year.

3. Even though I am a "Nationaliste" (a term which does NOT mean in French what it means in English; in the case of Quebec it only refers to one who sees Quebecois as a *distinct* ethnic group, and NOT as a superior one in any way), I do not currently support secession.

But I AM pissed off at English Canadians who don't even take the time to read a French newspaper once in a while or even take a look at Census data before forming extremist opinions. The VAST majority of Canadians would be SHOCKED to learn of the numbers I've stated in my previous post. That is certainly not how the English Canadian media (especially the extreme-right National Post, but also the Centrist Globe and Mail) portrays the make-up of Canada. The Anglos love to see themselves as some overwhelming majority, having to tolerate an insolent, tiny minority of whining Frogs. Bull...

So Chickadee: Your son should hit the law books, instead of sending Limbaugh-like letters to an officer of the government of Canada.

You're right about one thing, its the Maritimers that truly believe in Canadian Unity.

To us in Nova Scotia, "Canadian Unity" means that if Quebec separates the we're screwed and separated from the rest of the country.

Despite the numerous complaints of the Quebecois nation (which received promises at confederation for soley political reasons) that they are unfairly treated, Nova Scotians see Quebec as one of the most economically priveledged provinces in Canada due to its social investment policies being funded by the government, while we who need development aid far more than Quebec receive nothing from the government because we are not a threat to separate. Indeed maritimers generally are the least vocal and the most punished. (Nova Scotian's resent Alberta for reasons of bias treatment as well.)

Wanna talk screwed by confederation? Nova Scotia was the most powerful part of what is now Canada at confederation (the war of 1812 was considered a practice run for a Nova Scotia invasion originally) but an Ontario and Quebec bias by the government had much of our resources removed.

As far as talks repressed minorities go, Acadiens have received absolutely nothing for past injustices done to the most perfect non-native society to grace North America. Are we not a nation? We have our own cultural traditions and our own myths. Our own Creole and unique dialect of french.

Complaints that "Quebec Unity" is seen by the majority of Canadians as "English-only" are ill-informed, and if this is the general opinion of Quebec it is also hypocritical.
Already Quebec Anglophones are being shunned in their homes by Quebec politicians who have stated that the nationhood only applies to the french, this is not a new trend. Quebecers are notoriously hostile to anglophones. I do not have a single friend who hasn't gone to Quebec and reported two things: 1. They loved it there. And 2. They experienced large amounts of hostility towards themselves because they were Anglophones, particularly outside areas frequented by tourists. The ability to speak french only mediated this discrimination slightly, as many still were derisive to the anglophone "trying to fit in." I had one friend who was fluent in french but he did not let on and spent his entire lunch listening to the restaurant staff bashing him. Perhaps before you judge the darkeness in other cultures you should first see if it resides within yours?
Read that census you put up, the reason Anglophone numbers are dropping in Quebec is because they are increasingly ostricized.

I do not agree with my party (guess which) on this issue, I do not agree that other groups with just as much right to nationhood as Quebec should be called nations either, despite how distinct Quebec may feel it is a province and should have no more rights than any other. The fact is that Canada as a whole is already extremely distinct across the country and drawing lines of segregation does nothing but perpetuate intolerance.

I don't bear any ill-will against Quebec. -If I ever have children it would be my ideal choice of a place to raise them (there or Vancouver.) What I do bear ill-will against is inequalities... Inside Quebec there is a huge emphasis on Social Equality for all (Francophones), and yet for some reason the province seems to stop there, and believe while people within Quebec should get equal treatment, on a provincial level Quebec should get unequal treatment.

This goes beyond pure "seperate but equal" Quebec wants to be "seperate and unequal." (Supreme court veto? WTF?)

Argh... I'm too tired to continue and by now I'm just rambling crazily.

-The Thought

Should have let Harper know he planned to quit over Quebec motion, insiders say

OTTAWA—Caucus colleagues say they didn't see it coming. But more important, Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn't see it coming.

A day after a bombshell news conference where Wellington-Halton Hills MP Michael Chong announced his resignation as Conservative intergovernmental affairs minister over recognizing "Québécois as a nation within a united Canada," Harper supporters closed ranks and painted a very different picture of how events unfolded.

Chong, in their view, betrayed the Prime Minister by not clearly flagging his intent to resign, and by misrepresenting how Harper dealt with the former minister, whose responsibilities included the unity file.

Publicly, Chong said he disagreed profoundly with the resolution Harper brought forward because it embraced an "ethnic nationalism" he couldn't support. He said he reflected for five days upon his course of action after Harper sprang the resolution on his caucus in response to a Bloc Québécois motion that the Québécois "form a nation" plain and simple.

The 35-year-old MP, whose father emigrated from China and mother came from Holland, said publicly that an "undivided Canada" was for him a "fundamental principle" and "not something on which I can or will compromise."

And while he didn't cite it as a reason for quitting, Chong made clear he had not been consulted by Harper in the crafting of the "nation" resolution.

An insider called that complete nonsense. "He and the PM discussed this over the course of the summer on at least two occasions if not more. And the PM did not make the decision about proceeding with this until he had the caucus discussion last Wednesday."

Chong declined an interview.

Harper's circle feels Chong did not convey his deep-seated uneasiness to the Prime Minister and should have.

In fact, the insider says, Chong's concerns were "not unique in the party in that regard, but the idea that he might throw up a principled objection to the point of resigning? No, that was never in discussion."

On the other hand, Harper was facing a big political headache on the Quebec side of his caucus where, the insider confirmed, "there was a slew of folks who very much wanted to vote for the Bloc motion (to recognize Québécois form a nation).

"We persuaded them with the PM's response resolution that they had all sorts of room to vote for our resolution and to vote against theirs (the Bloc's), which is what happened in the end."

Right up until Monday's question period, those in senior government circles believed Chong was on side.

"He sat through cabinet's question period briefing from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock, answered a number of hypothetical questions ... on the national unity file and on the `Quebec as a nation' motion from 1 until 2 o'clock. And then at 2 o'clock, walked in, dropped a letter of resignation on the Prime Minister, handed his question period binders over to (House leader) Rob Nicholson and left," said the source. "That's a peculiar way of proceeding."

Several caucus colleagues were impressed with how the young Chong handled himself on Monday.

Fellow Conservative MP Jim Abbott said Chong's departure was not a significant blow to the government because he handled it in "a respectful" manner and "didn't go over to the dark side."

"There was a principle he was not prepared to walk away from and I think quite frankly that politics needs an awful lot more people of high principle. I don't agree with him, but I fully respect him."

But the reaction among those close to Harper was exactly the opposite.

"I think a classy way to do it is when the subject comes up to be clear with the Prime Minister about what your point of principle is and not to take the Prime Minister by surprise on a Monday afternoon."

Inside the Harper government, the view is that Chong, first elected in 2004, has made a career-ending move.

Toronto Star

----

Wow...does Harper sound like Mulroney after Peter C. Newman published his book? According to Mulroney, he did not realize Newman taped their conversations. :-) Give me a break, a reporter without a recorder? I'm sure Harper will do everything in his power to end Chong's political career. "Vengeance is mine!" sayeth Harper! The topic was most likely outside the five areas Conservative MP's are allowed to talk about.