From Michael Chong's news conference:"I believe in this great country of ours, and I believe in one nation undivided, called Canada," said Chong. "This is fundamental principle for me, and not something I can, or will, compromise -- not now, not ever. While I'm loyal to my party and to my leader, my first loyalty is to my country."
OTTAWA (CP) -- Federal cabinet minister Michael Chong to resign over government motion to recognize Quebecois as a nation, says MP.
Harper to lose cabinet minister over Quebec vote A Conservative cabinet minister appears set to resign his post over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stand on Quebec. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong (he also holds the sports portfolio) will reportedly announce his resignation at a news conference later today. Chong opposes the motion, set to be voted on in Parliament this evening, that the Quebecois constitute a nation within a united Canada. Independent MP Garth Turner and other sources told The Canadian Press about Chong's impending move, saying he tendered his resignation today. Other Tory MPs are upset about the motion, Turner said. Chong's riding is Wellington-Halton Hills, just west of Toronto and adjacent to Turner's riding of Halton. Turner was kicked out of the Tory caucus earlier this fall.
I cannot support the Harper-Duceppe motion currently before the House. The Prime Minister's responsibility is to protect the constitution and the unity of the country. This motion does neither. It is wrong for Canada. The motion creates an unmistakable expectation by giving official legitimacy to the "idea" of nation, without defining it. This is an irresponsible step, as there has never been greater need for honest dialogue between Quebecers and the rest of Canadians. Rather than improving national unity, the motion will exacerbate divisions and generate misunderstanding in Quebec and across Canada. It is for this reason that throughout this campaign I have consistently opposed the "officialization" of the notion of Quebec as a nation. Canada is a united country that must be constantly defined by our common values and a shared purpose. The introduction of this resolution contradicts this need and instead sows division over uncertain symbols. I respect the sense of identity shared by many Quebecers, reflecting a common culture, language, history and accomplishment and I will continue to promote that identity, rather than playing divisive political games with it. Further, this motion does nothing to recognize, and potentially takes away from, aboriginals, Acadians and other official minority groups with a distinct culture and heritage within Canada... Out of respect for the interim leader Bill Graham, I am not requesting that any caucus member supporting my candidacy change their vote to reflect my position. Canadians will know that I do not feel bound by this vote or this process.
From today's Globe and Mail:It's a mistake to abandon the idea of One Canada THOMAS AXWORTHY and SERGE JOYAL AND JERRY GRAFSTEIN Now that the Bloc Québécois has announced it will support Stephen Harper's motion that "This House recognize that the Québécois form a nation," all four parliamentary parties are now in favour of this rather stunning departure from constitutional norms. Given that no party is opposed to this position, one would think it represents an overwhelming consensus among Canadian voters. There is an overwhelming consensus, but it is diametrically opposed to this motion. It is the view of the majority of Canadians who believe in "One Canada" -- who represents us? Have we ever before had a situation where no one in Parliament dares voice an opinion held by millions of fellow citizens? There are certainly substantive grounds to oppose the motion: No one has yet defined what "Québécois" means. Are we speaking about French-speaking Canadians? Or French-speaking Quebeckers? Or all Quebeckers? If all Quebeckers who live within the territorial boundaries of Quebec are a nation, then are all Manitobans a nation? If not, then, are Acadians a nation? Are Franco-Ontarians a nation? Nobody knows. They haven't defined the concept because all parties are interested in ambiguity, rather than clarity. Define the term as you wish, and let's hope for the best... The Bloc will do anything to discredit federalism, so they were happy to create mischief, with a motion that Quebec was a nation. The Conservatives hope to improve their electoral position in Quebec, and Mr. Harper thinks his championing of the motion will appease Quebec nationalists. The Liberals are involved in a leadership race, where delegate votes from Quebec are crucial. The NDP has been for special status since 1960, so they are happy to go along for the ride. Everyone is chasing the elusive votes of Quebec nationalists. On that axis, apparently, all of our political class spins. But what about the Canadian majority? A CBC-Environics poll earlier this month revealed that 57 per cent of Canadians did not think Quebec was a nation, and 70 per cent opposed constitutional recognition of that notion... One Canada is still the choice of most Canadians, including a large minority in Quebec. The Liberal Party should think very carefully before it throws away a principled position that is logically coherent, and politically intelligent. The vast majority of Canadians do not support a Canada subdivided into undefined nations.SEE ALSO: Norman Spector, The Québécois are part of the Canadian nation, too
British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell is calling on Ottawa to extend the same acknowledgment of Quebeckers as a nation within Canada to the country's aboriginal peoples, opening another front in the fractious debate. In an article he wrote that was released to some media organizations, Mr. Campbell praised Prime Minister Stephen Harper for moving to recognize the uniqueness of Quebeckers within Canada. But he said there is a "third solitude" out there that now needs to be given the same honour. "Indeed, I would urge the Prime Minister to work with aboriginal leaders to develop a similar motion that offers a positive affirmation of Canada's three founding nations -- French, English and aboriginal alike," he wrote, under the heading Setting A More United Canada in Motion. Mr. Campbell, who in recent years has championed a new government-to-government relationship with first nations in B.C., said he could understand why aboriginal people might feel "confusion, frustration and disappointment," at not being included in the Quebec motion. That omission should be put right by Parliament, he said. "Canada's first nations, Métis and Inuit people should not be further marginalized by dint of this effort to unite Canada, which leaves them noticeably out of the picture," Mr. Campbell said. "It is high time we formally acknowledged Canada's 'third solitude' -- the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We should do that formally, proudly and emphatically in a similar resolution that embraces our heritage as a nation of many nations."
Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy has decided to buck the tide of political opinion, coming out against a parliamentary motion recognizing Quebecers as a nation within a united Canada. The Canadian Press has learned that Kennedy will issue a statement Monday opposing the motion, just as the House of Commons prepares to debate the surprise resolution introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week. In so doing, Kennedy will become the only Liberal leadership contender to reject the motion, which has been embraced with varying degrees of unease by his seven rival candidates, Harper's Conservatives, most Liberal MPs and the New Democrats. Even the separatist Bloc Quebecois has come on side.Looks like Diogenes has found his man.
Warren Kinsella has posted an online petition opposing "the recognition of any province as a 'nation.'" I've signed it -- though as worded it leaves itself open to the objection that what is being proposed, in the resolution currently before the House of Commons, is not the recognition of a province, but of a people. But that objection is hardly a defence.In the first place, whatever the precise technicalities of the wording, the idea that will enter the political bloodstream is that "Quebec" has been so recognized.
As if the confusion between province and people were not enough, the resolution itself leaves unclear whether it is talking about all the people of Quebec, or just some of them. Indeed, it's arguable whether the resolution means the same thing in English as it does in French. Charmingly, this is because both versions use the same word.
In French, the resolution says that "les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation." In English, that "the Québécois form a nation." In French, "Québécois" can mean either "Quebecers," in the sense of all the population of Quebec, or it can mean "francophone Quebecers," or even "Québécois de souche," ie descendants of the original French settlers. It's impossible to tell which meaning is being used without knowing the context, and often difficult to tell even then. Indeed, Quebec nationalist discourse thrives on the confusion, appealing at times to the ethnic or linguistic pride of the province's French-speaking majority, at other times (when confronted with the implications of this) to an inclusive, liberal-minded solidarity among all Quebecers. (The better to take the province's minorities with them when they separate. Hence my definition, adapted from the nationalist boilerplate: "A Quebecer is anyone who wants to be, including those who don't.")
In English, the word is only slightly less ambiguous. "Quebecers" will usually mean all Quebecers, but again can often mean only French-speakers, or only the ethnically French. (See this column by L. Ian Macdonald, for example: "Quebecers constitute a nation in the sense that Acadians do, or the Cree...") "Québécois," on the other hand, when used in English, will almost always mean French-speaking Quebecers, and often carries the ethnic sense -- especially when, as in the resolution, accompanied by the definite article: "the Québécois." The Prime Minister's speech to the House introducing the resolution, with its repeated references to "the Québécois" having a "historic role" in Canada's founding, to "their unique language and culture," suggests he has the ethnic definition in mind, and certainly the linguistic.
Now, the singling out for formal recognition of a particular linguistic or ethnic group as a "nation" would be troublesome enough, in a multilingual, polyethnic country, the whole purpose of which, at its founding, was to form a single "political nationality" transcending language or blood ties. Though not entirely without precedent -- we are in the habit of referring to native tribes as "nations," and indeed to ascribing a different legal status to them on the basis of their race -- it is not, in my view a precedent we should wish to replicate.
That said, it at least has the virtue of recognizing only a part of the province as a nation, and not the province itself. It is when "nations" acquire both territorial and institutional expression -- when nation, land, and power are fused -- that they can become a force for disunity, as the former United Kingdom is now finding.
Which being the case, the alternative interpretation, that we are recognizing all "Quebecers" as a nation, carries its own problems, since it is difficult, politically, to separate the population of a state from the state itself: the two tend to be used interchangeably, as in the United Nations. If you are worried about the implications of recognizing "Quebec" as a nation, you should be scarcely less worried about recognizing "Quebecers." (And, in any event, Quebecers -- French, English, Swahili -- aren't a nation. Unless you mean in the civic sense, which they don't: nobody separates in the name of civic nationalism, except maybe from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.)
But what is worst of all -- what is simply grotesque -- is for the Parliament of Canada to pass a resolution that, deliberately or otherwise, conflates the two: that suggests, if it does not quite say, that French-speaking Quebecers are equal to the population of Quebec: that they are, if you will, the "real" Quebecers, and that everyone else who lives in the province -- the one in six Quebecers who have a mother tongue other than French -- are just so much extra baggage. Which may be what many Quebec nationalists believe -- and all too often let slip in unguarded moments -- but which should have no part of the dialogue of a civilized society.
Why do I suspect the confusion may have been deliberate? If the drafters of the resolution had wanted to be clear that only French-speaking Quebecers were to be recognized as a nation, they could have written it that way. But that would have raised all sorts of uncomfortable questions, such as why, if language was the signifier of nationhood, the francophones hors Québec were excluded -- or whether Canada, lacking a common language, could be called a nation. So instead they retreat behind a wall of calculated ambiguity, in the manner of Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
I am opposed to recognizing any province as a nation. I am opposed to recognizing the population of any province as a nation. I am opposed to recognizing some part of the population of any province as a nation. And I am hostile to any resolution that recognizes a part of the population of a province as a nation, in a way that slyly suggests they represent the whole, but does not have the guts to admit it.
POUR ÊTRE CLAIR: Just to be clear -- there is nothing wrong with French-speaking Quebecers feeling a particular sense of kinship with one another, as a hardy linguistic minority on a continent full of anglophones; there is nothing wrong with Québécois de souche remembering their roots, and feeling a sense of pride in their long heritage in this country that their ancestors did so much to build; and there is nothing wrong with the rest of us applauding that kinship and saluting that heritage. Indeed, we ought to.
But that is not an argument for tossing around such politically charged terms as "nation," or for turning the Constitution into a vanity mirror in order that the "narcissism of minor differences" might catch its reflection.
The chart above (click to enlarge) traces the history of federal program spending over the last four-and-a-half decades. The numbers shown have been adjusted to take account of inflation (ie they are in constant 2006 dollars) and population growth (ie these are per capita figures). In other words, they show the number of real dollars the government spent on each citizen, the best comparative indicator of the size of government over the years.You can see the rapid buildup in spending in the late 1960s and early 1970s, followed by the Trudeau government's first attempts to rein it in in the late 1970s, only to be blown skyhigh by the recession of the early 1980s. Then the long holding action of the Mulroney years, the sharp cuts of the late 1990s, and the equally sharp rebound in the current decade, to its present near-record levels.
And the future? The chart builds in the latest numbers from the Economic and Fiscal Update. They show the Harper government plans to take spending to places it has never been -- higher than the Trudeau Liberals in the worst of the recession, higher than the Mulroney government in its last, desperate days, higher than the Martin government at its most profligate. They are going to spend more, faster than any government in Canadian history, with neither war nor recession to blame.
These are the flinty "neo-conservatives" we've been reading so much about: the ones who want to take government back to the 1930s, the ones who would steer the country in a "radically different direction", who see no useful role for the state, and so on. Uh huh. Can you imagine how much they'd spend if they did believe in government?
UPDATE: Just for fun, I've redone the chart as it would look if spending were held to a 0.9% rate of growth over the next five years, as Mike Harris and Preston Manning recommend in their recent paper. As the chart shows, this would result in real per capita spending being cut all the way back to the dark days of ... 2004.The incomparable Michael Bliss weighs in.
Also, the smarter Axworthy. Is it too late to run him as a write-in candidate for Liberal leader?
These profs are unimpressed. So is David Warren. Stephane Dion has some alternate resolutions the House of Commons could adopt. Among them: "Canada is one nation with its own seat at the United Nations." Scandale!
On the other hand, Gilles Duceppe is happy. And Harper is happy that he's happy. And Michael Ignatieff is even happier. So Ignatieff finds vindication in the opinion of a Conservative prime minister, and Harper finds vindication in the opinion of a separatist. To quote Bob Rae, "flip me over."
Meanwhile, Harper lets the other shoe drop. My reaction is the same now as when this idea first surfaced.
Stephen Harper's move to recognize Quebec as a nation won't have any practical impact on the way political power is divvied up in Canada, a senior Tory cabinet member admitted Thursday. "There are no juridical consequences to this recognition," said Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, who doubles as the prime minister's political lieutenant for Quebec. "We're not in the process of constitutional discussions. We're in the process of affirming that the Quebec nation is part of a united Canada."
Political scientist Christian Dufour suggested the move may mark the end of the Pierre Trudeau era of individual liberty and provincial equality ahead of Quebec's national aspirations. "Until recently, every political leader in Canada was basically the prisoner of Trudeau's view of Canada," Dufour said. But first Liberal leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff endorsed a similar proposal within his party and now Harper has also moved away from that taboo, she said.
First Nations seek clarity on Harper's motion on 'nationhood' OTTAWA, Nov. 23 /CNW Telbec/ - In reference to the motion made by Prime Minister Harper yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations calls upon the Prime Minister to clarify his position in a way that does justice to the status and role of First Nations in Quebec and within Canada as a whole...
Up until about mid-afternoon yesterday, we thought Prime Minister Stephen Harper was doing a pretty good job in the office he was handed – if only on a trial basis – last January... But sometime about halfway between lunchtime and the supper hour yesterday he lost us. And we fear he may have turned off a whole lot of other Canadians in the process... The prime minister justified his action by saying he hopes the motion will counter one from the Bloc Quebecois that also calls for Quebecers to be recognized as a nation – but not within Canada... What poppycock. And what a transparent attempt to improve the Tories’ woeful third-place standing in recent polling in Quebec. Setting up one province, or one region, of Canada as being distinct or separate from the nation as a whole is dangerous and divisive. Not to mention, it’s irrelevant.MORE: Harper's divisive Quebec gambit (Toronto Star):
The surprise bombshell that Harper dropped yesterday to have Parliament "recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada" will never placate Quebec separatists, even as it potentially weakens Canada by handing them another argument the next time — and there almost certainly will be a "next time" — they seek to break up this country... Far from defusing an explosive debate triggered by Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff's reckless flirtation with the "Quebec is my nation" concept, Harper's intervention yesterday simply fuels it. And he arrogantly made his move without so much as consulting the public first... Harper's unwise intervention in this debate promises to embolden separatists and create division and bitterness. It was bad enough that Ignatieff and the Liberals blundered down this path. It was inevitable that the Bloc would try to capitalize on it. But it was utterly unnecessary for the Prime Minister to compound the problem by inviting Parliament to endorse this folly and take unwarranted risks with the future of the country.Stephen Harper and the question of 'nation' (Globe and Mail):
In any other circumstances, invoking the word "nation" would be a terrible idea. It is at best ambiguous, capable of referring both to a community and to a nation-state. Whatever solace the term might give to nationalist federalists in Quebec, it gives even greater pleasure to those seeking to divorce the province from Canada. But politicians must play the hand they are dealt, and in the circumstances of this fractious week Mr. Harper chose well.The Ottawa press corps are more impressed with the strategic brilliance of it all. See: John Ivison, John Ibbitson, Chantal Hebert, though Don Martin sounds a discordant note:
It will be a nation founded on Liberal disarray, sovereigntist mischief and, ultimately, government desperation. Quebec: A let's-pretend nation created by political expediency.MORE: There's trouble in the Liberal ranks:
The Liberal caucus on Thursday agreed to support Harper's motion, although MPs are split. While interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham stood to applaud Harper following his announcement, Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis said he'll vote against it. "Are we in Canada to be a nation of nations?" he asked. Quebec Liberal Senator Serge Joyal warned it could be a slippery slope. "The very moment you introduce the concept of a nation within Canada, you open the door to the Acadian Nation, to the First Nations, to all the other groups that might form a cultural community," he said. "Newfoundland could be a nation."Bob Rae is also cool to the idea (mostly, one suspects, because someone else thought of it). Even the national unity industry is skeptical!
“The 20th century would belong to Canada”? He said that?Today's column is about, you know. MIND YOU: We can't say we weren't warned.
Bloc House leader Michel Gauthier added a new twist Thursday, tabling the amendment to his party's motion adding that Quebecers form a nation "actuellement au Canada" — that is currently within Canada... Deputy Liberal leader Lucienne Robillard proposed an amendment to the amendment, adding the adjective "united" to Canada and dropping "currently" so that it would declare Quebecers form a nation "within a united Canada," virtually cloning the Tory proposal. The Bloc agreed to add the word "united" but insisted on keeping "currently." Robillard wouldn't consent and her proposed sub-amendment died.
The Premier said recognition by the House of Commons and the federal government will affect how courts interpret the province's laws and influence the way the international community views Quebec. "It changes our place [in Canada]," Mr. Charest said. "It changes the way our laws are interpreted. It changes the way Quebeckers will see their future. Because the recognition of Quebec as a nation is a way for us to occupy the place that is owed us in Canada and elsewhere in the world. In my view it is a very significant gesture."
Harper's Quebec motion seen as potential step in plan to rebalance federalism Attempting to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada could be the first step in the Conservative government's campaign promise to re-balance federalism, says one of the Alberta Tory leadership contenders. Ted Morton said Wednesday that he hopes Prime Minister Stephen Harper's surprise announcement opens the door for "not just side-deals for Quebec but reducing the intrusion of Ottawa in the government of all 10 provinces."
Pour diffusion immédiate Communiqué de presse Si le Québec est une nation : Est-ce que l’histoire, la culture et la langue des francophones du Canada se limitent au territoire québécois ? Edmonton, le 22 novembre 2006 – Le président de l’ACFA, Jean Johnson, réagit vivement aux propos du premier ministre Stephen Harper qui reconnaît le Québec comme une nation: « Est-ce qu’on est entrain de dire au million de Canadiens francophones vivant à l’extérieur du Québec et au 1,5 million de francophiles que la langue, l’histoire et la culture francophone au Canada se limitent au territoire québécois? ». Selon M. Johnson, le premier ministre semble prêt à tout pour charmer les Québécois et gagner leurs votes, même à diviser le Canada.
There was a more positive reaction, however, from Action démocratique du Québec Leader Mario Dumont, who called the Conservative motion great for Quebec. “Quebeckers should delight in this proposal from the Prime Minister of Canada, which will clarify many things,” Mr. Dumont said. Such federal recognition would be the first step toward negotiating more power for the province and limiting federal spending power, Mr. Dumont said. Pierre Martin, a political science professor at the University of Montreal, said the exact meaning of the Conservative motion lies “in the eye of the beholder.” Federalists will argue that it is a sign of openness and flexibility and a sign that federalism promises more future autonomy for Quebec, he said. But sovereigntists could see it as just more empty talk on the federal stage, Prof. Martin said. “If it is not accompanied by concrete measures that increase or delegate more powers or more jurisdiction to Quebec, then this can be interpreted as just wind, just talk,” he said. “You can actually spin this, politically, saying that they're trying to buy Quebeckers' support with mere words but not with actual powers and actual improvement of Quebec's autonomy.” Or, separatists may try to use the federal recognition to strengthen Quebec's sovereignty claims on an international level. Perhaps it's a long shot, but some will see Mr. Harper's motion opening the door to that legal claim, he said. “The recognition of Quebec as a nation might be understood as a first step toward opening that door in terms of international law,” Prof. Martin said.
Critics say that the concept of recognizing Quebec as a nation — in one sense, a separate people though not an independent state — may have short-term benefits for federalist politicians but that separatists in Quebec will use the distinction to push for increased recognition of Quebec as a state that is separate from the rest of Canada. “Harper will rue the day he went down this road,” said Michael Behiels, a historian at the University of Ottawa. “The Bloc Québécois will exploit this to no end.”
Labels: Constitution, federalism, nationalism, Quebec
This comedian's, on the other hand, is just getting started.
(via Daimnation) UPDATE: Naturally, Richards is going on Letterman to "explain."I'm deeply, deeply sorry... I'm a performer. I push the envelope. I work in a very uncontrolled manner on stage. I do a lot of free association -- it's spontaneous, I go into character. I don't know. In view of the situation and the act going the way it was going, I don't know. The rage did go all over the place it went to everybody in the room." Richards seemed baffled by his own reaction on stage. "I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane about this," he said.
As for sex — well, it turns out that it's Republican (and especially Republican women) who have it more often and better. The two strongest predictors of Republican affiliation in America are (1) marriage and (2) church attendance. These are also the strongest predictors of female sexual satisfaction. The authoritative 1995 University of Chicago survey Sex in America found that conservative Protestant married women were the group most likely to report that they "nearly always" orgasmed during sex. Married women of all religions were almost twice as likely as unmarried women to describe their sex lives as "extremely satisfying."
The Conservative government is proposing to open a loophole in its vaunted accountability act by declaring that party convention fees not be counted as political contributions under the law. The issue is a sensitive one for the Conservative party, which is under investigation by Elections Canada for failing to declare almost $2 million in fees paid by delegates to the party's 2005 convention... "The Tories seem to be now admitting that they have broken the law," said Steven MacKinnon, national director of the Liberal party. "They're trying to use the blunt instrument of Parliament as a form of pardon for their violation of the law and trying to fix these mistakes retroactively."
"Mr. Harper, I think, believes you can go to one of the greatest civilizations on earth, a superpower of the 21st century and give them a little lecture on human rights," Ignatieff told CBC News.Yes, that sounds about right. I believe the kids call it "speaking truth to power."
The Harper government found itself under attack from the international community on Thursday for rejecting its climate change commitments, as European nations issued a new warning about the penalties for breaking the legally-binding treaty. While the European Union’s environment commissioner said that many were puzzled about the Canadian plan, the toughest criticism came from French Environment Minister Nelly Olin, who saluted the “policies and courage” of the Quebec government for implementing a Kyoto plan, but blasted Canada’s new government for giving up.
Under a climate change Bill announced in the Queen's Speech today, ministers will promise to monitor annually progress towards the five-year milestones, in order to deliver a 60 per cent reduction on 1990 levels by 2050.
"Fossil of the day" award The popular fossil of the day award ceremony was launched on 28th November and since then the award has been given to countries, which were most active to thwart climate change negotiations. And USA and Saudi Arabia were declared joint champions for the inaugural day for their respective role in blocking the negotiations. Canada was ranked first on the second day and got the fossil award.
News stories on (Conservative) Rona Ambrose receiving the fossil of the day award: 193 News stories on (Liberal) Stephane Dion receiving the fossil of the day award: none
Opposition MPs and environment critics blasted Environment Minister Rona Ambrose for using her UN climate conference speech to conduct a partisan attack.
"It's inappropriate in an international meeting to slam another political party," Liberal environment critic John Godfrey told CTV Newsnet on Wednesday, adding no other environment minister did so.
It's inappropriate in an international meeting to slam another political party," Liberal MP John Godfrey said in an interview with CTV Newsnet. But Mr. Godfrey insisted he was not guilty of the same charge when he called Ms. Ambrose's actions "idiotic" during a news conference Monday at the same UN meeting.
My Wednesday column develops the meme. Teaser quote: That simple, declarative sentence -- Canada is a nation -- implies a whole set of ideas about the country and how it works. It implies that every Canadian is tied to every other Canadian, directly, without the intermediation of province or other affiliation. It implies that they combine to make up a single political entity -- not a "marriage" or a "partnership" or a "compact" between sub-entities -- even if they choose to govern themselves federally. And it implies a direct relationship between those citizens, individually and collectively, and the one government that answers to them all: the national -- or if you prefer, federal -- government. That's critical. Federalism, as such, is impossible without it.As you can see, it's quite insidious. Pass it on.
Maverick MP Garth Turner said Tuesday that he is resigning from the Conservative party after being told he would not be permitted to seek a Tory nomination again.
After reading Wells' book, I got a bit full of myself. I must have had the creative juices flowing after getting so deeply into his tome, so I wrote a post that will never see the light of day. I think it is hilarious and insightful, but as I lay in bed last night trying to sleep, I realized that the post was much too glib and insulting. Then I realized that glibness is probably my worst flaw.
Looks good, no? Nothing controversial: just a simple recognition of a fact. The interpretation is up to you. You can stress the "une" or not, as you choose. Just as you can stress the "Canada," or not. Or you can put the emphasis on "nation." Or not. I suppose you could even stress the "est." (So many possible readings of a simple five word sentence!)
Perhaps someone should ask our leaders whether they agree with the statement, and if so, on what basis? For extra credit: Would they put it in the Constitution?
last.fm
11/29/2006
0 Comments
