Recognizing Quebec as a Nation

The debate over whether to recognize Quebec as a nation has taken over the national political agenda over the past week -- largely thanks to Michael Ignatieff and members of the Quebec Liberal caucus and Stephen Harper's seeming pathological need to have any shiny new idea that comes into his head realized.

While I'm split on the issue, it seems to me that it warrants deeper consideration than the cursory debate that was undertaken this past week by all of the leading parties. Given that the definition of a "nation" can include the notion of all, or some of, a common culture, language, history and geography it has the opportunity to be dangerous in the hands of the Bloc and the PQ. The vagueness of the motion and the Bloq's support of the motion only raises concerns. But once again, Mr. Harper's only consideration was the opportunity to realize some political gain in Quebec and so forged ahead all guns blazing.

In light of the almost unanimous vote to pass the motion, it's good to see that at least a few of the Liberal leadership candidates have come out either against it -- or at least voicing some concern. Both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rae have voiced their concerns and kept the debate open, and Mr. Dryden actually had the courage to vote against it. I hope that at least one of them has the courage to address the issue during their speeches on Friday night.

But it seems to me that the question is the wrong one for our times, and certainly the wrong one for the country. A comment made on Rex Murphy's Cross Country Checkup last night validated what I've been thinking for a while. At one point a Quebecois, who had been raised in a small French community and educated by separatists said that most Quebecois under 40 don't care about the separatist issue. To them it's an issue that the previous generation hasn't been able to let go of and not one that concerns them. He, and most people his age, are concerned with what concerns most of us in the rest of the country in an increasingly competitive, global economy -- our jobs, family, house, happiness.

It's probably telling that Mr. Ignatieff, who has been living in some sort of a time bubble would come back with this issue. What we really should be concerned about -- and what Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dion and Mr. Rae seem to be more focused on is how we can be competitive in today's global economy.

This is the context, in which we should consider the question of nationalism. Rather than looking back at an issue that was relevant 20 years ago, we should be considering how we can leverage our uniqueness as a nation that comprises different ethnicities, cultures and languages to gain a unique advantage in the global economy? We should be promoting cross-pollination of cultures and languages in our education system and encouraging not just bilingualism but multi-lingualism in both business and political life.

If you go to Europe or Asia, or really anywhere but North America, many people speak two or more languages and are familiar with many different cultures. We should be embracing and expanding multiculturalism and pushing into every corner of the country. And in doing so perhaps we can truly be a model for democracy that the rest of the world will look to and want to emulate.