# Is Quebec a "Nation" within Canada?



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Source

*PM sees Quebec as 'nation'*



> *Liberals appear ready to support motion; NDP to support it and vote for Bloc's motion, too*
> Nov. 22, 2006. 05:30 PM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: There goes Ken Dryden, shooting offf his mouth again.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

If Quebec wants to be a nation on it's own, so be it, but cut ALL federal support for them. Pull out every single federal government agency.

There you go Quebec! You're a nation within a united Canada! Good luck!

Or we could simply let them separate completely, then invade and take them over.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm generating a headache just thinking about this. All this forever appeasing Quebec nonsense. Whether it's largely symbolic or not, it sure sends mixed signals. If we're going to be a federation, let's act like federalists! Give the separatists an inch and they take a parsec. What's next, asking Newfoundland if they care to opt out? Ask Alberta if they want to make it official and hive off from the Canadian carcass? Let Lotusland splinter out and become its own groovy nation?

This is getting ridiculous. The Tories are playing the same game of appeasement with the separatists... it's an unwinnable proposition.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Next thing you know, Canada will separate from the U.S.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> I'm generating a headache just thinking about this. All this forever appeasing Quebec nonsense. Whether it's largely symbolic or not, it sure sends mixed signals. If we're going to be a federation, let's act like federalists! Give the separatists an inch and they take a parsec. What's next, asking Newfoundland if they care to opt out? Ask Alberta if they want to make it official and hive off from the Canadian carcass? Let Lotusland splinter out and become its own groovy nation?
> 
> This is getting ridiculous. The Tories are playing the same game of appeasement with the separatists... it's an unwinnable proposition.


I see it the same way.

Give them a choice. Accept Canada as theirs, or bugger off.

Nation within a country is BS. Just political A$$ kissing and nothing more.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Living in Alberta I am of the opinion that Quebec is one of 10 provinces and all of this fussing about nationhood is ridiculous.

However, there are people in this country who see Canada as being founded by two nations.

That is the problem, we don't agree on what Canada is.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The notion that it was founded by two nations is in itself problematic on a number of fronts, which is why I find myself less and less tolerant of said notion. For one, the nation of indigenous peoples who were here first got short shrift. It's as if the pretense is out there that what we now call Canada was a vast expanse peopled by... no one. No, it was just sitting empty, waiting for a bunch of enterprising European types. What a crock.

For another, fast-foward a couple hundred years after initial colonization attempts and we find a polyglot nation with urban cores made up of peoples literally from all around the world. This modern reality makes a mockery of the French-English dichotomy, don't you think? It's truly absurd.

We should not be giving even lip service to this distinct nation within a nation stuff. It only fuels more divisions within an already fractured populace.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Yawn... Here we go again.... Conservatives sucking up to Quebec AGAIN! Didn't work out all that well for Mulroney - I wonder how it will work out for Harper and co.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

rgray said:


> Yawn... Here we go again.... Conservatives sucking up to Quebec AGAIN! Didn't work out all that well for Mulroney - I wonder how it will work out for Harper and co.


Pretty much my feelings - historically the "separatist" are just under 50% and of late less. 
Makes it seem like Quebec is just a French bastion - someone that a real pure laine is "french and white" - quite true anything else is second class in their eyes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I find this whole debate confusing and I'm wondering if many involved in the media never mind in the House actually understand what this issue is about. I don't.

I found some decent background here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061122/quebec_nation_061122/20061122/



> "The principle problem is you have a word like nation that's the same six letters in English and French, but have very different meanings," he told CTV's Question Period.
> 
> "In English, nation is a country - sovereign, independent and separate. In Quebec, nation can be absolutely something within a country.
> 
> There can be many nations in a particular country... leaving us with an open-ended definition that is trouble not just for (Liberals), but for everybody."


I agree with the points Max made above. Especially with regard to the aboriginal people who originally populated the land. What defines a "nation" anyway? Is it heritage, current language, current location or what? What about all the English speakers who have lived in Quebec for generations. Or the Ukrainians who built the West. Or the Metis or large French communities in Ontario? And the Chinese and Japanese and Sikhs who built BC with all of their hard work? Do they all get to be "nations" too?

My family name is pretty damn "pure laine" and my family tree dates from the Plains of Abraham and Quebec City in 1620. My great-grandfather moved to Ottawa and I grew up never learning French. In all likelihood, there were a huge amount of Mohawk descendants in my family tree that were never recorded based on some of the customs in New France. Which nation am I a part of?

All I know is that I'm Canadian. And that this is all about power politics, not about any great principles.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Did anyone bother to read or listen to the news as to why Harper made his speech today? Sucking up votes? If you want to yell at someone then take your beef up with the Blockhead.

A quote from today's Globe and Mail.

"_But Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe was anything but supportive of the Prime Minister's position, which comes a day before a *Bloc motion to recognize Quebec as a nation goes to debate in Parliament.*_"

These were Harper's words. Quebec is a *nation within a united Canada*, but will never stand alone, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday.

A far cry from what Mr. Duceppe had in mind.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Yawn... Here we go again.... Conservatives sucking up to Quebec AGAIN! Didn't work out all that well for Mulroney - I wonder how it will work out for Harper and co.


Hey rgray,

What are you talking about? It worked superbly well for Mulroney. The Conservatives got 58 of 74 seats in 1984 and 63 of 75 seats in 1988. If Harper could get one third of that I'm sure he'd be thrilled. Of course, Mulroney didn't have to contend with the Bloc...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I wonder how the rest of the francophones fit into this, those living in Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, etc. Will they have dual-_nationality_? LOL

What about the ethnic populations and anglophones in Quebec, will they be second class citizens?

What a joke! 

Separatism is on the decline in Quebec, why did Harper come back with such a "cupcake" motion is beyond me. Who does he think he's sucking up to, no separatist would ever vote for him and now he may have alienated the moderates.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

adagio said:


> These were Harper's words. Quebec is a *nation within a united Canada*, but will never stand alone, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday.


Marg: any way you slice it, it amounts to cynical, calculating wordplay - a bit of fancy footwork for the benefit of the separatists. You may be inclined to make up a thin shred of an excuse for Harper, but I am not. I thought this guy was supposed to have the guts to stand up to Quebec. It appears not... he can play politricks like the best of 'em. I don't care about Duceppe - neither what he said nor what he presumably expected; it's Harper and his tone here which I'm not impressed by. Weren't we being promised something different under his watch?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Hey rgray,
> 
> What are you talking about? It worked superbly well for Mulroney. The Conservatives got 58 of 74 seats in 1984 and 63 of 75 seats in 1988. If Harper could get one third of that I'm sure he'd be thrilled. Of course, Mulroney didn't have to contend with the Bloc...


Hey, yourself. Read a little further into the history - short term gain for long term pain! Mulroney sucked up Bouchard, among others. Bouchard promptly got pissed off, and *formed the damn Bloc*.. Which in the end, undid Lyin' Brian.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I think many people here are underestimating the threat of separatism.

It would take one charismatic PQ leader combined with an inflexible top-down federalist PM to flare this whole thing up again and both are a potential in the next two years.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I think many people here are underestimating the threat of separatism.
> 
> It would take one charismatic PQ leader combined with an inflexible top-down federalist PM to flare this whole thing up again and both are a potential in the next two years.


Indeed!! Many people also underestimate the amount of passion in this issue - enough that it has come to bombs and kidnappings before now..... It potentially takes only one unstable person, and lord knows there is no shortage of them around, to set things off....


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

is ireland or scotland a nation within the U.K.?


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

Let's not under estimate the consequences of calling Quebec a "nation within Canada."
Michael Ignatieff has been feeding the fire by going on record, well before Harper, that Quebec is a "nation."
Trudeau is surely turning over in his grave. 

A third referendum is surely inevitable. The PQ will most likely form the next provincial government given the Liberals support in Quebec right now.

Here's my two cents on what should happen if Quebec votes in favour of separation:
It should be a complete soverign separation with absolutely no economic or military ties.
Also:
• the English townships west of Montreal (and Montreal) should be given the opportunity to vote to stay. The borders should be redrawn.
• the question of Aboriginals who favour to remain with Canada should be answered
• Quebec will have to pay down its share of the national debt.
• Quebec will not be allowed to use the Canadian Dollar as its currency


Canada just simply will not be Canada without Quebec. A giant whole in the middle will make it difficult to maintain a united Canada from coast to coast. Surely Newfoundland will go too and the possibility of other provinces jumping ship to the US is probably more likely than most of us are willing to admit.

I don't think they will go outright. That is why it is important for the federal government to avoid allowing the Bloc to inch closer and closer to soverignty. This should be an all or nothing deal.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I think the question now is what does this mean?

Quebec is a province and a "nation within a united Canada"...how does that differ from Ontario or Alberta??

Now that Parliament is acknowledging that Quebec is a nation, are separatists going to start pushing to have that added to the constitution?

This has tremendous potential to become very dangerous, is a nation within a united Canada a...distinct society???

How do we acknowledge and recognize that? Is it supposed to be taken as meaningless drivel to placate a group of people that any other country in the world would label as treasonous?

This is the same kind of trouble Mulroney got himself into 15 - 20 years ago with Meech and Charlottetown and Meech was the fire that lit the belly of both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party.

What are westerners to think about this? The PM and a large portion of his Cabinet are from western Canada and there he goes pandering to the nationalists in Quebec. Why are french Liberals the only ones with the guts to stand up to separatists?

I really hope this blows over but this country's history makes these kinds of statements dangerous.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I am surprised at all the negative reaction to this. 

What are we worried about? Quebec isn't going to go anywhere. They can't just float off down the Saint Lawrence. Quebec isn't going to erase its common history that it shares with the rest of Canada.

I don't think it is really possible for Quebec to fully separate anyways. They aren't big enough to manage their own monetary system, immigration, military, etc... It also isn't possible to erase history and divide families (blood is thicker than water). 

I think we should recognize that Quebec is a distinct province and I agree with Harper. Should be an interesting vote in the House.


----------



## edyck (Sep 16, 2004)

Anyone else having trouble with watching the National online these days? seems to me they've changed something...

http://www.cbc.ca/video/index.html#load-uid_national


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

If the the rest of Canada accepted Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accords, we would not be in this divisive debacle. At that time it was simply a "distinct society" within Canada. Why do Anglos have so much of a problem with this??


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I've got no problems with it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Okay gents - all of you who have no problems with it: as long as we're willing to commit equal government time and resources to enable every other province to be able to claim, should they so wish, recognition as distinct societies, I'm good with it. For that matter, I have some family a few hundred miles north who might start squawking about being distinct from southern Ontario but if we squander enough tax dollars I figure we could give them a vote on the matter too... and maybe throw in a nice bronze plaque they could install in Sudbury. Then in my own home megalopolis, I'm guessing the 905ers and 416ers will want eachother to officially recognize and respect their differences. Hmmm, this could take some time...

I realize it's largely ceremonial but the strangest things flow from seemingly inconsequential moves. Too, it seems like the provinces are all children wanting Mother Canada to hold their hand and call them each in turn their special child. It's just wacky. Yeah, I remember the FLQ situation. But if anyone thinks the hardline separatists are going to be happy with anything but separation, they're kidding themselves. The Feds are going to have to take a firm stand somewhere, and this proposal is not it - not by a long shot.


----------



## genexxa (Jun 10, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> If Quebec wants to be a nation on it's own, so be it, but cut ALL federal support for them. Pull out every single federal government agency.
> 
> There you go Quebec! You're a nation within a united Canada! Good luck!
> 
> Or we could simply let them separate completely, then invade and take them over.


What a dumbass! Probably another Don Cherry's Fan!!!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

If I understand correctly now, Harper (if not Ignatieff or the Bloc) is calling for the *Quebecois*--*and not Quebec*--to be referred to as "a nation with Canada."

What a smartass!

So it can't be construed as a rationale for separation, just perhaps an argument for more human rights. The "Quebecois" could be anywhere in Canada, there are tens of thousands within Ontario, Manitoba, the Maritimes...

Nice move. Wait until this blows back on him.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Some people need to take a valium or is prozac the sedative of choice these days?

The motion did a good job of kicking the legs out from under the BQ. Kudos to Harper and the Tories for not waiting around for the Separatists to whack the rest of Canada over the head with a similar motion with completely different intent.

Saying Quebec is a nation is no longer new. Martin referred to it as a nation, Chretien passed a motion calling it a "distinct society," and Mulroney nearly conceded much more under Meech and Charlottetown.

And in 20 years what advantage has all that given Quebec over the rest of Canada? None.

What this has done, if much at all, is advanced all provincial rights and strengths.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"Nice move. Wait until this blows back on him."

Yeah, exactly... it smacks of the same fine-grained nitpicking that political correctness is notorious for.

_Let's grant special status for the sake of political expediency. But in our case we'll be calling the kettle something other than black._

Yessir, a good plan.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That's it.

Quebec gets more rights and privileges from Ottawa. It doesn't gain anything over people in other provinces.

Do I care if Ottawa or Ontario controls immigration in Toronto (the way Quebec City administers Quebec immigration)? Should I?





Brainstrained said:


> Some people need to take a valium or is prozac the sedative of choice these days?
> 
> The motion did a good job of kicking the legs out from under the BQ. Kudos to Harper and the Tories for not waiting around for the Separatists to whack the rest of Canada over the head with a similar motion with completely different intent.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I am surprised at all the negative reaction to this. .


 Because it's stupid.... But then again you support Harper no matter what he does. Had this been done by the Liberals... well...



Vandave said:


> What are we worried about? Quebec isn't going to go anywhere. They can't just float off down the Saint Lawrence. Quebec isn't going to erase its common history that it shares with the rest of Canada..


Of course not. 
But remember "Nation" has a different meaning in French. 
This can be seen as pandering to the French Quebecois on the part of Harper.

Giving in to this notion of a “nation” weakens Canada as a whole and maybe that’s just the end goal for Harper: A weaker federal government exactly what some want in Alberta… 
The notion of a “nation” within a “nation” is ludicrous – can you have a plane within a plane? 




Vandave said:


> I don't think it is really possible for Quebec to fully separate anyways. They aren't big enough to manage their own monetary system, immigration, military, etc... It also isn't possible to erase history and divide families (blood is thicker than water). .


How many does is take to make a country? 

Divide families? Please... Talk to the Acadians and the Cajuns...



Vandave said:


> I think we should recognize that Quebec is a distinct province and I agree with Harper. Should be an interesting vote in the House.


Ontario is a distinct province, so is BC, PEI....

I think that this will have blowback that will divide the country even more.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

This issue repeats itself every three or four years, like a fast food meal you ate days ago and can't quite digest. I thought there was a referendum and it was voted down, so can't it just go away? Americans once considered an idiotic ban on flag burning which was voted down, and that settled it (oops, never mind about that).

If Quebec wants secede let 'em. Welcome to your independence, Quebec, you're a third world nation now. :clap:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Max said:


> Okay gents - all of you who have no problems with it: as long as we're willing to commit equal government time and resources to enable every other province to be able to claim, should they so wish, recognition as distinct societies, I'm good with it. For that matter, I have some family a few hundred miles north who might start squawking about being distinct from southern Ontario but if we squander enough tax dollars I figure we could give them a vote on the matter too... and maybe throw in a nice bronze plaque they could install in Sudbury. Then in my own home megalopolis, I'm guessing the 905ers and 416ers will want eachother to officially recognize and respect their differences. Hmmm, this could take some time...


All provinces are unique, but Quebec even more so. Quebec has 10 million people and they are surrounded by over 300 million English speaking people. This caused serious stresses on their culture and language. 

Your suggestion of other distinct societies is disingenuous. Quebec faces unique issues that English speaking Canada doesn't face.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Because it's stupid.... But then again you support Harper no matter what he does. Had this been done by the Liberals... well...


I agree with Harper on a lot of things. To suggest I don't think about the issues and forming my own opinion is wrong. You are well aware that I have disagreed with Harper on many issues.



ArtistSeries said:


> But remember "Nation" has a different meaning in French.
> This can be seen as pandering to the French Quebecois on the part of Harper.
> 
> Giving in to this notion of a “nation” weakens Canada as a whole and maybe that’s just the end goal for Harper: A weaker federal government exactly what some want in Alberta… The notion of a “nation” within a “nation” is ludicrous – can you have a plane within a plane?


That's the brilliance of Harper's plan... He is recognizing a group of people as being distinct, rather than a chunk of land. 

Seems to work for Scotland and Wales. Is England any less of a country?


----------



## genexxa (Jun 10, 2006)

Vandave said:


> All provinces are unique, but Quebec even more so. Quebec has 10 million people and they are surrounded by over 300 million English speaking people. This caused serious stresses on their culture and language.
> 
> Your suggestion of other distinct societies is disingenuous. Quebec faces unique issues that English speaking Canada doesn't face.


:clap: This is the perfect explanation!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

VanDave; sorry, I don't buy it. Try looking up, _anywhere,_ what "more unique" could possibly mean. A thing is either unique or it's not... it's not a question of degrees. Who's being disingenuous here?

Again, whether Quebec has millions of french-speaking people surrounded by tens of millions of English-speaking people is a moot point. Ask a Somalian immigrant driving a cab in Toronto what this debate means to him. Probably not a great deal. I wonder why? Perhaps because this tempest in a teapot is a lingering, malodorous holdover from our earliest roots? When do we as a nation get to move past this hand-wringing about identity? My city is crawling with people whose first language is neither French nor English. That entails problems of its own, of course, but more it more it strikes me that this French/English duality struggle is archaic, something we should move beyond.

Down south, you have a situation where some time over the next few decades (if current trends hold), those who list Spanish as their first language will outnumber those who list English as their first language. Do you see the Americans preparing to recognize Spanish-speaking Californians and Texans to claim distinct society status for themselves?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> That's the brilliance of Harper's plan... He is recognizing a group of people as being distinct, rather than a chunk of land.


I think we also need to recognize chinese, italian and jewish people in this country as a nation within a nation. They each have thriving communities in pretty much every city across Canada and each has a very distinct culture.

Each is surrounded by hundreds of millions of english speaking people that put a strain on their culture and Canada isn't a melting pot.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

HowEver said:



> Quebec gets more rights and privileges from Ottawa. It doesn't gain anything over people in other provinces.


These two sentences are in fundamental opposition! 

How is it possible to give "more" to one group without them gaining over others?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Reading this thread is kind of like watching siblings bicker about why the other shouldn't be able to get what they want.

Basically the rest of Canada is telling Quebec to shut the f*ck up and sit down--you're not going anywhere. And you're not special, you're just like the rest of us so quit talking about yourself all the time.

Makes me feel all warm inside. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I support most moves that weaken federalism. I'd like to see Ottawa concentrate more on grand sweeping issues than to micro-manage provincial affairs.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

after all the bla bla bla, the answer to the question that started this thread is:

YES, just look up "nation" in the dictionary.

After some more bla bla bla, if Quebec eventually secedes.....................I would seriously consider moving over there. I would feel funny about "staying" in Canada, the biggest American state.

There. 
I said it.
flame shields ON! 

ps: but i think it would be a VERY dumb move on Quebec's part if they do secede, they have it great as it is.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

gastonbuffet said:


> I would feel funny about "staying" in Canada, the biggest American state.


California is bigger, at least as far as population. Sorry, dude. beejacon


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

rgray said:


> These two sentences are in fundamental opposition!
> 
> How is it possible to give "more" to one group without them gaining over others?


Who cares whether Ottawa or Quebec City or Queen's Park oversees Quebec or Ontario immigration (for example)?

It doesn't give Quebec anything that Ontario doesn't have. It just means they are paying provincial civil servants instead of federal ones to enforce their rules.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

If the dictionary definitions applied, this thread wouldn't exist.

Just look up "non" in the dictionary.




gastonbuffet said:


> after all the bla bla bla, the answer to the question that started this thread is:
> 
> YES, just look up "nation" in the dictionary.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I think we also need to recognize chinese, italian and jewish people in this country as a nation within a nation. They each have thriving communities in pretty much every city across Canada and each has a very distinct culture.
> 
> Each is surrounded by hundreds of millions of english speaking people that put a strain on their culture and Canada isn't a melting pot.


I live in a City were more than half the population is ESL, so I am well aware of our diversity. 

BUT.....

Canada was created by three founding cultures: the English; the French; and the Natives. All other cultures are immigrants, not founding cultures. I think maintaining our cultural heritage is a worthy pursuit.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You live in a country where we should respect everybody's cultural diversity.

"Three founding cultures?" Too bad the Constitution doesn't focus on that.

Instead, everybody's human rights are supposed to be taken care of.

Perhaps one of those rights is calling your own identifiable group a "nation." Perhaps not.

And without playing the "We're more diverse than you are" Toronto closer to the United Nations than any place in the world. There are hundreds of nations where I live. : )




Vandave said:


> I live in a City were more than half the population is ESL, so I am well aware of our diversity.
> 
> BUT.....
> 
> Canada was created by three founding cultures: the English; the French; and the Natives. All other cultures are immigrants, not founding cultures. I think maintaining our cultural heritage is a worthy pursuit.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> You live in a country where we should respect everybody's cultural diversity.
> 
> "Three founding cultures?" Too bad the Constitution doesn't focus on that.
> 
> ...


Calling Quebec a distinct society or nation has no impact on respect for other cultures within Canada, nor human rights. It would simply be a statement acknowledging that they are unique and a founding nation of this country.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Quebec is a province.

Using the term nation along more complex political science or sociological definitions may be about Quebecois, founding cultural heritage etc. but Quebec is a province. 

If the politicians want to try and play games without realising potential long-term legal implications (these things can actually matter, but generally don't) go right ahead. It's not like our country isn't perfect in every other way thus leaving them nothing else to do. Strangely enough, I find this whole episode (from Lib leadership to Bloc to Cons) of minimal importance. I consider it the equivalent of day-dreaming on the job of the greatness of one's role in the world. Let them have a little day-dream time to relax and refresh themselves for real public policy.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I live in a City were more than half the population is ESL, so I am well aware of our diversity.
> 
> BUT.....
> 
> Canada was created by three founding cultures: the English; the French; and the Natives. All other cultures are immigrants, not founding cultures. I think maintaining our cultural heritage is a worthy pursuit.


Maintaining our cultural heritage is important, that is why the Charter must be interpreted in keeping with our multicultural heritage.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Calling Quebec a distinct society or nation has no impact on respect for other cultures within Canada, nor human rights. It would simply be a statement acknowledging that they are unique and a founding nation of this country.


Once this is acknowledged the nationalists in Quebec will move to the next phase and start asking for separate representation on the international scene.

If granted, Quebec will have significantly more clout than the other provinces.

If it isn't granted, it will add fuel to the separatist fires...especially since we have now acknowledged they are a nation.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

While I was walking to the store the other day, I saw a young boy I recognized from the neighborhood, holding a puppy.
"Want to buy this puppy?" He asked.
"Well, what do you want for it?" I replied.
"Fifty thousand dollars." He answered. "Firm."
"Well, good luck." I said, and added "I don't think you will get a lot of takers."
"I'm not worried." He answered.
"OK, bye." I said, and went on to the store.

I saw him every day for a week, and each time I asked, he insisted he wanted $50,000, and that he was determined to wait for his price.

One day, he wasn't there. Nor the nest.
About a week later, I saw him walking along our street. I called from my yard, "Well, did you ever get $50,000 for your puppy?"
"Yep, I did."
"Really?", I answered, surprised.
"You betcha." He answered, with obvious pride. "I traded him for two $25,000 cats."

Back on topic:
whatever.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This is currently one of CNN's top stories.

CNN


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/23/reaction-quebec.html

"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."

Guess there are now more Newfoundlanders and Labradorian in Alberta than I ever thought. http://www.separationalberta.com/news.asp

Of course, Newfoundland and Labrador was once a nation of their own, until we lost self-government in 1933, and then joined Canadian Confederation in 1949.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I live in a City were more than half the population is ESL, so I am well aware of our diversity.


 GOOD POINT!



> Canada was created by three founding cultures: the English; the French; and the Natives. All other cultures are immigrants, not founding cultures. I think maintaining our cultural heritage is a worthy pursuit.


We have many myths in this country and the three founding cultures is the biggest.

Probably we had more Celts than English and many of Germanic linguistic groups found this country. Not to mention Blacks.

Every region of Canada and many areas within regions are distinct with their own language and culture.

Newfoundland is its own Nation and was run as such. Nova Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick were Nations and still run as such. Look at free trade between Provinces.

The Acadians very much consider themselves a nation with distinct culture and language. 

The other issue with Quebec is it an Independent Nation?

Some express views that Quebec shall remain in Canada no matter what. Or has to give up everything if Quebec leaves confederation.

In a troubled relationship what of a partner that says the spouse can never leave not under any circumstances or "if you try to walk out the door you leave with nothing. Not even the children." 

Would this strike you as rational or controlling behaviour?

If a person or group of people are not happy why would you want them to stay in your sphere? Why would anyone want to control through the use of threats?

If I were involved with anyone that was right controlling and not willing to listen to my concerns I certainly would want to put some distance as possible between me and ye.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Hey, yourself. Read a little further into the history - short term gain for long term pain! Mulroney sucked up Bouchard, among others. Bouchard promptly got pissed off, and formed the damn Bloc.. Which in the end, undid Lyin' Brian.


Is that from the Coles Notes edition of Canadian History? While all political careers end in failure (Enoch Powell) Mulroney earned two huge majorities and for better or worse, reshaped the country. His undoing was the result of several factors: government corruption, economic recession, unpopular policies (GST, Free Trade)... but principally a result of his grand coalition coming under attack from the Reform Party in the West and from the Bloc in Quebec. The Liberals swept into power on a platform of change... and then did almost nothing. Which brings us to where we are now.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

BigDL said:


> GOOD POINT!
> 
> We have many myths in this country and the three founding cultures is the biggest.
> 
> ...


True. But... It was England and France that formed this country. Our culture is derived from this history.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

All nations spring from the remnants of other nations preceding them. It's the same with language. At some point a diversification occurs and the mother language recedes as the new languages take root and prosper. 

It is important to repect history, certainly. But is equally true that, at some point, we need to recognize the realities on the ground today and recognize that what was once a much more homogenous society is, scores of decades later, now much richer. The tapestry that we call Canadian society is more complex.

The French-English debate will become increasingly marginalized as we go along - something tells me we're not having babies at anywhere near the rate recent immigrant Canadian families are.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Our culture is derived from this history.


Umm no I'd say our institutions derive from that - British North America Act mainly but I'd not say our culture does - if we can say we have A culture.
If anything we are characterized as multicultural even from the get go and more so today.

I'm not fond of saying Quebec is a nation - a distinct society yes.
I would like to see more sane federation structure but without a road map what the hell use is a name.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Umm no I'd say our institutions derive from that - British North America Act mainly but I'd not say our culture does - if we can say we have A culture.
> If anything we are characterized as multicultural even from the get go and more so today.


Are you suggesting institutions have no role in creating culture? I would think twice about that statement.

Canada is a free, democratic, multicultural, human rights respecting country with a fair legal system. These things are not possible in the absence of institutions. We would not be the nation we are without the British Parliamentary System and British Common Law.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm that's what I said. The primary foundation is institutional for French and British influence not cultural.
Many cultures contribute to Canada's diversity and identity as a multicultural nation.
Two specific cultures - including two different types of bodies law English and French found our institutions.

But those two institutional founding cultures are not the sum of Canadian culture - they are two amongst many.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

Suggested reading:
_Watching Quebec_ by Ramsay Cook. ISBN: 0-7735-2919-5

Contains selected essays from 1966 to 2001 . I just finished reading this book and would highly suggest it for those of you without an objective historical background. Some of the comments in this thread appear to be posted without historical basis. I find this book very helpful and I hope it helps.

Keep in mind round three of the soverignty referendums is likely within 5 or 10 years time (or at least I think so).


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

in a day and age when we should be taking down international borders and becoming a united world these twits are still looking for ways to build a few more. I say let them seperate but at the same time Canada should in turn recognise each and every Native reserve in Quebec as a nation and give them the option to stay within Canada or go with Quebec I'm pretty sure that Quebec's borders would look distictinvely different.

Laterz


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

K_OS said:


> in a day and age when we should be taking down international borders and becoming a united world these twits are still looking for ways to build a few more. I say let them seperate but at the same time Canada should in turn recognise each and every Native reserve in Quebec as a nation and give them the option to stay within Canada or go with Quebec I'm pretty sure that Quebec's borders would look distictinvely different.
> 
> Laterz


My Canada includes Quebec.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

zoziw said:


> My Canada includes Quebec.


I agree that Canada should include Quebec and we should try whatever is possible to keep Canada as we know it whole. I still say that we should be going forward and should be knocking down as many borders as possible, look at the Europeans after thousands of years of conflict they have finally started putting aside old hatreds and started to work towards a common goal and will become a global powerhouse on many fronts in the years to come.

Laterz


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah I agree but hold off on our southern a bit please 

I do think Europe and Canada have some synergies and can learn from each other's experiences.
Some cultures are emerging that were suppressed under national structures ( Catalonia for one and may be finally the Basques ).

Our federal structure and Constitution need addressing but I'm damned if I can see a real life solution given the baggage of the past.

Australia has some models for us as well. Much better voting and upper/lower house structure and a better regional structure.

I can't see Canada strengthening the federal aspect while weakening Ottawa ( something I think should happen ) given the disparity of the provinces as the next level of gov. 

Ontario s still trying to rationalize regional govs so not every tiny town has a municipal overhead but is part of a region with a reasonable size tax base/population base/industry base to support municipal services.

That needs to apply at the Federal level.

No easy task


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rolling dice.......Con inexperience on the national stage showing up big time.



> *Some Tories worrying about Quebec motion
> Legal possibilities causing concern
> Implications for the long term unknown*
> 
> ...


do tell


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Rolling dice.......Con inexperience on the national stage showing up big time.
> 
> 
> 
> do tell


Beats the living sh!t out of Liberal corruption on the national and international stage for years.

Remember that?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Beats the living sh!t out of Liberal corruption on the national and international stage for years.
> 
> Remember that?


:yawn: You are a mindnumb con zombie aren't you? 
Any other talking points or care to add something of substance?

(I love how Liberal corruption has suddenly gone international)

Harper has a hardon for any votes in Quebec - this is pandering...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper will NEVER EVER achieve the respect Martin had worldwide - don't be blind as well as stupid on this.
That Martin was not a decisive leader as PM takes away nothing from the job he did as finance minister and the respect he had from the G8 leaders and others around the world.

It's so childish when the Harper miscreants are taken to task for blunders the topic is switched to the Liberals....talk about reality denying.
If YOU can't defend them articulately ......their actions are indefensible and you decide to change he subject.

Harpers gov has done a couple of things right - the trust law and the recent purchase of quasi-military gear in the form of SAR, surveillance, coast guard patrol and heavy lift aircraft :clap: That's to be applauded.

In most other regards - they are an inexperienced embarrassment at home and abroad. Some is understandable....some is just plain wrongheaded and way out of step with Canadians......Harper's predicted stubborn authoritarian streak showing up. 

••••



> is position
> Duceppe reverses himself, supporting Harper resolution as road to independence
> Nov. 25, 2006. 07:27 AM
> TONDA MACCHARLES AND SEAN GORDON
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Duceppe is the only LEADER in power in Canada right now. He has the guts and willingness to rethink a position and he has a vision.
That I don't agree with him as to anoutcome for Canada in no way diminishes my respect for him as a leader and politician.

Had Harper stepped up on climate change and said......sorry ..we're wrong..lets get all the parties together and make this happen NOW......respect for him right across the nation would have skyrocketed.

Instead we have this waffle and misdirection - "well we really didn't mean......blah blah blah.... " 

He's going to get entrapped in this debate.
That said it's overdue.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I heard Con cabinet minister Jim Prentice on CBC radio this morning trying to display that he understood what this "Nation" pronouncement meant. The interviewer, to her credit, tried to pin him down on what the meaning of it was and Prentice stumbled all over himself.

She asked him whether the designation of "Nation" referred to the province of Quebec or the Quebecois. He said it was the Quebecois. Then she asked if that meant Quebecois who didn't live in Quebec anymore. That's when he began to stumble. The interviewer didn't let up and grilled him about how many nations he thought existed in Canada, for instance aboriginal First Nations and would this mean for instance that Newfoundland was a nation. I love hearing politicians who don't have a clue about what they are talking about get pinned down.

It's clear to me that none of these guys has really the slightest idea what this means and are only doing it because they hope it will score them some Quebec seats in the next election. Harper and his brain trust are playing politics with the future of the country. ( But then, I've never been convinced that Harper's crew is very attached to the idea of Canada as anything other than US branch plant status anyway. A weakened federal government helps their cause of Deep Integration. )

On the other hand the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois know exactly what this means and I heard Duceppe on the same show positively crowing about how this was an essential and important step towards eventual separation. To paraphrase, he said something like: "Now that Canada recognizes our nation, the minute we vote to separate and withdraw our citizenship, they will have to automatically recognize that." Harper thinks he's out-manouvered the Bloc, but the Bloc believes they've just won a big victory.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Duceppe is the only LEADER in power in Canada right now. He has the guts and willingness to rethink a position and he has a vision.
> That I don't agree with him as to anoutcome for Canada in no way diminishes my respect for him as a leader and politician.


Agreed.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Source
> 
> *PM sees Quebec as 'nation'*


Harper stated: "As a consequence, with the support of the government and with the support of our party, I will be putting on the Notice Paper later today the following motion. ... That this House recognize that the *Quebecois* form a nation within a united Canada.". 

Harper also stated: "Our position is clear. Do the *Quebecois* form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes.". 

There is a difference between Quebec and the Quebecois. 

Quebec is a province. The Quebecois are natives or residents of Quebec. 

Natives or residents of Quebec are a people group. 

The word "nation" in the KJV NT Bible is translated from the  Greek word pronounced as "ethnos" which is defined in the Greek Lexicon as
"1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together 
a. company, troop, swarm 
2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus 
a. the human family 
3. a tribe, nation, people group 
4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles 
5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nation is a poor choice of word. A "people" is a far better choice and not loaded with political and legal traps.
The Haida are a "people" and under Canadian view also a "first nation" and that contains certain rights ( still under discussion ).

Quebecois are a founding "people" for Canada at it's origin as a nation.

This is no easy task to renew federalism - the debate is over due - I just don't like that it's being used for pandering for political power. 

Duceppe has a vision for Quebec, Chretien had a different vision for Canada - Quebec within Canada.

Not many unified united Canada visionaries about these days to play foil to Duceppe.

Instead - just a petty tyrant looking for any means to extend his "barely there" manadate.



> PMO a fortress of solitude, maverick MP charges
> JOHN WARD
> Canadian Press
> OTTAWA — Rank-and-file Conservative MPs have no say in fashioning the centrepiece policies of the Harper government, says a former Tory caucus member who was booted from party ranks last month.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061126.wgarth1126/BNStory/National/home

There's more....it's a good read and it fits....

of course there is THIS visionary also waiting in the wings...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061125.wxtrudeau25/BNStory/National/

Interesting times.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Quebecois are a founding "people" for Canada at it's origin as a nation.


What a poor choice of words. In fact the Quebecois, along with the English were foreign invaders in Canada at the time of its origin as a nation. They took it from the Aboriginals who had lived here for centuries before us.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nice try Sinc - I'm speaking of Upper and Lower Canada, one under French style law and one under English common law as precursors to Canada as outlined in the BNA Act which our Constitution derives from.

First Nations did not found Canada as a political entity. They are recognized by Canada.

•••


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Michael Chong, intergovernmental affairs and sport minister, is resigning over the issue.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=692b134e-c712-44c5-83ae-bff78fc1a071&k=49129


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Voyager said:


> Michael Chong, intergovernmental affairs and sport minister, is resigning over the issue.
> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=692b134e-c712-44c5-83ae-bff78fc1a071&k=49129


I'm surprised that more haven't done so.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Nice try Sinc - I'm speaking of Upper and Lower Canada, one under French style law and one under English common law as precursors to Canada as outlined in the BNA Act which our Constitution derives from.
> 
> First Nations did not found Canada as a political entity. They are recognized by Canada.


My bet is that those first nations peoples who lived here before the arrival of the Europeons considered it their nation, country, territory, land or whatever. Since they had no knowledge of the BNA Acty it meant nothing to them. We stole their land pure and simple therefore your argument doesn't hold water. Nice try though.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Actually Sinc, from what I understand, they never regarded it as 'their land.' The concept of ownership of something as fundamental as the earth itself was foreign to indigenous peoples - I'm guessing it would have been met with skepticism, even ridicule. In pre-colonial times, the closest you might get to "ownership" in North America was the belief that the land is a sacred trust and as such humans must act as respectful stewards.

The capitalist notion that a piece of paper confers on someone 'ownership' of the land was an imported notion. It's a mental construct we've invested a great deal in. It remains an idea to this day.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Max has it pretty much right - yes the land was swiped - and some was given.

That fact has zero to do with the other FACT that Canada as a nation was based on the joining of Upper and Lower Canada under the BNA act.
This is the political founding of Canada as a Dominion and then an independent nation recognized as sovereign by it's peers.
Dozens of other cultures including aboriginals contributed and contribute to the cultural mosaic we enjoy - they were not a part of the political process that Canada originated in and over time spread sea to sea to sea.

NOW the aboriginal first nations ARE a part of the political process and their laws and customs are blended into Canadian laws and institutions notably in Nunavut.

You're as obtuse as the rest of the right wing.

•••

Good for Chong. This is most idiotic and haphazard way to stumble into a confederacy debate I could ever imagine. About par for the course for this gov tho.



> *Chong quits Tory cabinet over Quebec motion*
> Updated Mon. Nov. 27 2006 4:36 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


Playing politics with the integrity of Canada is obscene. 

Talk about losing any Ontario base.......two down.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Max, your idea is close. By and large most of the tribes were nomadic, the Huron being an exception. The Natives I know very well tell me that they do not recognize borders... even the Canada/USA border. I've attended many tribal functions. What's interesting to note that they always play the events in this order. It starts off with an Indian prayer and dance. Then, God Save the Queen, Oh Canada, US anthem. Then another prayer that the land will be bountiful. By land they mean North America.

All land within the reserve is owned collectively but a person's home is considered private even though technically it is owned by the council. Land ownership by a deed, as we know it, is a foreign concept to them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's modern-day thinking however, Marg - the way in which they have recognized and adapted to European concepts. My argument was that, hundreds of years ago, no one 'owned' the land. If you don't own it, you can neither buy nor sell it... you can defend it, you can invade it; but the land is timeless and vast, bigger than humanity itself. You might as well try to own air molecules.

Whereas we're going in a whole other direction in the modern world. We don't yet buy and sell air per se, but we're getting there... selling air-time, fly-over rights, bottling spring water... it's a strikingly different approach to the planet and how its resources can be carved up into infinitesimal pieces.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

400 years ago the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company owned the land. Before that it was nature itself. The tribes moved around taking what they needed to survive.

While there was no such thing as modern land ownership there was indeed territorial ownership. There is a tendency to rewrite history these days. All was not perfect in Native culture before the white man arrived. There were numerous bloody clashes over land territory. Whole groups were slaughtered, women raped and children stolen during these squirmishes. Mankind, including natives, have a long history of fighting over territory. It may not have been ownership in our modern sense but it was ownership in kind.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bottom line is we imposed our BNA Act on the original inhabitants and took their land via an invasion. Any way you want to describe it, that's what happened in my mind. And that has FA to do with being right wing MD.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

You are correct, SINC. We took all their territories and called it ours.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL! Who said anything about native culture being perfect or somehow above reproach, Marg? I'm not representing 'the noble savage' here.

At any rate, what I dig about indigenous cultures which long predate us is that they were smart enough to instinctively realize that lawyers are vermin.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Sorry, wasn't addressing you specifically when I made my last remarks. I know you're fairly savvy. You'd be amazed how little some of the younger generation know about North America's past. I've spoken with a few who have the notion that all was sweetness and light before the white man arrived.

Love the comment about lawyers, LOL. What they did have was a judge (chief) and jury (council). If you messed up you said your piece to them and they questioned you. They then decided punishment. If it was a very grave thing you could be killed or banished. Banishment was actually worse than death.

Guess they didn't have slimy real estate agents either or someone trying to sell you a time share.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> At any rate, what I dig about indigenous cultures which long predate us is that they were smart enough to instinctively realize that lawyers are vermin.


Right you are Max, and is it not interesting that it is they who become our politicians and judges, vermin both.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well Sinc, you must agree it's a great way for the vermin to network and find like-minded rats who make heaps of money by screwing others.

I know of two friends who are lawyers yet who miraculously resemble human beings... but the rat we dealt with when we bought our first house... well, I can't begin to describe the contempt I feel for the man... chiefly for the contempt and rudeness he showed _us_. Once he had his money, he couldn't return our calls nor answer our letters. _Arrggggh._

Generally speaking , the vile practitioners of this 'profession' gives pond scum a bad name.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max, I've met many a good lawyer in my time. Regrettably not a one of 'em became either a politician or a judge, and therein lies the problem.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I know, Sinc. I was just venting. It's a profession for which I am ill-prepared to extend much courtesy, although if I were wiser I'd try and get over my own bad experiences with lawyers.

Your lawyer friends are probably too noble to stoop down to politics. That, or the money's just too good right where they are!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The House of Commons has passed a motion that defines the Quebecois as "a nation within a united Canada."
> 
> The majority of Conservative and Liberal MPs supported the motion, along with the Bloc Quebecois and New Democrats. The vote passed 266 to 16.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../quebec_motion_061127/20061127?hub=TopStories

What an odd thing to get together on 

so many other critical issues.........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here we go......the brouhaha begins 



> Campbell:* Declare natives a nation*
> 
> B.C. Premier wants 'third solitude' given same status as Québécois within Canada
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061127.NATIONCAMPBELL27/TPStory/

Better get a bunch of rubber stamps......

I happen to agree with Campbell but what a stupid manner in which to enter in this debate.

Sigh - I guess it's as good a time as ever.....we'll just ignore climate and recession for a couple years.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Time to pay the piper:



> Well-known constitutional lawyer Guy Bertrand is again pitching for a Quebec team for the world hockey championship in 2008.





> Bertrand says it would be a mistake for Harper to think that the word nation is nothing more than a symbol.
> 
> 
> ''Now we know that Mr. Harper has an open mind to recognize that a nation is a nation," he said, "like Scotland, like Northern Ireland, like any nation in the world.''


CBC


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - welcome to Pandora's world.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

zoziw said:


> Time to pay the piper...


Bertrand is hardly the piper. His main accomplishment in the past twenty years has been to keep himself in the news, one way or the other.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../quebec_motion_061127/20061127?hub=TopStories
> 
> What an odd thing to get together on
> 
> so many other critical issues.........


it's called politics and with an election coming up, everyone wants that Quebec vote

I admire the stand by recently former cabinet member, Chong
this opens the gates, as commented by Rex Murphy last night, for multiple nations within Canada

certainly Canada's aboriginal peoples deserve recognition as a nation before anyone else
they were here before anyone else and surely suffered longer, and are still suffering, more than any other group in Canada

Alas, they don't vote "en bloc"


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Maybe we could each have our own personal nation designations. Call mine "Indignation."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: very good Max ......pun of the day to you.


----------



## duper (May 7, 2006)

There is no Quebec nation. We all know our history. We know of the "two solitudes" of French and English speaking Canadians, and we know of the indigenous peoples. French Canadiana does not begin and end with Quebec. If a group of people were ever to be declared a nation within Canada, then that nation would not be called Quebec...its called French Canada, and it includes parts that lie outside of the province of Quebec.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks, MacDoc.

In all seriousness, I think Harper has inadvertently opened a huge can of worms with this maneuver. It will hardly quell separatist sentiments.

On the other hand, as has been noted elsewhere in here, it just might help the cause of weakening federalism and making the union of provinces that much more tenuous and loosey-goosey. I'm guessing that would fit in well with the Flanagan school view of Canada's future... in which case, come to think of it, this would amount to a devilishly clever move on Harper's part. Still, it could backfire. A nation of peoples, each clamouring to be seen and catered to as special interests, is not much of a nation at all.


----------



## x_philie2000 (Feb 23, 2005)

Le Québec est une nation, l'hsitoire démontre clairement ceci. 

Les différences entre le Québec et les autres provinces sont simillaires aux autres provinces, mais en raison de notre histoire force que ces différences sont plus fortes que les autres....

Je suis heureux de cette notion et j'espère qu'il va avoir des conséquences concrètes de la part du fédéral.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

x_philie2000 said:


> Le Québec est une nation, l'hsitoire démontre clairement ceci.
> 
> Les différences entre le Québec et les autres provinces sont simillaires aux autres provinces, mais en raison de notre histoire force que ces différences sont plus fortes que les autres....
> 
> Je suis heureux de cette notion et j'espère qu'il va avoir des conséquences concrètes de la part du fédéral.


OMG, I kinda sorta understood this. I've gone native!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> OMG, I kinda sorta understood this. I've gone native!


You now owe $100,000 in back taxes but, on the upside, you get to feel smug.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm glad Beej does not do translations for a living.
"Je Me Souviens" would end up being "I am pea soup"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm glad Beej does not do translations for a living.
> "Je Me Souviens" would end up being "I am pea soup"


Yes, we can leave French interpretation to you and English interpretation to me, given our demonstrated strengths.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

It looks to me like "I will remember I am pea soup." Cheque is in the mail.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yes, we can leave French interpretation to you and English interpretation to me, given our demonstrated strengths.


Hey, I'm just glad you are not an economist....beejacon


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

x_philie2000 said:


> Le Québec est une nation, l'hsitoire démontre clairement ceci.
> 
> Les différences entre le Québec et les autres provinces sont simillaires aux autres provinces, mais en raison de notre histoire force que ces différences sont plus fortes que les autres....
> 
> Je suis heureux de cette notion et j'espère qu'il va avoir des conséquences concrètes de la part du fédéral.


It is a post such as this one that frustrate the living hell out of me. That of course is because I have no idea what is being said and I am always suspicious of someone speaking in a language that I do not understand. My first thought is that it is something they do not want me to know.

If one is posting on an english language board, why post something in French? Makes no sense to me whatsoever.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> It is a post such as this one that frustrate the living hell out of me. That of course is because I have no idea what is being said and I am always suspicious of someone speaking in a language that I do not understand. My first thought is that it is something they do not want me to know.
> 
> If one is posting on an english language board, why post something in French? Makes no sense to me whatsoever.


Et votre frustration mal placé qui démontre une certaine arrogance souligne très bien pourquoi certain Québécois ne se sente pas chez eux au sein d’un Canada soit disant bilingue. Nul ne demande que vous connaissez la langue de Molière, mais votre assomption que le Canada hors du Québec est unilingue Anglophone et par de même votre manque de respect parce qu’un indique ses commentaire en Français devrait être une source de frustration, non de celui qui l’a écrite, mais de vos lacunes culturelle. Il y a un certain manque prononcé des Canadiens et Américain a l’égard de leur prouesses linguistiques si nous comparons aux Européens. Je suis toujours étonne d’entendre les Européens qui on un meilleur parlés dans plusieurs langues. Le Québec, lui aussi, fait manque par rapport : nos porte-paroles massacre non seulement une langue secondaire mais aussi leur langue primaire. 

Dans le contexte de vos commentaires, je crois qu’ils en disent long sur vous : un genre de xénophobie de ce qui n’est pas blanc et anglo-saxons. Ceci explique aussi votre quasi-haine (musulman, homosexuel, Québécois, certain genre de musique), en bref de ce qui n’est pas comme vous.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS just described why he likes poutine.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

x_philie2000 said:


> Le Québec est une nation, l'hsitoire démontre clairement ceci.
> 
> Les différences entre le Québec et les autres provinces sont simillaires aux autres provinces, mais en raison de notre histoire force que ces différences sont plus fortes que les autres....
> 
> Je suis heureux de cette notion et j'espère qu'il va avoir des conséquences concrètes de la part du fédéral.


Je suis d'avis contraire, non que le Québec soit distinct, mais je souhaite un Canada fort et bilingue.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> AS just described why he likes poutine.


LOL yes indeed.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Grampa Simpson on The Simpsons said:


> "I used to be with it. But then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm _with_ isn't _it_, and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc you should be using this then

http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr

not perfect but



> Quebec is a nation, the hisitoire shows this clearly. The differences between Quebec and the other provinces are simillaires with the other provinces, but because of our history forces that these differences are stronger than the others.... I am happy of this concept and I hope that it will have concrete consequences on behalf of the federal one.


and yes you are right you were being dissed - perhaps justly so.....but at least you can respond



> And your frustration badly placed which shows a certain arrogance underlines very well why certain Inhabitant of Quebec does not feel on their premises within Canada is saying bilingual. No one does not require that you know the language of Molière, but your assumption which Canada out of Quebec is unilingual Anglophone and by in the same way your lack of respect because one indicates its French comment should be a source of frustration, not of that who wrote it, but your gaps cultural. There are a certain marked lack of the Canadians and American A the regard of their linguistic prowesses if we compare to Europeans. I am always astonish to hear Europeans who one the best spoken in several languages. Quebec, to him also, made lack by report/ratio: our spokesmen massacres not only one secondary language but also their primary language. In the context of your comments, I believe that they say some long on you: a kind of xenophobia of what is not white and Anglo-Saxons. This explains also your quasi-hatred (Moslem, homosexual, inhabitant of Quebec, certain kind of music), in short what is not like you.



sorry AS - just leveling the playing field. Prosthetic multi-lingual

see with Babelsh you could cleverly remark

Orina fuori AS


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> sorry AS - just leveling the playing field. Prosthetic multi-lingual
> 
> see with Babelsh you could cleverly remark
> 
> Orina fuori AS


Fair enough MacDoc, but I can you translate that last bit of Latin?

BTW, what x_philie2000 wrote was hardly a diss....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The disjointed and fragmented English translation your site pulled up MacDoc is hardly worth my time to comment on as it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

And the second reply, also in French, is in itself the "diss".

I could care less what either of them are trying to convey. When they can do so in English, I will respond, but until then, not a chance.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well then you clearly have a reading problem as both make perfect sense to me.
I guess your "comprehension problem" explains much.

•••

C'mon AS it's a diss tho a fair one.....also it's Italian - bit of scatological expression.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I could care less what either of them are trying to convey. When they can do so in English, I will respond, but until then, not a chance.


Poutine is a food so wrong on the outside; you have fries, fresh cheese curds and gravy (and at my favourite restaurant some pate de foie gras), so why it is so good?
They joy of eating poutine is something that may not be explained or appreciated unless one immerses himself in the culture. From the outside, poutine can be looked upon as being disgusting - but once you understand that "Quebec" raison d'etre, you understand that it is more than the sum of the ingredients but a comfort food. A comfort food born of the meshing of old world and North American sensibilities, how else explain this fast food phenomenon? 
In the 50's when Quebec came upon it's identity, the poutine was born, you cannot truly appreciate this without knowing the history of the word; born from the English "pudding" (ahh je me souviens) but with evolved unto it's own. A little like Quebec as a Nation.

Poutine is at once repulsive yet exquisite, to understand Poutine is to understand Quebec and it's place in Canada.

beejacon


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> And the second reply, also in French, is in itself the "diss".


Yes how dare he write in French! What a horrible insult!
:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ode to Poutine..

by AS


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In the 50's when Quebec came upon it's identity, the poutine was born


Didn't birth rates in Quebec plummet soon after?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Didn't birth rates in Quebec plummet soon after?


that's only because in Quebec condoms became available at the local "depenere" [sic?] without a Rx as are wine and beer  

so very civilized


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Ode to Poutine..
> 
> by AS


or ode to Dion?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> *Ottawa, Charest at odds on Québécois meaning*
> The Quebec Premier has argued that recognizing Quebec as a nation could eventually influence how the Supreme Court interprets Quebec laws. The province has a different approach than the federal government on a number of important issues, from the way Quebec treats its young offenders to its claim over offshore drilling rights in the St. Lawrence River. Mr. Charest suggested that he could use his newfound status to argue his case before the courts.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061129.wlibsmain29/BNStory/National/home

Harper is good a dividing, he's done it again. Now the conquering will be a little harder in Quebec.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Canada is not alone in this redefinition



> Spain approves Catalonia autonomy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4398702.stm


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://andrewcoyne.com/DrydenStatement.pdf

Dyrden's statement, just because I like him and because it gets at the importance of using common definitions when debating. 

........................
This is pure politics. All this started with the ludicrous concept of having a debate fundamental to the country based on different understandings of the word “nation.” In the last few days, it has deteriorated into the ludicrous reality of such a debate in practice.

To those who want to engage the debate honestly, seeking definitional clarity – forget it. Other parties to the debate want none of it. They want to say “nation” means whatever they want it to mean now and to change the definition whenever they decide they want it to mean something
different. So they can go to the public and argue and spin, and try to achieve by misunderstanding what they can’t by understanding.
........................


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Meanwhile the planet cooks....and none too slowly. 
Silly apes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Most Reject Quebec-as-nation Idea*



MacDoc said:


> Canada is not alone in this redefinition


Being alone or not does not make it right:

The Canadian Press
Published:*Wednesday, November 29, 2006
MONTREAL - Canadians overwhelmingly rejected the concept of Quebec nationhood in a new poll released Tuesday, one day after all parties in Parliament declared the Quebecois a nation within Canada.
Outside Quebec, 77 per cent of Canadians rejected the idea the province forms a nation, suggested the Leger Marketing survey conducted for the TVA television network and distributed to The Canadian Press.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=dfdbc5a2-a657-4959-aa91-8084c9b106e9


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> http://andrewcoyne.com/DrydenStatement.pdf
> 
> Dyrden's statement, just because I like him and because it gets at the importance of using common definitions when debating.


Also, his point of view is rather well spoken. I heard Kennedy echo similar views.


----------



## BATTY (May 20, 2005)

*Stupid....*

It's been awhile since my last post, but on this topic it was a must.
Max I agree with most if not all your posts. 

One problem is the media, this medium uses the most convincing methods to make the masses believe anything. Very few people really think.

Second as far as the debate goes it another position to move away from equalization, which a 'nation' is suppose to uphold.

I live in Montreal, a nation however it's defined by the Harper government will not mean equality for none 'pure laine' Quebecers. it never has.

Quebec has it good already (which I don't agree with), they have their own immigration laws, language laws, business laws (accounts/ investors can not service Quebecers) and Health laws to name a few.

If you lived here with your eyes open you'll notice very sly monopolies.. quite disgusting actually and now Harper throws in more oil to the already large flame.

I thought Harper would have been better... obviously not.


----------

