Canada’s Debate

I came into today debating whether to post about this latest “nation” bruhahaha or the anthropormorphization of our pets (seriously.) Last night I was leaning towards the latter, then I came across this particular news article and the decision was basically made for me.

Now for the uninformed I should provide some background information. Earlier this week, Stephen Harper cracked open those pencil-thin lips of his and said that he would introduce a Motion into the House of Commons declaring Quebec a “nation within Canada.” This is absurd for any number of reasons, and just about everyone who actually remembers Meech Lake (and Charlottetown), and the damage done there knows it. However, Mr. Harper must have become aware of the fact that his environmental, law and order and military policies are obliterating just about all of his support in Quebec and dashing his hopes of a majority when an election is forced in February. So he played the “nationhood” card.

Now, as anyone who actually reads this thing knows, I generally deplore Stephen Harper and his policies; but this one takes the cake. Damage to the tax system or environmental policy can be corrected, although I have little faith in future leaders to do so. Damage to the Federation is not so easy to undue… and Stephen Harper should know this as well as anyone because he was elected on a platform to restore balance to said federation. The system was broken and he said (and people actually believed) that he could fix it. I should interject here that this is one area in which I actually trust Mr. Harper; not that he can do the job as it needs to be done mind you, but that he genuinely wants to try.

But then he goes and drops a bomb on Parliament. Nationhood opens up a whole can of worms. The way I see it, the would-be Motion creates two distinct problems depending on how it is interpretted.

1. The motion specifies that as a historically distinct “foundation” culture within Canada, Quebec represents a distinct nation. This basically invites Quebec to challenge each and every aspect of Federalism within Quebec, assert jurisdiction over each and every dollar that passes both to- and from Ottawa, rewrite every federal-provincial program, challenge the Clarity Act and generally create a legal environment for Seperation. This is obviously bad.
2. The motion specifies that as a group with a distinct cultural and linguistic heritage, Quebec represents a distinct nation. This of course begs the question, “If Quebecers compromise a distinct nation because of their cultural/linguistic history, then why doesn’t my group?” Lest you think I’m being entirely too hypothetical, it has actually already happened. This naturally challenges the principles of multiculturalism and the makeup of Canada on the whole.

Both interpretations undermine the Constitution, Federation and any vestigal traces of the Canada that Trudeau attempted to codify in 1982. I find the situation incredibly disturbing, and it doesn’t help that several potential leaders for the Liberal Party have waded into the debate with similar statements supporting the principle of nationhood.

What I can’t get over is Stephen Harper’s sudden switch from “restoring” the Federation to challenging it… and a thought occurs. What if this undermining is deliberate? Harper has basically made hay on his promise to cut taxes, and lets face it, the idea has more appeal than the 1% savings on our grocery bills. His environmental policy is a disaster, his law and order initiatives will never pass a third reading and he has no plans on actually following through on the moral conservatism elements of his platform. This basically means that fixing equalization and restoring the Federal system is the last platform initiative left for him to address. With his numbers in Quebec dropping like furniture in a Growing Pains episode and Alberta his only remaining bastion of support, Harper is essentially hamstrung in this effort. Could it be that he would introduce this motion to “poison the well” and make his equalization initiative impossible; without looking like he failed?