|
Post by franko on Nov 22, 2006 19:25:17 GMT -5
Quebecers form a nation within Canada: PM 'Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no,' Harper adds Prime Minister Stephen Harper has waded into the controversial issue of Quebec nationhood, saying he will introduce a motion recognizing that Quebecers form a nation "within a united Canada."
"Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no and the answer will always be no," Harper told the House on Wednesday.
Harper's motion — which states that "this House recognizes that Québécois form a nation within a united Canada — was prompted to diffuse a Bloc Québécois motion to be debated Thursday. The Bloc motion calls for Quebec to be recognized as a nation but does not include the words "in Canada."
Harper said the issue of Quebec's nationhood should not be decided by the federal government but by the Quebec legislation. However, he said the Bloc has forced the government to take a position.
"The Bloc Québécois has asked us to define this, and perhaps that's a good thing because it reminds us that all Canadians have a say in the future of this country," Harper said.
The Tories had earlier said they will oppose the Bloc motion. Some Liberals had said they'll support it because they believe it merely states the obvious.more from CBC, includingNDP Leader Jack Layton said his party would support both the government and the Bloc motions. [editorial comment: huh?] I (an admitted federalist) am going to reserved comment for now. PTH? What say you?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 22, 2006 22:34:18 GMT -5
Well good on Quebec I say ....
Now if Danny Williams can get Newfoundland recognized as a nation in a united Canda as well I'd be happy. Newfoundland gave up nationhood to join Canada, the only province to do so, so I think we have an argument for the same thing ..... and anyone who has ever been to Newfoundland can clearly see we are differently culturally from the rest of the country.
I was a federalist ... but recent years have swung me to the seperatist side of the fence.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 22, 2006 22:41:25 GMT -5
Now if Danny Williams can get Newfoundland recognized as a nation in a united Canda as well I'd be happy. Newfoundland gave up nationhood to join Canada, the only province to do so, so I think we have an argument for the same thing ..... and anyone who has ever been to Newfoundland can clearly see we are differently culturally from the rest of the country. Ya shoulda voted for Preston Manning's Refoooorrrrm Party while you had the chance: he beleived that Canada was made up of ten nations.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 22, 2006 23:21:08 GMT -5
Now if Danny Williams can get Newfoundland recognized as a nation in a united Canda as well I'd be happy. Newfoundland gave up nationhood to join Canada, the only province to do so, so I think we have an argument for the same thing ..... and anyone who has ever been to Newfoundland can clearly see we are differently culturally from the rest of the country. Ya shoulda voted for Preston Manning's Refoooorrrrm Party while you had the chance: he beleived that Canada was made up of ten nations. I voted Reform once before ....... True Story: I once walked into the voting booth and yelled out "What? I can't vote for the Bloc? What ever happened to my right to vote for the party I want to?" I even once voted for the Green Party because I hated a prof I had who was running for them .... he got 26 votes. People ask me why I voted for such a (expletive)? I said "You guys dont see the big picture, if everyone in this building voted for him, he wouldn't be here today" I am an opportunist voter. I have also voted PC and Lib , foolishly believeing their campaign promises. And for the record ... I believe Newfoundland should be a nation.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 22, 2006 23:47:02 GMT -5
What a coup for Stephan Harper. He steals the thunder of the Liberal Leadership convention, stops the Bloc on introducing a vote that would have split the country and then enhances his profile in Quebec in the next election.
Personally I was against the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. I did not like the idea of Quebec being a distinct society with special powers. I acknowledge that Quebec is unique and should be a distinct feature in our Federation. How can Quebec not be different, when they have a different language than the vast majority of Canadians, plus a separate court system and interpretations of their laws. I can live with this deal because it gives no special powers and keeps the Constitution from being reopened that gives the Separatists a platform. To open the constitution would open the door for other groups to demand similar treatment. This country needs constitutuonal peace.
Well done, Stephen Harper!
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 23, 2006 7:02:48 GMT -5
The dunbass in me keeps wondering what will be the results of this....... How many nations can a nation have? What are the Indians and Inuit going to say about this? How about the Newfoundlamd? And if there are 10 nations within a nation, what about the rest of Canada? Will it make those poor bastards who don't have a nation but have a lot of money want a nation? Let's say ALBERTA? And isn't BC a special kind of place? After all, they want to move BC to Mars so they can avoid the global torching. And then..... We are not Canada, we are a nation of MiniMe's....alll yelping to be special.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 23, 2006 7:10:44 GMT -5
We are not Canada, we are a nation of MiniMe's....alll yelping to be special. We are a confederation (unity) of 10 13 unique and separate provinces/territories. We are the European Union of North America. And if everyone is special . . . no one is special. Let's celebrate our differences and likenesses. Still waiting for PTH . . .
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 23, 2006 8:17:59 GMT -5
I think it's a bold agenda by Harper, but he's out in left field if he thinks he's going to put a stop to any and all Quebec nationalist/separatist movements. This initiative might slow it down a bit, but it won't go away. The dunbass in me keeps wondering what will be the results of this....... How many nations can a nation have? What are the Indians and Inuit going to say about this? How about the Asian population in BC? One of my Newfy buddies here at work once said, "worse thing NFLD ever did was lettin' Canada join 'em in '48." Leaving politics out of it, yes, it is a special kind of place. And if this motion is passed other minority groups will be tabling their motions as well. The Asian community in BC is huge and the Muslim community continues to grow. The First Nations people already have their status. The initiative is clearly tabled to derail a similar Bloc motion set to be introduced later today. The only difference is that the Bloc wants Quebec to be recognized as a nation, but no mention of Canada. It will be interesting to see how the Bloc reacts to this. However, I can't see this motion preventing the Bloc from introducing theirs. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 23, 2006 8:46:01 GMT -5
The initiative is clearly tabled to derail a similar Bloc motion set to be introduced later today. The only difference is that the Bloc wants Quebec to be recognized as a nation, but no mention of Canada. It will be interesting to see how the Bloc reacts to this. However, I can't see this motion preventing the Bloc from introducing theirs. Cheers. After the game last night I was watching the new and the Bloc is clearly confused about this motion. They were putting the motion down, but couldn't really give any reason why. This motion should put too rest the Bloc's separatist movement agendas for at least a month or two. ;D
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 23, 2006 8:46:42 GMT -5
You guys are making my point about reopening the Constitutuion. Everybody is seeking some kind of recognition. We can all just argue the point until you reach the common denominator of 1. Each person is distict from the person beside them. Unfortunately, we all can't be written in to the Constitution as a single entity.
Mr. Harper did what needed to be done to keep the peace. If that idiot, Michael Ignatiaf had kept his mouth shut, when tryin to win delegates to the Liberal leadership, then this would not have been an issue. All he did was give the Bloc a platform and an opportuntity to try and drive a wedge in to the Federalist cause. Without the quick action by our Prime Minister, we would have been in to a Constitutional crisis within a few months because of Liberal politics.
It's nice to see a Leader who actually leads and does not dither.
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Nov 23, 2006 8:48:28 GMT -5
From a country that said our referendum questins were too complicated, here's a nice example of a motion phrased in a tricky way. Voting for it does imply that Quebec is only a nation in a united Canada. Whereas a nation is a nation is a nation (which was already aknowledge by every single sitting elected person in the Quebec Parliement).
That's hogwash. And saying that all provinces are nations is no better. And saying that immigrants from Asia or Arabs form nations whithin Canada proves how much Canadians never got the idea of nation properly.
How much longer will we suffer that "what does Quebec wants?" ridicule. And the no-less ridicule answer: "Whoah, all that! No bloody way."
PM Charest is really proving to be a miserable fool when he accepts this motion with a smile and says that no constitutional demands will be formulated. He's a grotesque example of how spineless we can get when trying to avoid conflict by all means, even if it means kissing canadian's boots when they give you a bone to suck on.
At least, I think that Ignatieff has the courage of his ideas. He thinks that Quebec is a nation, wants to put it in the Constitution and says "no more". I think it's not enough, but he stands for his ideas against the majority of his party and could lose the leadership race for that.
but, the bottomline is that Quebec's demands are not progressing in Canada, and haven't been, since first formulated more than 40 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 23, 2006 8:56:36 GMT -5
The only demand that Quebec deserves is equality with the rest of the Country. They have the right to their language, culture and court system being different than the rest of Canada. Separate but equal. There is no need to reopen the Constitution and upset the Indian Land claims agreements and the rights of confederated provinces and territories. Ignatiff will end up destroying this country if he picks at the scabs and lets the infection in to the body. All I hope is that none of the above are elected in the Liberal leadership race as Prime Minister. This country can't afford another dose of what the Liberal party is selling.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 23, 2006 9:50:08 GMT -5
This motion should put too rest the Bloc's separatist movement agendas for at least a month or two. ;D The Bloc will still ask for their vote next week. The political wrangling will continue.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 23, 2006 10:05:49 GMT -5
From a country that said our referendum questins were too complicated, here's a nice example of a motion phrased in a tricky way. Voting for it does imply that Quebec is only a nation in a united Canada. Whereas a nation is a nation is a nation (which was already aknowledge by every single sitting elected person in the Quebec Parliement). I actually liked the distinct society idea (how can that be refuted?). Totally agree. Provinces are provinces (nation-states?) within the ConfederationI don't think that anyone really thinks that. Until it is clear what Quebec wants. Lots of generalities but how about specifics. As to the "no bloody way", isn't that part of give-and-take/negotiating? "Give us everything we want and shut up" is not negotiating. "This is what we want" and being willing to scale back is. Same with TROC. "You'll take what we give you and probably less" is not negotiating. "Let's work something out" is. However, seems that both sides are fairly entrenched and not willing to actually work together for a solution. Ah, Mr. Trudeau's legacy. Two choices, really: accept it and work behind the scenes for more, or reject it and demand separation (PQ). Question: would Quebecers in general (and separatists specifically) be happy with constitutional ammendments? Or is it merely political expediency and a shot at the Quebec vote? See above question. Part 2: would TROC be willing to re-open constitutional debate discussion? Is there a will to go through it all again, only to have one person (see, Skilly, I did not blame Newfoundland as others do) derail it? I think he realizes he needs the Quebec vote to carry the day, but I don't think it will be enough. He has too much baggage (ie: what kind of Canadian doesn't live in Canada for 30 years then comes back only to try to be the leader of a political party). I think that Rae's baggage may drag him down as well. As much as he tries to distance himself from it, his NDP past sticks with and haunts him. Dion may just slide up the middle and win. That's because TROC is opposed to the demands as they are understood. PTH made his views plain a couple of years ago on this issue (I appreciated it). My question to you, then: what is needed so to keep Canada unified with Quebec as a satisfied partner? And if nothing will satisfy, is Quebec willing to "go it alone" as a sovereign nation not riding on Canada's coat-tails?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 23, 2006 10:39:49 GMT -5
There is a lot of job left to be done and yes, the constitution will have to be open, because the notion of nation can't be redefined to please the hardcore Canadian Federalists as something that must happen only within Canada. A nation is a nation, it as the rights, tools and privileges to protect its rights and integrity. Still this recognition is a step in the right direction, Harper has to spoon feed the concept because as Mulroney proved it, it can't be all done and negotiated at once. That first degree recognition gives hope that maybe decades of Trudeauism can be undone.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 23, 2006 10:43:44 GMT -5
This is a unique opportunity to fix this, with a Prime Minister and power base from the west. If the perception is that the westerners are on side with this, then the Quebecois will believe that it is genuine. If it is a Central Canadian presenting this, then it's the eastern establishment pushing it's agenda on the west. This may be the proper mixture to make the peace stick between the two solitudes.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 11:53:18 GMT -5
One of my Newfy buddies here at work once said, "worse thing NFLD ever did was lettin' Canada join 'em in '48." It was the worst injustice in history. We were suppose to join Confederation on April 1, 1949. And Smallwood (the premier at the time) wanted it to be March 31, 1949, so it wouldn't be looked upon as an April Fool's joke. TROC is still laughing. If we had joined Canada, "as a nation inside of Canada" then much of our Newfie bickering would have gone away. We could have used it to push for custodial management of the continental shelf (ergo no moratorium and DFO doesn't destroy our fishery), we could have used it to support Quebec's stance and maybe Canada would have helped in negotiating with Quebec over Churchill Falls, we could have used it in our dealings with Inco, Chevron, Petro-Canada, etc etc .... as a nation the waters would have been ours. We gave up nationhood ... it was stupid to do, we had a power hungry politician who wasn't even the elected leader of this province at the time, who underhandedly made a deal with Ottawa that the citizenry never found out about until decades later. (Ottawa basically funded his premiership race). I congratulate Quebec .... but I hope Newfoundland's politicians realize that now is the time to reinstate our nationhood within Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 11:55:15 GMT -5
See above question. Part 2: would TROC be willing to re-open constitutional debate discussion? Is there a will to go through it all again, only to have one person (see, Skilly, I did not blame Newfoundland as others do) derail it? Manitoba also opposed Meech Lake. And no one opposed the "distinct society" clause, it was the veto clauses that caused people to question it. It was never truly explained to the rest of the country properly what it was that Quebec wanted, and more importantly why they felt they needed those veto clauses.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 12:05:26 GMT -5
This is a unique opportunity to fix this, with a Prime Minister and power base from the west. If the perception is that the westerners are on side with this, then the Quebecois will believe that it is genuine. If it is a Central Canadian presenting this, then it's the eastern establishment pushing it's agenda on the west. This may be the proper mixture to make the peace stick between the two solitudes. You see this is where I cringe. "If the perception" .... there is no perception, that implies insincerity. You either agree that Quebec is a dinstinct society and should be recognized and represented at international conferences ... or you don't.... there is no perceiving. And it sounds like you want the Prime Minister to "trick" Quebec into believing he is giving them what they want. It is advocating stunts like that, that make Quebecers wary of anglophone Canada. It is true that anglophones don't understand the average Quebecer. And you know what ... I like it that way ... I like spending time with people from Ontario, British Columbia, and yes Quebec and getting to know them, getting to know the individual. Tarring everyone with the same brush is not acceptable, people do it to Newfoundlanders all the time. Quebecers do not need to believe it is genuine, the act HAS to be genuine. And the very reason that they recieve this "gift" through political strife, proves it is not genuine but something fought for ... and that's why the seperatist movements in this country will not die ... because each province has to fight Ottawa and nine other "bizarro-robin hoods" to get what they rightfully deserve.
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 23, 2006 12:16:17 GMT -5
This is a unique opportunity to fix this, with a Prime Minister and power base from the west. If the perception is that the westerners are on side with this, then the Quebecois will believe that it is genuine. If it is a Central Canadian presenting this, then it's the eastern establishment pushing it's agenda on the west. This may be the proper mixture to make the peace stick between the two solitudes. You see this is where I cringe. "If the perception" .... there is no perception, that implies insincerity. You either agree that Quebec is a dinstinct society and should be recognized and represented at international conferences ... or you don't.... there is no perceiving. And it sounds like you want the Prime Minister to "trick" Quebec into believing he is giving them what they want. It is advocating stunts like that, that make Quebecers wary of anglophone Canada. It is true that anglophones don't understand the average Quebecer. And you know what ... I like it that way ... I like spending time with people from Ontario, British Columbia, and yes Quebec and getting to know them, getting to know the individual. Tarring everyone with the same brush is not acceptable, people do it to Newfoundlanders all the time. Quebecers do not need to believe it is genuine, the act HAS to be genuine. And the very reason that they recieve this "gift" through political strife, proves it is not genuine but something fought for ... and that's why the seperatist movements in this country will not die ... because each province has to fight Ottawa and nine other "bizarro-robin hoods" to get what they rightfully deserve. Skilly for President !......ehhhh Prime Minister ;D
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 23, 2006 13:02:48 GMT -5
From the editorial staff in today's Ottawa Sun. Up until about mid-afternoon yesterday, we thought Prime Minister Stephen Harper was doing a pretty good job in the office he was handed — if only on a trial basis — last January.
The prime minister impressed us with the way he seemed to be sticking to his plans to introduce fairness into the tax structure, make our streets safer, improve relations with the U.S. and strengthen a long-ignored military.
He also appeared willing to stake his reputation on what he accomplished, rather than shift his policies around depending on what the polls were telling him.
But sometime about halfway between lunchtime and the supper hour yesterday he lost us. And we fear he may have turned off a whole lot of other Canadians in the process.
Harper caught the House of Commons and the country by surprise when he introduced a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within Canada.
The prime minister justified his action by saying he hopes the motion will counter one due to be introduced today by the Bloc Quebecois that also calls for Quebecers to be recognized as a nation — but not within Canada.
It is also seen as an attempt to appeal to Quebecers who believe they are part of a French-speaking nation, but don’t want a separate country.
What poppycock.
And what a transparent attempt to improve the Tories’ woeful third-place standing in recent polling in Quebec.
Setting up one province, or one region, of Canada as being distinct or separate from the nation as a whole is dangerous and divisive.
Ours is one country, stretching over thousands of kilometres and, as politicians always remind us, from sea-to-sea-to-sea.
Are people in Quebec distinct from Canadians in other parts of the country?
Of course they are.
But then again so are Newfoundlanders. And Albertans. And British Columbians. And Yukoners.
Get the idea?
The people descended from families that have been here a couple of centuries are different from those who arrived in the past six months.
We’re a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society. And that’s what makes our country special.
Together we make up one of the best, the most privileged, the most fortunate nations on earth.
Together we’re Canada.
Together we’re Canadians.
That should be simple enough even for a politician to understand. www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Editorial/2006/11/22/2459511.html
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 23, 2006 13:34:23 GMT -5
That editorial is so typical of the hard federalist stance: what's good for me has to be good for you. It's the line of though that feeds the anger of Quebecers and keep the separatist movement alive.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 23, 2006 13:35:23 GMT -5
And with that, we're on our way to Belgiumhood Andrew Coyne, National Post Published: Thursday, November 23, 2006Somewhere along the way, the political class in this country lost the will to live. For a time it suited them to believe they still believed, to pretend that Canada was still the country the Fathers of Confederation created, to pay lip service to the vision of prime ministers from Macdonald through Trudeau: that Canada was a great nation, capable of great things, called -- indeed, obliged -- by history and immense good fortune to greatness.
But they did not feel it in their gut. Because a nation is hard work. To assert a national will, national objectives, a national interest, in a polyethnic, multilingual, transcontinental country, means upholding a national idea, a transcendent nationalism of ideals, against the more earthly delights of ethnic and cultural tribalism. It suggests that we are tied by something more than blood, something higher than ethnicity. And in turn it demands that we live up to that vision, that we hold a greater ambition for ourselves than mere existence.
But ambition is a burden. And ideas are strictly relative. And everyone knows that real nations are ethnic nations. And in any case it's all just too damn hard. And so we learned to habituate ourselves to impotence and inertia, to snicker at the grandiloquent boasts of our ancestors ("The 20th century would belong to Canada"? He said that?), even if we did not quite follow the logic of this position to the end.
So let us give thanks for one thing: at least the pretense is over. The Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday, a statement no prime minister has ever made before, marks the moment when the idea of Canada finally shrugged, sighed, heaved and expired. The hollowing out of the national idea -- of a vision of Canada as a coherent national entity, capable of acting with a single national purpose -- is now complete. We are well on our way to Belgiumhood, and that suits our political class just fine.
We might at least pause to consider, however, that the motion the Prime Minister of Canada has asked the Parliament of Canada to endorse -- "that Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada" -- is a falsehood. There is no meaningful sense in which Quebecers form a nation -- neither in the ethnocultural or sociological sense, since the province, like Canada, is made up of many ethnic groups and languages, nor in the civic or political sense, since neither history nor political principle would distinguish the nation of Quebec in that regard from the nation of Canada as a whole. Or don't take my word for it: more than a third of Quebecers -- 34% in a recent CBC Environics poll -- say they do not believe they form a nation. On this, as on so many other questions, the "Quebec consensus" is a fraud. ___
But depend upon it: this can only fan the flames it claims to extinguish. The message the Parliament of Canada is about to send to Quebecers is this: that, as a nation, they have more in common with each other than they do with other Canadians, whom they will increasingly see as another nation altogether; that their relationship with that other nation must, accordingly, be as that they maintain with other nations -- cordial, businesslike, to be sure, but distant; and that, like any self-respecting nation, they can on no account submit to be governed by another nation -- as represented, for example, by the majority of the Parliament of Canada. National Post
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 23, 2006 13:42:47 GMT -5
See above question. Part 2: would TROC be willing to re-open constitutional debate discussion? Is there a will to go through it all again, only to have one person (see, Skilly, I did not blame Newfoundland as others do) derail it? Manitoba also opposed Meech Lake. Agreement was eventually reached, that all provinces could sign on to the Accord. Elijah Harper voted against it in the Manitoba Legislature, though, and so the vote failed because it was not unanimous. A vote was not held in Newfoundland because it was not necessary. However, many people blamed Newfoundalnd for the it's failure. And that's the reason that so few people in Canada drive Hondas. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 23, 2006 13:51:30 GMT -5
You see this is where I cringe. "If the perception" .... there is no perception, that implies insincerity. You either agree that Quebec is a dinstinct society and should be recognized and represented at international conferences ... or you don't.... there is no perceiving. And it sounds like you want the Prime Minister to "trick" Quebec into believing he is giving them what they want. It is advocating stunts like that, that make Quebecers wary of anglophone Canada. It is true that anglophones don't understand the average Quebecer. And you know what ... I like it that way ... I like spending time with people from Ontario, British Columbia, and yes Quebec and getting to know them, getting to know the individual. Tarring everyone with the same brush is not acceptable, people do it to Newfoundlanders all the time. Quebecers do not need to believe it is genuine, the act HAS to be genuine. And the very reason that they recieve this "gift" through political strife, proves it is not genuine but something fought for ... and that's why the seperatist movements in this country will not die ... because each province has to fight Ottawa and nine other "bizarro-robin hoods" to get what they rightfully deserve. A nation is a nation Skilly. You can fiddle around with what a distinct society is, but there is little ambiguity in what a nation is. Harper must sell this to the ROC though and to do so has to sugar coat what in reality is a pretty bold and unique stance in favor of Quebec. How hard would it be for Quebec to be recognized sovereign at the international level if indeed Canada has recognized them as a nation? Let's just say much easier than if we're defined as a province. If princelh, whose opinion I think is very representative of a lot of hard federalists, is happy because he believes that Harper is tricking Quebecers and that being defined as a nation is an empty shell, all the better. As I said, properly defining this country has to be done with one step at a time and IMO this is quite an important first step.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 23, 2006 14:26:18 GMT -5
And with that, we're on our way to Belgiumhood Andrew Coyne, National Post Published: Thursday, November 23, 2006Somewhere along the way, the political class in this country lost the will to live. For a time it suited them to believe they still believed, to pretend that Canada was still the country the Fathers of Confederation created, to pay lip service to the vision of prime ministers from Macdonald through Trudeau: that Canada was a great nation, capable of great things, called -- indeed, obliged -- by history and immense good fortune to greatness.
Not to long ago the most you could hope for as a French Canadian was to either struggle as a farmer or struggle as a shop worker. Every important companies and financial institutions in Quebec were owned by English Canadians, every important jobs were for English Canadians and you could not shop at Eatons or The Bay (the biggest stores in Montreal) if you did not speak and read English because every labels were unilingual English and most clerks were unilingual English. Via "La Revolution Tranquile" we pulled ourselves out of the medieval ages we were being kept into so the "Good Old Days" of the founders of Canada don't represent such good old days for Quebecers. The future of this country lies ahead not behind.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 18:51:48 GMT -5
Manitoba also opposed Meech Lake. Agreement was eventually reached, that all provinces could sign on to the Accord. Elijah Harper voted against it in the Manitoba Legislature, though, and so the vote failed because it was not unanimous. A vote was not held in Newfoundland because it was not necessary. However, many people blamed Newfoundalnd for the it's failure. And that's the reason that so few people in Canada drive Hondas. ;D You sure you dont mean the Nissan X-Trail Bonavista? By Tunderin
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 19:05:36 GMT -5
You see this is where I cringe. "If the perception" .... there is no perception, that implies insincerity. You either agree that Quebec is a dinstinct society and should be recognized and represented at international conferences ... or you don't.... there is no perceiving. And it sounds like you want the Prime Minister to "trick" Quebec into believing he is giving them what they want. It is advocating stunts like that, that make Quebecers wary of anglophone Canada. It is true that anglophones don't understand the average Quebecer. And you know what ... I like it that way ... I like spending time with people from Ontario, British Columbia, and yes Quebec and getting to know them, getting to know the individual. Tarring everyone with the same brush is not acceptable, people do it to Newfoundlanders all the time. Quebecers do not need to believe it is genuine, the act HAS to be genuine. And the very reason that they recieve this "gift" through political strife, proves it is not genuine but something fought for ... and that's why the seperatist movements in this country will not die ... because each province has to fight Ottawa and nine other "bizarro-robin hoods" to get what they rightfully deserve. A nation is a nation Skilly. You can fiddle around with what a distinct society is, but there is little ambiguity in what a nation is. Harper must sell this to the ROC though and to do so has to sugar coat what in reality is a pretty bold and unique stance in favor of Quebec. How hard would it be for Quebec to be recognized sovereign at the international level if indeed Canada has recognized them as a nation? Let's just say much easier than if we're defined as a province. If princelh, whose opinion I think is very representative of a lot of hard federalists, is happy because he believes that Harper is tricking Quebecers and that being defined as a nation is an empty shell, all the better. As I said, properly defining this country has to be done with one step at a time and IMO this is quite an important first step. I agree Doc ... but you and I know that the distinct society recognition is minor ...however it is always what is brought up in an attempt to use smoke and mirrors on the issue - Equality and ensuring our best interests are indeed being looked after. I am not sure what Quebecers see as there main international issues - but I will play ignorant and use energy as an example. Being recognized as a nation within Canada gives Quebec a seat at the table and isnt that all that you really need? Let Canada toot and blow the horn BUT at least you can darn well be sure that your message is getting across and some politician isnt cow-towing to a PM threatening him with a seat in the backbenches if he doesn't do as he is told. I know Newfoundland would love to have a seat at NAFO, at fisheries conferences with the EU, and at the UN conferences on bottom-trawling. But we have to trust that Loyola Hearn is doing what is best for Newfoundland and not what Harper says he can. (Talk about me using a stereotypical example for NL). The same thing can be said for us with regard to hydro (where NL and Que should be partnering , not working against each other), iron ore , oil, and natural gas. Que and NL should be two of the richer provinces but IMO Ottawa doesn't give a rat's behind about helping the poor provinces out of their ruts...... and more about ensuring the status quo is kept.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 19:11:26 GMT -5
But they did not feel it in their gut. Because a nation is hard work. To assert a national will, national objectives, a national interest, in a polyethnic, multilingual, transcontinental country, means upholding a national idea, a transcendent nationalism of ideals, against the more earthly delights of ethnic and cultural tribalism. It suggests that we are tied by something more than blood, something higher than ethnicity. And in turn it demands that we live up to that vision, that we hold a greater ambition for ourselves than mere existence. A nation is also a place where benefits in one part of the country are not withheld from another part of the country. A nation is also a place where the central governement ensures that the interests of all citizens are protected. A nation is hard work .... Ottawa just isnt up for the task.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 23, 2006 19:30:33 GMT -5
As Canadians, we can call Quebec a Nation, inside Canada, but will the rest of the world recognize Quebec as a nation? If we do not get this question settled, amicably for both Quebec and the rest of Canada, we will be slipping down the road to an Ordnance of Secession and an end to the Canadian federation. What Mr. Harper is doing is fair to all involved. Many in the west won't like it, but they have to compromise a bit to make the Quebecois welcome in all parts of Canada. There also has to be an understanding in Quebec, that there are no special laws or standing. Separate, but equal, should be the motto for this country. Open up the constitution and you invite disaster. Just think about all of the Native Land Claims and all of the evening of scores that will happen from each region of the Country, if you try to get it entrenched in the Constitution.
|
|