"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

Benz · May 10, 2011

And selected individuals have been denying it ever since.

Everyone elected at the national assembly since 1982. The whole Québec then.

Total denial... nothing has changed and the more your bark like that, the more Québec is getting closer to the independence.

Go on, repeat it and say it out loud.

Shwa · May 10, 2011

Everyone elected at the national assembly since 1982. The whole Québec then.

Total denial... nothing has changed and the more your bark like that, the more Québec is getting closer to the independence.

Go on, repeat it and say it out loud.

Well, I doubt you speak for "everyone" at the National Assembly and "anyone" that does pine for "independence" is more likely looking for small bits and pieces of cultural autonomy, here and there.

Tweaks in federal policy, nothing more.

Go on, repeat that and say it out loud.

g_bambino · May 10, 2011

Everyone elected at the national assembly since 1982.

Not everyone has been in denial about it, but many have and are, yes. And in other legislatures in Canada, too. The myth has, unfortunately, become quite widespread.

This is, I suspect, because of a combination of typical Canadian historical illiteracy, self-serving Quebec separatist historical revisionism, and a pervasive fear on the part of federalist politicians of being perceived as anti-Quebec for questioning even the most irrational assertions coming out of the province.

I'm glad, though, that you recognise the story is a denial of history.

noahbody · May 10, 2011

So the question is ,"Is Quebec prepared to sign on to the Constituion as a full province,with no veto power over the issue of culture,or is going to move towards secession because its cultural demands are not met?"

Quebec is like a couple that's been living common law forever. Canada thinks it's necessary to make it official, but the marriage certificate is really only a piece of paper.

Quebec really isn't interested in walking down the aisle because right now it can have its way with Canada any time it wants. That always ends after marriage.

Triple M · May 10, 2011

I agree with an earlier poster who described Canada as multi national(First, French, and English) but Quebec it self is a province. IMO it doesn't deserve special arrangements over other provinces and to expand on that it disturbs me that Franco Ontarians, Franco Manitobans, Arcadians are ignored in the modern political landscape. So overall I think we need to deal with the serious issues that both first and french nations have with the way our country works.

Benz · May 10, 2011

Nope. Quebec is - and only is - a province. Nothing more. It exists only at the privledge of Canada and it's articles of governance. It has no land base.

You can repeat that lie forever, it will never become true.

They already do as a constituent part of the country which recognizes them as - and only as - a consituent part.

Then Québec needs to seperate.

Weak minded assumption that people of different language backgrounds can't compromise

No little boy, it's a fact. Every single time, the english canada choosed to isolate Québec and go on without us. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Canada has such rules entrenched in its Constution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Anyone with a high school Canadian history course would know this.

Then prove it. Denial, denial and more denial. Even when it is obvious, you keep your head in the sand.

Tell than to Luxembourg. Or Norway.

Norway has a constitutional veto just like every one else. Ireland was able to veto the last constitutional amendement. Again, you are in total denial of the reality.

And yet, here we are. Quebec still no more 'separate' than 1759.

Yep I know, some fools down here beleive you will someday understand their point. They don't realise how stubborn you are.

And yet, here we are.
The 'two solitudes' is a separatist victim myth. It doesn't exist.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Solitudes_(Canadian_society)

Being wrong is a tradition you hold on tight to your heart.

Benz · May 10, 2011

I agree with an earlier poster who described Canada as multi national(First, French, and English) but Quebec it self is a province. IMO it doesn't deserve special arrangements over other provinces and to expand on that it disturbs me that Franco Ontarians, Franco Manitobans, Arcadians are ignored in the modern political landscape. So overall I think we need to deal with the serious issues that both first and french nations have with the way our country works.

How else do you suggest to solve it then? Giving Québec a veto is the more pragmatic way but if you have a better idea, you suggest it.

Benz · May 10, 2011

Well, I doubt you speak for "everyone" at the National Assembly and "anyone" that does pine for "independence" is more likely looking for small bits and pieces of cultural autonomy, here and there.

Tweaks in federal policy, nothing more.

Go on, repeat that and say it out loud.

Not everyone like me beleive we cannot agree, but every one agree the actual situation is unacceptable.

Not everyone has been in denial about it

I want a name. Just one name. One person in the National Assembly elected after 1982.

g_bambino · May 10, 2011

Quebec is like a couple that's been living common law forever. Canada thinks it's necessary to make it official, but the marriage certificate is really only a piece of paper.

No. Confederation is a polygamous marriage and Quebec has been part of it, officially, certificate and all, for 144 years.

Shwa · May 10, 2011

You can repeat that lie forever, it will never become true.

It already is true. You are just late to the party is all.

Then Québec needs to seperate.

Some Quebecoise need to separate. There is always Louisiana. Again.

No little boy, it's a fact. Every single time, the english canada choosed to isolate Québec and go on without us. I dare you to prove otherwise.

LOFL. Myth making at it's worse. English Canada doesn't practice xenophobia, quite the opposite. The only isolation going on is the victim-myth makers in La belle province. Nothing more.

Then prove it. Denial, denial and more denial. Even when it is obvious, you keep your head in the sand.

No, no denials necessary. The documents are posted on-line, in both official languages.

Norway has a constitutional veto just like every one else. Ireland was able to veto the last constitutional amendement. Again, you are in total denial of the reality.

Norway isn't in thr EU and most of their people prefer it that way.

Yep I know, some fools down here beleive you will someday understand their point. They don't realise how stubborn you are.

Yet, still no more separate than 1759. You lose. Again. :lol:

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Solitudes_(Canadian_society)

Really. A term from a novel, embellished by a volunteer victim mentality that Michelle Jean herself declared over. The myth is over. Crack open some Canadian history books and learn about your real country, your real nation.

Being wrong is a tradition you hold on tight to your heart.

I remember: 1759.

Molly · May 10, 2011

I agree with an earlier poster who described Canada as multi national(First, French, and English) but Quebec it self is a province. IMO it doesn't deserve special arrangements over other provinces and to expand on that it disturbs me that Franco Ontarians, Franco Manitobans, Arcadians are ignored in the modern political landscape. So overall I think we need to deal with the serious issues that both first and french nations have with the way our country works.

That's every bit as offensive to me as Benz's two nations definition.

My forebears were not English, nor French, nor Aboriginal and neither am I, but I'm every bloody bit as Canadian as anyone who happens to be any or all of those things. Moreso, because my nationality- my loyalty- isn't hyphenated or conditional.

You guys don't get to tell me that your greater loyalty to some other 'nation' makes you more valuable to this one. I say that it makes you less valuable.

Triple M · May 10, 2011

I was born outside of this country but I see my self as part of an English Canada due to going through those institutions.

Evening Star · May 10, 2011

You can repeat that lie forever, it will never become true.

Well, how is it false that Quebec is a province of Canada, like the others? Doesn't it say so in the 1867 Constitution (BNA) Act, which is legally binding and received Quebec's assent at the time? You might wish to change this situation, and you have the right to wish this, but that doesn't seem to make it a lie.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Evening Star

cybercoma · May 10, 2011

Of course Quebec is a province just like the others. Isn't that the whole point that's causing the problem? Many in Quebec feel that the province is sufficiently unique in ethnicity and culture to distinguish it from being "just another province". As a case in point, they use the Civil Code. It's not really up for debate that their culture and society is sufficiently unique, while the other provinces share more similarities than differences. I don't see why it's so hard to understand why they want their sovereignty.

Edited May 10, 2011 by cybercoma

Shwa · May 10, 2011

Of course Quebec is a province just like the others. Isn't that the whole point that's causing the problem? Many in Quebec feel that the province is sufficiently unique in ethnicity and culture to distinguish it from being "just another province". As a case in point, they use the Civil Code. It's not really up for debate that their culture and society is sufficiently unique, while the other provinces share more similarities than differences. I don't see why it's so hard to understand why they want their sovereignty.

Nunavut is a territory. It separated from the Northwest Territories because of it's unique ethnicity, culture and cultural codes. How is Nunavut like the "other provinces?"

Your argument fails because Quebec has it's sovereignty - as a sovereign territory with the nation of Canada. Not so hard to understand at all.

Evening Star · May 10, 2011

Many in Quebec feel that the province is sufficiently unique in ethnicity and culture to distinguish it from being "just another province". As a case in point, they use the Civil Code. It's not really up for debate that their culture and society is sufficiently unique, while the other provinces share more similarities than differences.

Sufficiently unique for what? I'm not sure this is undebatable.

And whose ethnicity and culture are we talking about? Does it include mine, given that I lived in Montreal at one time and might move back some time? Is Quebec's unique identity based in the ethnicity and culture of the Jewish anglophones who mostly populated the neighbourhood where I lived? The Caribbean-Canadian community who were predominant in a nearby neighbourhood? My close friend, a bilingual Laotian-Canadian who has lived in Montreal all her life?

RNG · May 10, 2011

Nunavut is a territory. It separated from the Northwest Territories because of it's unique ethnicity, culture and cultural codes. How is Nunavut like the "other provinces?"

Your argument fails because Quebec has it's sovereignty - as a sovereign territory with the nation of Canada. Not so hard to understand at all.

I was born in Saskatchewan, lived there quite a while and still have many relatives there. I then lived in Alberta for years. Unfortunately I now have to be in the Greater Vancouver area. And all three of those provinces are different from each other. There are different cultures in each.

Molly · May 10, 2011

I was born in Saskatchewan, lived there quite a while and still have many relatives there. I then lived in Alberta for years. Unfortunately I now have to be in the Greater Vancouver area. And all three of those provinces are different from each other. There are different cultures in each.

I've moved from Saskatchewan to Ontario. Anyone who thinks those two have any cultural similarity is ..... unencumbered by reality. Those two are different planets.

As easy as it is for Benz to dismiss all of Canada outside Quebec as being blandly uniformly 'other', someone from the west looks east and sees a single shade of foreign beige; folks from Newfoundland shake heads at mainlanders; folks from the north see the ignorant monolithic south...

Beige is the colour of our own insularity.

Molly · May 11, 2011

I was born outside of this country but I see my self as part of an English Canada due to going through those institutions.

I was born here. I see English 'institutions' in Ontario, and on Vancouver Island, and in the projects of a few smug remittance men and crooks with old world connections.

English is a language of convenience. 'English Canada' is... is a non-definition. It means nothing at all-- certainly not culture, and when it comes down to it, not even language, because it applies equally to my Polish, Norwegian and German-speaking neighbours as it does to actual speakers of English, or people of English ancestry.

I find it unfortunate that you would buy into such a misleading insulting and fundamentally false self-label.

g_bambino · May 11, 2011

Many in Quebec feel that the province is sufficiently unique in ethnicity and culture to distinguish it from being "just another province".

Quebec isn't culturally monolithic, and what makes Quebec any more unique than Newfoundland or Nunavut, anyway? "I'm more unique than you" is just the kind of childish upmanship one doesn't want in a federation.

ninjandrew · May 11, 2011

Quebec isn't culturally monolithic, and what makes Quebec any more unique than Newfoundland or Nunavut, anyway? "I'm more unique than you" is just the kind of childish upmanship one doesn't want in a federation.

I agreed with that perspective before I read your post. Now I agree even more.

pegasus · May 11, 2011

Quebec has an "us and them" approach to their political thinking. Its driven in by the press. Canada Anglais vs. Quebec Francais is written about almost everyday in the province's major newspapers, Le Journal de Quebec and Le Journal de Montreal. Le Devoir is the only Federalist, French language newspaper in the province. Le Soleil, here in Quebec City, tries to be more federalist, but many times I note articles with a tinge of a soverignist bias. Le Devoir is only printed in Montreal and costs more to buy here in Quebec City than in Montreal

Also Le Journal de Quebec and Le Journal de Montreal are owned by Quebecor, who also owns Videotron and also owns TVA. TVA is the highest rated news station in the province and Le Journal de Quebec and Le Journal de Montreal have the highest circulation in the province. I hope people are beginning to get a picture here. Its one of the reasons that there was an article in the political pages of the Journal de Quebec this morning about privatizing the CBC. The CBC is Pierre Peladeau's main competition, and if the CBC were to go private, Pierre would crush it.

Edited May 11, 2011 by pegasus

Evening Star · May 11, 2011

Whenever someone starts using "ethnicity" as an essential defining quality of the "uniqueness" of a particular political jurisdiction, giant warning lights should start flashing...

cybercoma · May 11, 2011

Nunavut is a territory. It separated from the Northwest Territories because of it's unique ethnicity, culture and cultural codes. How is Nunavut like the "other provinces?"

It's not. It's a territory.

Your argument fails because Quebec has it's sovereignty - as a sovereign territory with the nation of Canada. Not so hard to understand at all.

It's not a sovereign territory. It's a province like every other.

Smallc · May 11, 2011

It's not a sovereign territory. It's a province like every other.

Provinces are very much sovereign in their own right. They aren't sovereign in the sense of a country, but they're still sovereign and they still have widespread jurisdiction.