Reflections On The Quebecois Resolution:

The Resolution
That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada.

Let me begin by simply saying, the only legal jurisdiction that qualifies as a nation in the current resolution before the House of Commons, is Canada. This resolution does not make the Province of Quebec -- in any way, shape or form -- into a nation.

The resolution recognizes that there are people who identify themselves as Quebecois, and that they form a nation, and that this community of people lives in Canada. This is "nation" as sociological reality, not legal or constitutional reality.

The basis for the Quebecois having a shared sense of collective identity is their unique culture, and their language.

While the culture and language of the Quebecois are rooted in history, being a part of the Quebecois nation is not dependent on ancestry. Let's take the current Governor General of Canada, as an example.

Michaelle Jean was born in Port au Prince, Haiti. When she was 11, her family moved to Canada and settled in Thetford Mines, Quebec. She spent the rest of her life immersed in the Quebecois culture. Should she choose to identify herself as a Quebecois, she is able do so. Nobody is checking credentials to see if she's in, or if she is out.

For further evidence of the importance of self-identification in this matter, let's take as an example the Bloc Quebecois members of parliament who are immigrants themselves, or the chidren of immigrants. Certainly they think of themselves as part of the Quebecois nation, but neither they, nor their parents were born in Quebec or have Quebecois ancestors.

The Quebecois Resolution does not in any way effect the foundation and principles of Canada's civic nationalism -- bilingualism, multi-culturalism, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the resolution reaffirms all these things and more.

Ask yourself this question: What makes Canada a united country? The answer: The Constitution. And because of this, the phrase "within a united Canada" also implies the indivisibility of Canada, unless constitutional protocols are respected, i.e. the unanimous consent of all the provinces and the federal government that is needed in order to alter the composition of the country.

No doubt, there are many people who have heard the prouncements of Gilles Duceppe and Andre Boisclair on this resolution. They are touting this as great breakthrough for the separatist cause. They are wrong! They have been both outsmarted, and they have outsmarted themselves.

In order for a nation/people to lay claim to the right of self-determination under international law, some form of injustice and/or oppression must be present in their current political situation. This has always been difficult for separatists to actually prove -- Canada being a democracy -- but they have managed to delude themselves anyway.

You may recall that when this resolution was first presented in the House, Gilles Duceppe said something to the effect of: "How can you call Canada a united country, when Quebec has never signed the Constitution." He should have stuck to that kind of argument. Because when the Bloc members get up in the House of Commons and vote in favour of this motion, they will be endorsing the absolute political legitimacy of the nation-state of Canada. Now, they will not say that is what they've done, and the reason for that, is because they have foolishly misinterpreted the resolution. They have read it as a conditional statement, and it isn't.

At first, the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois were outraged that the Quebecois' status as a nation was conditional on them being "within a united Canada". And now they're saying, "We are nation now, and we will still be one after we become a country", or something to that effect. The problem is , this is not an if-then statement, it is a statement of fact. And one of the facts it provides for, is the legitimacy of Canada. They will now have an even more difficult time convincing the international community that there is any legitimate grievance that can serve as justification for leapfrogging over the Constitution, in order for Quebec to achieve independence. And this will be part of the argument federalists will make, if there is another referendum.

When the resolution was first being introduced in the House, my reaction was, shall we say ... less than positive: A few plates may have been smashed, a few four-letter words may have been uttered, I may have been served with a notice for disrupting the peace, by the police -- who can remember, it's all a blur to me now. But then through all the smashing, and the cursing, and the handing over of my I.D. to Constable Archambeau, (if that ever really happened) I heard Stephen Harper reading from Bernard Landry's letter endorsing Michael Ignatieff's "civic nation" proposal, and the "Quebec as a nation" resolution proffered by LPC-Q. And he was using it to criticize the idea of recognizing Quebec (the province) as a nation. So, I started to listen more attentively. And then he said the word, "sociological". My fear and anger began to subside.

What Harper was proposing was not the "Two Nations" approach of Ignatieff and the LPC-Q, which I have so adamantly opposed, but something else. He was proposing that we recognize a group of people who identify themselves as Quebecois, as a nation, not the legal jurisdiction and sub-state of the province of Quebec. That would remain a province, in the eyes of Parliament. But more importantly, it situated the Quebecois within a united Canada, thereby reaffirming that only Canada is sovereign. "This I can live with. This my conscience will allow me to support", I said to myself.

I will always be proud to call myself a Quebecer, and also a Quebecois, as someone who lives in this wonderful and delightfully crazy province. But am I one of those Quebecois, who together with their confrere form a nation? The answer is, no. And that doesn't bother me one bit. I am proud of who I am, and they are proud of who they are. And together we live, happily enjoying our differences, and happily enjoying the things we have in common.

Will there be peace and harmony throughout the land, once this resolution is passed? Sadly, no. We, who live in Quebec, wouldn't know what to do with all the free time peace and harmony would afford us.

I want to thank my fellow citizens in the rest of Canada for putting up with us. You see, even though you often bear the brunt of the accusations and blame that comes out of my province, it's really not about you. It's about us. A third of us want in, a third of us want out, and the other third doesn't know what they really want. That's our dirty little family secret: It's about us, not you.

So please, be patient with us. And with a little luck and a lot of determination, one day soon our long national nightmare will be over, but our dream of Canada will continue to go on ....