Michael Chong, (left) the Conservative MP for the Ontario riding of Wellington-Halton Hills quit cabinet today — he was minister for intergovernmental affairs, for sport, and was president of the Queen's Privy Council — because he couldn't vote in favour of Harper's motion on Quebec. Chong held a news conference this afternoon. Here's an edited version of what was said:
Hon. Michael Chong: Let me first say that I have faith in the Prime Minister and in the government's agenda. I believe that our government is on the right track with its accountability package, with its environmental initiatives, with its crime and justice legislation and with its economic plan. And I believe that Canadians do as well. I also believe in our party. I have been a lifelong conservative and will remain so.
The reason why I got involved in politics is my belief in this nation we call Canada. I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation undivided called Canada. This is a fundamental principle for me, not something on which 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.
It is for this fundamental principle that I cannot support the motion recognizing the Québécois as a nation. Pour moi, reconnaître les Québécois comme une nation, même à l'intérieur d'un Canada uni, implique la reconnaissance d'un nationalisme ethnique que je ne peux appuyer. Une telle reconnaissance ne peut être interprétée comme impliquant un nationalisme territorial parce qu'elle ne se réfère pas à une entité géographique mais plutôt à un groupe de personnes.
I believe that recognizing the Québécois as a nation even within a united Canada is nothing else than the recognition of an ethnic nationalism and that I cannot support. It cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial nationalism for it does not refer to a geographic entity but to a group of people.
I also believe that recognizing the Québécois as a nation will provide the sovereigntists with an argument they will use to confuse Quebecers in any future debate on sovereignty. They will argue that if the Québécois are a nation within Canada then they are certainly a nation without Canada.
I believe in one nation undivided called Canada based on civic and not ethnic nationalism. For hundreds of years almost every Canadian was of either British or French descent and we had two ethnic nationalisms reflective of that – one a British ethnic nationalism and one a French ethnic nationalism. But by the 1960s Canada was no longer made up of entirely people of French and British stock and we decided to reject those dual ethnic nationalisms for a new tripartite approach. This approach adopted civic nationalism, bilingualism and official multiculturalism as a basis of a new vision of citizenship. The civic nationalism recognized that all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin or their birth, regardless of whether or not they had been here for four or 400 years, regardless of whether or not they were of French or English origin or of African or Asian origin, that all these groups were recognized through the official policies.
The duality of our country, the English and French fact, were recognized with the policy of bilingualism. And official multiculturalism ensured that all groups were to be treated equally.
Je veux insister sur ma conviction dans l'unique nature du fait français au Canada. Je crois aussi que nous devons non seulement assurer sa survie mais aussi son épanouissement et je crois aussi que la meilleure façon d'accomplir ces résultats est par le billet de nos politiques sur le bilingualisme et le multiculturalisme. Par-dessous tout je pense que nous pouvons atteindre des buts en reculant dans nos solitudes mais plutôt à nos engagements, engageant dans un nationalisme civique commun.
I want to emphasize that I believe in the uniqueness of the French fact, the uniqueness of the French fact in Canada. I also believe that we must not only ensure its survival but also its flourishing. But I believe that this is best done through the policies of official bilingualism and multiculturalism and above all that it is not done by retreating into our solitudes but rather by engaging each other through our common civic nationalism.
I've reflected much on these things over the last five days trying if I could see if I could reconcile what I've been thinking with the motion. I cannot. I also want to add that the prime minister was presented with a very difficult dilemma by the Bloc Québécois and I do not fault him for what he felt he had to do. As I mentioned before, I have faith in this Prime Minister, in this government. I believe that the government is on the right track in its environmental agenda, its economic agenda, its accountability agenda and its crime and justice initiatives. I also believe in our party. I have been a lifelong Conservative and I remain so. Thank you very much.
Q: What are you doing? Are you resigning as minister? What is your decision and how did you present this decision to
the prime minister?
Chong: I'm resigning as minister so that I can abstain from the vote tonight.
Q: What did the prime minister say?
Chong: The prime minister was very gracious in his acceptance of my resignation. I indicated to him why I was making this decision. We had a discussion about it. And we ended it on that.
Q: Why would you abstain? Why would have to leave cabinet if you were abstaining and why did you decide to abstain?
Chong: I don't support this motion and I made the reasons for that very clear. Clearly the motion is one which is — you know,
doesn't allow me to vote as I see fit and remain in the party. But that's I think secondary. I think the primary reason is I quite clearly indicate where I stand on this issue and I've quite clearly indicated why I'm not supporting this mission.
Q: Are you voting against it or not? Like is it a whipped vote?
Q: Why don't you just vote no I guess tonight?
Chong: As I indicated, I was presented with a dilemma that I either had to vote for this motion or not and I have indicated that I'm not supporting the motion.
Q: Can we clarify this then? Are you voting against it? Are you standing up and voting against the motion?
Chong: I will be abstaining from the motion because it is a three-line whip on the motion.
Q: What does that mean?
Q: But you are resigning as minister.
Chong: I am resigning.
Q: You're telling us that they told you if you vote against it you can't be an MP anymore?
Chong: Well, they indicated to the entire caucus that it is a fully whipped vote. That's clear to everybody. Backbenchers had the option of not voting with the government by abstaining and that's the path I've chosen to take.
Q: What happens if you vote against, you would have to resign as an MP? Is that what it means? You would have to exit the
caucus if you voted against it?
Chong: Not at all, obviously, you know, the decision as to whether or not I remain a Member of Parliament is mine and mine alone.
Q: No, but I'm wondering why not just vote against it? You said there was only two options either I vote for or I abstain. Why didn't you vote against it? What's the consequences of voting against it?
Chong: I indicated that it's a three-line whip.
Q: What's that mean?
Chong: That means that members of parliament, members of the cabinet and parliamentary secretaries are obligated to be present for the vote and vote in favour. It means that, you know, as I understand it, that members of the backbench if they choose not to vote in favour of this, you know, will suffer no repercussions.
Q: What would that be? What would that be that repercussion?
Chong: Well, various options are available to the Whip but, you know, you're going to have to ask him.
Q: Michael, you said you sort of laboured over this decision for five days. When and how did you come to the decision? Was it a conversation with the prime minister that made you come to the decision you had to resign your post or was it — can you take us through the process?
Chong: Well, clearly there's a motion on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons and, you know, I as a Member of Parliament have to decide how I'm voting on this and I took my decision this morning.
Q: Were you consulted by Mr. Harper before he decided to introduce his own motion?
Chong: I was not consulted.
Q: You're the key point guy, intergovernmental affairs. You would think that somebody would have told you what was going on.
Chong: I think you'll understand —
Q: And what is the consequence of you leaving because you are the person who's supposed to deal with all the provinces?
Chong: Well, I think you'll understand that this motion from the Bloc Québécois came as a surprise to all of us so it's not
surprising that the Prime Minister had to take some very rapid decisions as to how he was going to deal with this problem and, you know, I don't envy him for having to take those decisions.
Q: Monsieur Chong, en français, expliquez-nous qu'est-ce que le nationalisme ethnique.
Chong: Comme j'ai dit, c'est un nationalisme qui — ce n'est pas un nationalisme civique. Un nationalisme civique c'est un
nationalisme qui n'est pas pour — seulement pour un groupe de personnes. C'est pour toutes les personnes qui sont des citoyens du Canada.
Q: Vous pensez que ça va déchirer le pays? Est-ce que c'est ce que vous pensez?
Chong: Je pense que — je crois dans un nationalisme civique, pas dans un nationalisme ethnique.
Q: What makes you say that this is ethnic nationalism? Is it the use of the word Québécois and if that's so what's your definition of the term Québécois used in that context?
Chong: Look, you know, I believe in a common civic nationalism for all Canadians. Any nationalism that refers — any reference
to a nation, to a subgroup of Canadians with respect to a nation is a recognition of an ethnic nationalism and I don't support that. And that's clearly — my position has been clearly stated.
Technorati Tags: Cabinet, Chong, Conservatives, quebec