Is it possible to say with great conviction that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is still “standing up for Canada?” Not if you believe in national unity and a strong federation.
Harper’s latest example of political gerrymandering to make inroads into the hearts of Québécois is disconcerting to say the least. Only four months ago, in Quebec City, Harper refused to acknowledge such a proposition, denouncing the politically charged idea of Québécois as a nation to a mere question of semantics.
But now, Harper has conjured up a new vision of a “United Canada” by conjoining “Québécois” and “nation” as Siamese twins.
However, Harper’s invoking of his dualist vision of Canada through this motion – that of “Two Founding Nations” – seems rather out of date within a multicultural post-Charter Canada.
From a national perspective, are Canadians meant to be encouraged that the federation is being strengthened by such an affront to the spine of our pan-Canadian citizenship? Or is this just Harper, a puppet of the provinces, attempting to pacify a Québécois population who could once again flirt with sovereignty under the Parti Québécois?
Invoking the notion of the Québécois as nation is a frightening idea. At its core, the term is ambiguous, capable of referring to a collective ethnic nationalism or citizens belonging to a nation-state. In his motion, Harper’s clearly emphasizes the people of Quebec, rather than the province itself.
However, to say that all Québécois, a term used to describe all people living in Quebec, constitute a nation on their own right ignores the demographics of Quebec. What about the diverse multicultural composition of Montreal or the province’s distinct English-speaking minority? Are they part of their own nation as well, or are they left by the wayside as Quebec isolates itself from the rest of the country?
By the same token, Harper fails to recognize that the francophone nation is not synonymous with the province of Quebec. Had Harper understood this basic historical principle, he would have taken into consideration the Acadian population and other French-speaking communities in the West, who share similar linguistic and ethnic histories.
Furthermore, this motion raises questions about what our conceptual basis for the constituting of nations in Canada should be. Does Alberta’s populism, Saskatchewan’s co-operative spirit or Newfoundland’s distinct culture merit “nation” status?
If we are going to talk about the discourse of “nations” within a united Canada, we also cannot ignore the place of the First Nations, who were the proprietors of Canada long before the European invasion.
However, the chances of witnessing Harper decree such a proclamation recognizing the distinctiveness of aboriginal peoples across the country are surely slim to none.
If there is any solace to take from this boondoggle, it is that Harper’s decree is thankfully nothing more than an empty and half-hearted motion, However, to grant the Québécois even a nominal special status could be the spark needed to ignite a renewed whirlwind debate over the sense of blood and belonging in Canadian political existence.
–Brent T. Jolly