Harper 1 Ignatieff 0

I've never been so insulted since last Thursday! My take on the contrived fracas over Harper's prudent reluctance to step into nationalist traps. UPDATE: Michael Ignatieff, I see, was not so well-advised.

Front-running federal Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff said yesterday that in his eyes Quebec is a nation, but maintained its nationhood is best served by being part of Canada. "Quebec is a nation, not just a nation, but a civic nation," he said in a speech to warm applause from nearly 200 Liberals gathered at a St. Hubert restaurant on the south shore... He said Quebec qualifies as a nation in that its people has its own language, a deeply felt attraction to a territory, a collective memory and specific values. "It is a historic reality that can not be denied."

But Harper didn't deny it. He just didn't say it. Anyway, it gets worse.

He was also applauded when he said that one of Canada's strengths is that Quebecers can consider themselves Quebecers first and Canadians second. "I am against having to choose between parts of your soul."

This is the worst sort of tripe, and pandering tripe at that. It is hardly a "strength" that Quebecers consider themselves "Quebecers first and Canadians second." It may be a reality. It may be something we have to live with. But it is not a "strength." Membership in a society entails not only benefits, but also, at times, sacrifices. For people to be willing to make sacrifices for one another, they have to put each other first: they have to feel a connection to each other that transcends all others. When we say that Quebecers feel themselves "Canadians second," we mean they put other Canadians second, and to the extent that is so, it means they will not be willing to sacrifice for them -- not, certainly, if it conflicts with their interests as Quebecers. That may be many things, but it is not a "strength" -- not, at least, if Canada is your concern. Ignatieff says he is against having to choose between parts of your soul. But it is belied by his previous statement. What he means is that Quebecers have chosen, and he's okay with it. Oh, but it gets worse:

But he also pointed out that there are about 5,000 civic entities in the world that qualify as nations according to his definition, yet fewer than 200 countries. "Not all nations have a state," he said. "You have a state and it is Canada." The Quebec nation can develop fully within Canada, he said. "For me that is the essence of Canadian federalism."

Quebec is a "nation," but Canada is merely a "state." The "essence of Canadian federalism" is that "the Quebec nation can develop fully" within it. This is the chrysalis theory of Canadian federalism: Quebec is maturing within its Canadian cocoon, eventually to ... well, you know. Canada is a source of nutrients to the fledgling nation, a shelter against the elements, but nothing more. For now it is useful, but may be discarded once it no longer serves its purpose. I am used to this kind of rhetoric from Quebec nationalists. I am not so used to hearing it from would-be leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Ignatieff said he is open to new discussions to bring Quebec fully into the Canadian constitution, something Quebec refused to accept at the time of the last constitutional revision in 1982. "Quebec must be brought into the Canadian constitution because the legitimacy of the federation remains in question here in Quebec," he said.

Quebec is fully within the Canadian constitution. It has never been out of it. It was not Quebec that refused to accept the 1982 constitution: it was the Quebec legislature (though it has never hesitated to use it when it suits its purposes). The Quebec members of Parliament voted almost unanimously in favour of it. To dismiss that as irrelevant, explicitly or implicitly, to say or imply that the only legitimate voice of the people of Quebec are the members of the provincial legislature, is essentially to make the separatists' argument for them.

But constitutional recognition of Quebec's nationhood presents difficulties to which he doesn't have a ready answer, he said. "I am open to a new discussion on this question, but it is somewhat problematic to say in a formal way that we have 10 provinces, but one province is a nation."

Constitutional recognition of Quebec's nationhood? What?? That's not just "somewhat problematic." It's Meech to the power of 10. No one, so far as I am aware, is asking for this. Why is he even discussing it? I can't go on. This is very distressing, and quite makes hash of any Trudeau comparisons.