Quebec A "nation Within Canada"

[Moonlight_Graham]

Who's yea or nay on this? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/22/harper-quebec.html

 

I personally don't really like it. Though its just a title & doesn't really MEAN anything in terms of new powers or rules for Quebec, i think every province in Canada should be treated equally.

 

Yes Quebecers are different from the rest of Canadians, but so are most Newfoundlanders, East Coasters, & Albertans etc. I hate that we have to kiss Quebecs ass once again just to get some votes & avoid Quebec separtation. I like Quebec & Quebecers but c'mon.

 

This is just a political move, one that Harper probably wasn't thrilled to make, which hopes to make the Tories a bit more popular in Quebec & also to help national unity & appease Quebecers before what could turn out to be another referendum coming soon, after the next Quebec Provincial elections (which the PQ will likely win).

[Crusader]

So... The Quebecois are a Nation but what about our Native Peoples?

[garsk]

So... The Quebecois are a Nation but what about our Native Peoples?

what we always do, ignore them?

[Guest Prosis]

Let me give my Quebecer opinion here.

 

First off, you are right this has absolutely no political value. It's merely a symbol.

 

Second, it's only a political move from Stephen Harper because his popularity suffers in Quebec.

 

Third, we'll be a nation if we seperate. Other than that, we're part of a nation called Canada.

 

Fourth, Native People are nations because they were before the English and French barged into their country to convert them to catholicism and impose their Europeen ways of life. So that's something completely different. Therefore, the term Nation suits them just fine.

 

So I think that these leaders should just accept that we're part of a nation until the people decide we seperate. Being that this has been turned down twice, it's time to move on and accept that we're Canadians. But some people like the opportunist that is Gilles Duceppe seem to not get that. Same problem with the new Parti Quebecois leader in Quebec. This party is a seperatist party. But only in Quebec, with education running like shit, the health system with the same attribute, the debt getting bigger and bigger, and everything else going in the crapper, I think we have bigger and more important priorities to get to before even thinking of seperating...

[Stryfe]

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

[Some Random]

all feelings aside, how viable would it really be for quebec to separate from the rest of canada?

[no yu begin wher i end]

Third, we'll be a nation if we seperate. Other than that, we're part of a nation called Canada.

I think what Harper means by "nation" is the actual political definition: essentially Quebec is its own distinct culture and society (Charlottetown Accord, anyone?). Quebec wants to be a state, if I'm not mistaken. Most people use state and nation interchangably.

[ecnarf]

Seeing as the difference between nation and state has already been covered, I'll get right to the point: are Quebecers feeling kind of patronized about this? They've been speaking a different language for a few hundred years now, do they really need to be told that they are a unique and special snowflake?

[Guest Prosis]

Historically, Canada was born in Quebec. After the English won the 1759 battle of the Plains of Abraham and after they started "invading" Canada up until the first quarter of the 20th century, the English kept Quebecers in ignorance and poverty by forbidding them to work and get educated. Basically, they ignored the small french population that remained because they wanted them to become english. Those are historical facts but we're talking a long long time ago.

 

Now in the 70's we were governed by the last generation of people who were witnesses of this. Unfortunately, they passed that anger and bitterness to their children. In 1976, a man called Ren

[supercanuk]

What bothers me in a ll this is the talk about Harper making some sort of "historical" statement, Mulroney already tried this with Charlottetown Accord as said above. It's quite annoying in that respect.

Personally I dont know how viable it would be for Quebec to leave Canada, but if they did, I hear that the Cree with have most of that province in land claims. That'd make me happy. lol

[Guest Prosis]

Actually it's only a couple of hundreds kilometers around Quebec City...and they haven't found all the necessary papers yet.

[garsk]

What bothers me in a ll this is the talk about Harper making some sort of "historical" statement, Mulroney already tried this with Charlottetown Accord as said above. It's quite annoying in that respect.

Personally I dont know how viable it would be for Quebec to leave Canada, but if they did, I hear that the Cree with have most of that province in land claims. That'd make me happy. lol

yeah, that is going to be funny as hell when the cree leave quebec and that all they hydro dams with them.

[Guest Prosis]

No offense but can you rephrase that?

[supercanuk]

Yah i was ganna say the same thing actually, Cree leaving Quebec? I am confused.

[Matt]

Yah i was ganna say the same thing actually, Cree leaving Quebec? I am confused.

During the last referendum, if I remember correctly, the Cree held their own one to stay in Canada and to not seperate with Quebec.

[Moonlight_Graham]

The natives will not want to leave Canada if Quebec separates. That will be very messy.

[supercanuk]

Well also, the thing about that is that for Quebec to seperate, they need to negotiate with the Cree who currently have and agreement with Canada, and Quebec, so it's actually a lot more difficult to do. I just went over this in my law class and theres a whole paradox to Quebec leaving Canada. If Quebec were to try and leave it would have to negotiate and use the amendment formulae that is set out in the Constitution, so it would need to use the National Formulae specifically, which is the 2/3 50% rule. (2/3 of the provinces combining 50% of the population). So if they were to just have a referendum, this would not be enough to leave Canada. They would need to get 2/3 50% of the other province in Canada to agree to them leaving, but here's the tricky part. Quebec doesn't recognize the formulae, so since they didn't sign on to the Charter but are still bound by it, the only way for them to sucede would be to accept the charter, and then try and use it to leave, which would more then likely end in failure. It's very doubtful that other provinces would agree to the changes that have been put forwarded by the seperatists. Like the idea of a economic tie with Canada, so that they would hold duel citizenship and a veto on decisions concerning Canada and 25% of the seats in the house of commons, etc, these are all stipulations that are basically regarded as unacceptable to most of the major parties.

Anyway, that's my input for the day lol

Edited November 29, 2006 by supercanuk

[Guest Prosis]

If I'm not mistaken I think you forgot to mention that this formulae (if I'm thinking of the right one) was set by all the english provinces in the absence of Quebec during the night of november 4th to 5th 1981 so that french canadians were no longer recognized as the founding people of the country (which they were) but rather just a regular part of it.

[supercanuk]

If I'm not mistaken I think you forgot to mention that this formulae (if I'm thinking of the right one) was set by all the english provinces in the absence of Quebec during the night of november 4th to 5th 1981 so that french canadians were no longer recognized as the founding people of the country (which they were) but rather just a regular part of it.

The night of knives i believe you are referring to. The formulae that they agreed on (hopefully my memory serves me correctly) was the 2/3 50% rule, but what that had changed was the Victoria formula which was basically 2/3 plus 50% but with added clauses that allowed for provinces to opt out of resolutions WITH restitution for opting out, so that each province was given the equivalant of a veto. When that was changed i dont really know if it was specifically done by the "english" provinces per se because New Brunswick was there and they are a bilingual province, which of course came later, but still, i am not sure if it was purposefully to leave the french canadians out of being a founding people. Esp since Trudeau had made the constitution with a lot of recognition for Quebec and the french language in general, ( not exactly what the PQ wanted but yeah). It was a pretty awful thing they did to Levek ( i think im spelling his name correctly, the Quebec seperatist premeir at the time). To my knowledge they left him out because they felt he would not agree to anything that had to do with the constitution ( which being a seperatist, he probably wouldn't have, but who knows really maybe he would have). They did it in the skechiest way possible in the middle of the night and decided on it at 4 am and then at breakfast when Levek came down to negotiate they already had and he was justifiably pissed off. And so, Quebec has not signed onto the constitution, but is still subject to it, because of the Supreme Court decision which said that no particular province must support the constitution, there only needed to be a substantial amount of support from all provinces, which i guess they had since Quebec was the only one that didnt sign on. lol And im going to end my history lession lol.

[Guest Prosis]

lol that was correct actually (except it's spelt L

[supercanuk]

Hmm, well it's quite possible, I don't know whether or not they did have extra powers or anything, but i know he didnt want to loose his equivalent of a veto, which was the opting out and the restitution. Unfortuntely he did, but later negotiations allowed for S.33 the notwithstanding clause which helped the Constitution get passed since provinces wanted more autonomy then the Constitution was really letting them have. Anyhow, either way, the French were here before the English, and the aboriginal's helped them survive the relatively harsh climate and then the English came ( i think) so although i don't even like to use the word "found" because Canada wasn't found, it was calculated genocide and conquered, the French and the English ought to be considered the first who did it. LOL if they want to be the "founding" people, then that's fine with me, they can pay back the resitituion i think is needed for the aboriginal's in Canada. But that's just my point of view, not everyone will agree to that lol.

EDIT: much more on the hand's of the English just for the record if my history is correct. Started with treatys of land given by both French and English to fight their respective sides using aboriginals and then when the English eventually won it was one calculated land grab after another.

Edited November 29, 2006 by supercanuk

[mikeymackinon]

It's a way for the Conservative party to throw off the Liberal party voting advantage with Quebec.

[supercanuk]

It's a way for the Conservative party to throw off the Liberal party voting advantage with Quebec.

Yah but i think Liberal's, Conservatives and NDP all want to be "the" federal party in Quebec, i think that's why so many voted for this resolution. They are all jockying for Quebec votes federally, which could spell the end of the Harper government since i think 74% of Canadians ( maybe 77? i cant remember the exact poll number) disliked this resolution. So it'll be interesting to watch, i think none of the parties wanted to look as though they were not in favour of the resolution because of the nearing political campaign. ( I am speculating here, since minority gov'ts never last long)

Edited November 29, 2006 by supercanuk

[Moonlight_Graham]

It's a way for the Conservative party to throw off the Liberal party voting advantage with Quebec.

Yah but i think Liberal's, Conservatives and NDP all want to be "the" federal party in Quebec, i think that's why so many voted for this resolution. They are all jockying for Quebec votes federally, which could spell the end of the Harper government since i think 74% of Canadians ( maybe 77? i cant remember the exact poll number) disliked this resolution. So it'll be interesting to watch, i think none of the parties wanted to look as though they were not in favour of the resolution because of the nearing political campaign. ( I am speculating here, since minority gov'ts never last long)

maybe 50% of those 75% who disagreed lived in Alberta? Then it wouldn't change anything. i'm just kidding around (sorta).

 

In the end i don't think this changes anything much. In 2 years this will be completely forgotten (until election time when people bring it up, then it will go away again).

 

But hey. You look at the last referendum, which i remember watching the results coming in on TV, and the vote was as close as you could get. Maybe if the next vote is close and this "nation" thing swings a few people the other way it could mean the difference between 49% & 51%. Who knows.

 

Wasn't Alberta & B.C. gonna seperate? When do we call them nations?

[supercanuk]

It's a way for the Conservative party to throw off the Liberal party voting advantage with Quebec.

Yah but i think Liberal's, Conservatives and NDP all want to be "the" federal party in Quebec, i think that's why so many voted for this resolution. They are all jockying for Quebec votes federally, which could spell the end of the Harper government since i think 74% of Canadians ( maybe 77? i cant remember the exact poll number) disliked this resolution. So it'll be interesting to watch, i think none of the parties wanted to look as though they were not in favour of the resolution because of the nearing political campaign. ( I am speculating here, since minority gov'ts never last long)

maybe 50% of those 75% who disagreed lived in Alberta? Then it wouldn't change anything. i'm just kidding around (sorta).

 

In the end i don't think this changes anything much. In 2 years this will be completely forgotten (until election time when people bring it up, then it will go away again).

 

But hey. You look at the last referendum, which i remember watching the results coming in on TV, and the vote was as close as you could get. Maybe if the next vote is close and this "nation" thing swings a few people the other way it could mean the difference between 49% & 51%. Who knows.

 

Wasn't Alberta & B.C. gonna seperate? When do we call them nations?

hehe Probably ! In fact the demographics are changing in Alberta's favor, i believe they will soon have a bigger pop then Quebec which means that the West might get more a voice in Canada now. I think it'll probably be forgetton to, its an ill-defined concept which seems to me cannot have any force without some sort of referendum and an amendment to the constitution. hehe In fact i was in B.C. ( the many 5 years ago it's been) and they were talking about seperation, good times!