One Canada, two nations

[Leafless]

"'That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada'

Yeahs: 266 Nays: 16"

-----------------------------------------------

Gutless politicians continue to play with rights that should be Canadians right in the way of a national referendum whether or no to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada.

Michael Chong, the minister of intergovernmental affairs and sport, resigned in protest and charged Harper's recognition of Quebec smacks of "ethnic nationalism" and believes Canada should be "one nation undivided".

It seems Mr. Chong is one of the few politicians that recognize Canada as the only official entity representing 'all of Canada and all of Canadians.

Good show Mr. Chong!

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...64f&k=47263

[MightyAC]

Chong's riding is adjacent to that of Garth Turner. Why do Halton area Conservatives seem to care more about their constituents than most? Are the voters more vocal? Maybe it is because both men won as Conservatives in the heart of Liberal-land. The surrounding sea of red and perceived tenuous hold on voters may force these guys to listen, instead of dictate to their peeps... Anyway, it sure is nice that some voters are respected, maybe it will continue to spread from riding to riding.

Anyway, this thread exists here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=7344

[Remiel]

Only two? Well, there is the Quebec Nation, the Acadian Nation, dozens or hundreds of First Nations, the Canadian Nation... I count at least four, and that is if you tallied First Nations as being a single whole. When was the last time you accused someone of being non-Canadian because of their Acadianness?

A while back there I saw a piece on CPAC featuring a university class at McGill (I think) that had a panel of guests talking about nations. They pointed our, quite rightly, that there are many, MANY examples in the world of nations without countries.

[MightyAC]

Aye...UK, Great Brittain, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales are a good example..

In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In the English language, the terms do have precise meanings, but in daily speech and writing they are often used interchangeably, and are open to different interpretations.

In the strict sense, terms such as nation, ethnos, and 'people' (as in 'the Danish people') denominate a group of human beings. The concepts of nation and nationality have much in common with ethnic group and ethnicity, but have a more political connotation, since they imply the possibility of a nation-state. Country denominates a geographical territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative and decision-making institution. Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical terms applying to states. International law, for instances, applies to relations between states, and occasionally between states on the one side, and individuals or legal persons on the other. Likewise, the United Nations represent states, while nations are not admitted to the body (unless a respective nation-state exists, which can become a member).

Usage also varies from country to country. As an example, the United Kingdom is an internationally recognised sovereign state, which is also referred to as a country and whose inhabitants have British nationality. It is however traditionally divided into four home nations - England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Three of these are not sovereign states, but Ireland is now divided into the sovereign Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, which remains part of the United Kingdom. The current status, in any case, is controversial and disputed, since there are secessionist movements in Scotland and Wales, and for example, Cornwall is considered by some to be a separate nation, within the country of England. Usage of the term nation is not only ambiguous, it is also the subject of political disputes, which may be extremely violent. When the term 'nation' has any implications of claims to independence from an existing state, its use is controversial.

I point out this thread is a duplicate and then I post again...what a hypocrite.

[Leafless]

Aye...UK, Great Brittain, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales are a good example..

In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In the English language, the terms do have precise meanings, but in daily speech and writing they are often used interchangeably, and are open to different interpretations.

In the strict sense, terms such as nation, ethnos, and 'people' (as in 'the Danish people') denominate a group of human beings. The concepts of nation and nationality have much in common with ethnic group and ethnicity, but have a more political connotation, since they imply the possibility of a nation-state. Country denominates a geographical territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative and decision-making institution. Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical terms applying to states. International law, for instances, applies to relations between states, and occasionally between states on the one side, and individuals or legal persons on the other. Likewise, the United Nations represent states, while nations are not admitted to the body (unless a respective nation-state exists, which can become a member).

Usage also varies from country to country. As an example, the United Kingdom is an internationally recognised sovereign state, which is also referred to as a country and whose inhabitants have British nationality. It is however traditionally divided into four home nations - England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Three of these are not sovereign states, but Ireland is now divided into the sovereign Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, which remains part of the United Kingdom. The current status, in any case, is controversial and disputed, since there are secessionist movements in Scotland and Wales, and for example, Cornwall is considered by some to be a separate nation, within the country of England. Usage of the term nation is not only ambiguous, it is also the subject of political disputes, which may be extremely violent. When the term 'nation' has any implications of claims to independence from an existing state, its use is controversial.

I point out this thread is a duplicate and then I post again...what a hypocrite.

This thread is not a duplicate as the one you quote lacks credibility with NO link or quotes.

To post this in the middle of another thread that got off on the wrong foot makes no sense.

But in reply to your post you are confusing 'nation' terminology with different definitions pertaining to a majority and minority language. Which begs to answer another question:' In a country that the majority language is English, is this not the language that in fact ALL definitions should be derived from?

Are you as naive to assume Quebec wants nothing more then the Nothing definition Harper and company gave it?

If you are familiar with the origins of this country, Canadians did not fight for this country. It was given to us by British.

If you recognize that fact, surely you must recognize no political party in Canada should have the right to initially muddle with the original BNA Act without participation of ALL Canadians in the form of referendums.

[Who's Doing What?]

So the Qeubecois are a nation.

What about the Anglophone nation?

The Chinese nation?

The Ukrainian Nation?

The Russian Nation?

The Italian Nation?

The Greek nation?

The Indian Nation?

The Pakistani Nation?

The Polish Nation?

The German Nation?

The Vietnamese Nation?

Maybe Women should have their own nation?

Surely that would piss of The Muslim Nation?

We would need a Jewish nation too.

I see a can of worms being open here.

[MightyAC]

This thread is not a duplicate as the one you quote lacks credibility with NO link or quotes.

To post this in the middle of another thread that got off on the wrong foot makes no sense.

But in reply to your post you are confusing 'nation' terminology with different definitions pertaining to a majority and minority language. Which begs to answer another question:' In a country that the majority language is English, is this not the language that in fact ALL definitions should be derived from?

Are you as naive to assume Quebec wants nothing more then the Nothing definition Harper and company gave it?

If you are familiar with the origins of this country, Canadians did not fight for this country. It was given to us by British.

If you recognize that fact, surely you must recognize no political party in Canada should have the right to initially muddle with the original BNA Act without participation of ALL Canadians in the form of referendums.

1. The term Nation is vague. Ignatief and Harper were playing with the vague definition as a tool to gain support in Quebec. They sold the motion to the rest of Canada as a meaningless symbolic gesture. Gilles is walking around with a perma-smile and a woody these days because he knows that despite the vagueness of the term it is a step in his quest for a completely sepparate republic.

I think this is the start of the degeneration of the Country Canada into more of a banner heading like UK. I think Canada will eventually just be a geographical reference to a group of nations.

2. Your last point does not make any sense at all. Aknowledging the fact that our country was born in a document instead of a war does not mean we need direct democracy for any constitutional changes. So based on your logic if the colonists actually picked a fight with the loyalits it would then be ok for politicians to make constitutional changes on behalf of the people?

I do have a problem with what took place though. Informal polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Canadians opposed what took place yesterday but our so-called representatives voted overwhelmingly in favour. Moves like this will just create even more political apathy in a country that barely has a political pulse as is. When talking with my friends and co-workers about political issues it's amazing how often I hear remarks like "Why do we even vote, nobody listens?", "Same shit different party", "There's nothing we can do, they do whatever they want anyway", etc

[Technocrat]

(if you can't tell im in a strange mood tonight)

clearly i was... post was removed due to drunkeness

[jbg]

This is admittedly a close call. The Poles are clearly not a separate nation from the rest of Canada. On the other hand, the French formed approximately 50% of the population at the time of the Plains of Abraham battle. A journey to points northeast of Quebec City that I took clearly reveals a very different looking nation than a journey I took from Toronto to Huntsville to Algonquin Park. The former looks like rural France; chickens running loose on roads, unilingual French restaurant menus, etc. The signs in the latter are all in Canadian, with no French, except at post offices.

One doesn't feel like you're in the same country. However, the economic advantages of union are great. Further, there are plenty of people in Quebec, including some Francophones, who would not trust theh protections of an "independent" Quebec. They consider themselves Canadian citizens. Their ancestors immigrated to Canada, not to Quebec. That is the bargain; it should and must be kept.

[August1991]

On the other hand, the French formed approximately 50% of the population at the time of the Plains of Abraham battle.

50%? More like 90%, but it depends how you define Canada.

Leafless, quite apart from nations, will you admit that Canada has two languages?

[Who's Doing What?]

Go to downtown Toronto and you will find out Canada has a multitude of languages.

Heck just the different aboriginal languages would put the number into double digits.

[August1991]

Go to downtown Toronto and you will find out Canada has a multitude of languages.

Heck just the different aboriginal languages would put the number into double digits.

But if you want to succeed in Toronto, get a place in Rosedale, be somebody, you have to learn English. More, you have to be part of this "nation" called "English-Canada" or ROC.

Gerard Kennedy was born in Manitoba, worked in Alberta and was a cabinet minister in Ontario. John Crosbie made a political career in Newfoundland and then was a potential federal leader. Kennedy and Crosbie are unknown in Quebec, just as Julie Snyder or Lise Payette are unknown in English-Canada.

It's no big deal.

Canada is a single country. We can all (maybe) live together. But if we do, don't expect that we're going to be an American, French flag-waving single liberty, fraternity nation. We're not.

[scribblet]

Does anyone find this statement by Phil Fontaine (Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations)a little puzzling, to say the least not to mention a double standard and hypocritical.

"Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don't do nation building in this way."

[jbg]

Does anyone find this statement by Phil Fontaine (Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations)a little puzzling, to say the least not to mention a double standard and hypocritical.

"Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don't do nation building in this way."

That means they don't trust the French.

[Liam]

I read about this vote in the Boston Globe the other day but didn't get an opportunity to read the entire article. Could someone explain to me what is the significance/ramifications of naming Quebec a nation within Canada? Does it give them the ability to exercise legislative power that other provinces lack? Does it give them the right to secede?

[MightyAC]

I read about this vote in the Boston Globe the other day but didn't get an opportunity to read the entire article. Could someone explain to me what is the significance/ramifications of naming Quebec a nation within Canada? Does it give them the ability to exercise legislative power that other provinces lack? Does it give them the right to secede?

As of right now it is simply a symbolic title. This motion replaces the previous symbolic label of "Distinct Society" with "Nation". Harper and the Conservatives are trying to sell this move to the rest of Canada as a meaningless gesture that should keep Quebec quiet for awhile. In Quebec he is trying to gain votes by pretending to care about their distinct language and culture.

The problem is the separatists believe, and rightly so, that being labeled a nation within Canada puts them one big step closer to becoming a separate republic like say Ireland.

I personally believe that Harper and the Conservatives with help from the opposition just started the process that will dismantle Canada as a country. Canada, in time, will be like the UK or Great Britain...just a geographic reference to a land mass containing separate republics.

[g_bambino]

As of right now it is simply a symbolic title. This motion replaces the previous symbolic label of "Distinct Society" with "Nation". Harper and the Conservatives are trying to sell this move to the rest of Canada as a meaningless gesture that should keep Quebec quiet for awhile. In Quebec he is trying to gain votes by pretending to care about their distinct language and culture.

The problem is the separatists believe, and rightly so, that being labeled a nation within Canada puts them one big step closer to becoming a separate republic like say Ireland.

I personally believe that Harper and the Conservatives with help from the opposition just started the process that will dismantle Canada as a country. Canada, in time, will be like the UK or Great Britain...just a geographic reference to a land mass containing separate republics.

The thing is, Québécois haven't officially been labelled as anything. What was voted on was simply a motion - it will never go to the Senate and will never receive Royal Assent. All it means is that in the opinion of the House, Québécois (note, not Quebecers, or Quebec) form a nation within a united Canada. The whole thing is symbolic to the extreme, and while certainly the separatist cause is built almost entirely on symbolism, this gesture by the House is both vague enough to give the sovereigntists very little to build on, while being clear enough to establish that the current elected representatives of the Canadian citizenry agree almost unanimously that the Québécois are a distinct element of a larger whole. Of course, everyone knew this already - Quebec has been a distinct element of a larger whole since the Treaty of Paris in 1763 - which is why this whole thing is just purely emblematic.

[Who's Doing What?]

But if you want to succeed in Toronto, get a place in Rosedale, be somebody, you have to learn English. More, you have to be part of this "nation" called "English-Canada" or ROC.

Plenty of people live and do well in Toronto with only very limited English. You do not need to be fluent in English(or French for that matter) to succeed.

I had a teacher who had worked in a mechanical engineering firm in Toronto. Language of choice in the office?

German.

[Spike22]

Nation within a nation within a nation is that what the henglish and da natives inside Kweebec are going to call demselves eh?

[cybercoma]

On the other hand, the French formed approximately 50% of the population at the time of the Plains of Abraham battle.

50%? More like 90%, but it depends how you define Canada.

Leafless, quite apart from nations, will you admit that Canada has two languages?

Canada has far more than two languages. It has one language that the vast majority of the population understands and several languages ony a fraction of the country understands; one of which demands more attention from the government and others.

[Topaz]

Well we all,know who started this debate and if this guy gets in as leader of the Liberals, I bet they will lose alot of liberal votes come election time. This guy, I feel, is nothing but a trouble maker and anyone who votes for him ,believes in the Iraq war and GW Bush!!

[Technocrat]

Im ready to become a card carrying member of the Liberal Party (im not dead set on any one party really but i would like to become involved in one just to see what actually happens @ the grassroots level). The only condition I have placed on my membership is that I will not join if Iggy is the leader after this weekend. IMHO if iIgy wins Harper will win the next election, anyone else becomes leader and Harper moves to the opposition.

[August1991]

But if you want to succeed in Toronto, get a place in Rosedale, be somebody, you have to learn English. More, you have to be part of this "nation" called "English-Canada" or ROC.

Plenty of people live and do well in Toronto with only very limited English. You do not need to be fluent in English(or French for that matter) to succeed.

I had a teacher who had worked in a mechanical engineering firm in Toronto. Language of choice in the office?

German.

Right. A unilingual German-speaker is going to be a winner in Toronto, have a wife who's quoted in the Toronto Star, get invited to charity auctions. Even if he's rich, he'll be out of the loop. (Frank Stronach learned English.)

---

Stephen Harper is a white-bread, anglophone, Protestant from Leaside, Toronto, Calgary who learned to speak accented French because he grew up under Trudeau. He understands Canada enough to introduce the motion about les Quebecois.

Harper's motion, viewed from Quebec, is remarkably sensible.

Canada has two "linguistic communities". Unlike 100 years ago, Canada no longer divides along religious lines: Catholic and protestant. We now divide on language. There is an entire world in French, in Canada, that most English-speaking Canadians have no knowledge of. It's a parallel universe. Moreover, it happens that most francophones live in Quebec.

Harper's motion simply recognizes this fact, obvious for over 200 years. Despite Andrew Coyne's slogan, Canada is not a nation and can never be one. Nationalism would tear Canada apart. Canada works best when people are not forced to choose between "Canada" and what they are.

Pierre Trudeau did a great service to a federal Canada because he managed, for English-Canada, the shift in Quebec from religion to language, and he brought the French language to Ottawa. (Trudeau managed the Quiet Revolution. God, I hate PC vocabulary.)

Trudeau perhaps unfortunately gave the impression to some English-Canadians that Canada was a single nation, a single entity. On the contrary, Trudeau was a federalist.

I know that "English-Canadians" hate this implied "duality". They hate the idea that Quebec tries to be one side of a coin when the other side is so much bigger, and so much more diverse.

In fact, there are two linguistic sides. People live complete, successful lives in two different languages in Canada. Canada is a country with two universes. Harper's motion recognizes that fact, respects it, states that we all have a say in any change and then requires nothing of anyone. It isn't a constitutional amendment.

I cannot believe that anyone in English Canada would oppose what Harper has done. (I'm not saying this out of partisanship. On many days, I would prefer that other Quebecers give up on this obvious nonsense and this beau risque.) If Canada is to work as a single country, then the only way to do it is as Harper has suggested. Otherwise, let's change things. Really?

America should be thankful that it has such a civilized neighbour as Canada. English-Canada should be thankful that it has such a civilized partner as Quebec.

[geoffrey]

Well August, I see it this way. Either he extends that card to all areas of Canada, for example the west, or just give up. You can't have it only half way, picking and choosing the minorities that have nations and the other that should just fall in line.

Language, though important, is only one measure of culture. Like I've said, being in the west is significantly more different than Toronto to Montreal in terms of people's individualism and belief in various political concepts. Does that deserve a different nation? What does? When and how do we decide?

I'm ok with Canada two different ways. Either we go the nationalism route, which will likely lead, as you've suggested, to it's end... or we just end it now as a nation and go on being a economic federation, merely a collection of states that co-operate economically... EU style almost.

Canada is huge, too big and too diverse to govern centrally. Harper may have made an ok move here, but only if he extends it too all provinces, and recongises provincial sovereignty over all cultural issues.

Quebec should also be thankful to have a civilized partner as English-Canada, in most places of the world Quebec nationalism would be crushed with military force.

[blueblood]

But if you want to succeed in Toronto, get a place in Rosedale, be somebody, you have to learn English. More, you have to be part of this "nation" called "English-Canada" or ROC.

Plenty of people live and do well in Toronto with only very limited English. You do not need to be fluent in English(or French for that matter) to succeed.

I had a teacher who had worked in a mechanical engineering firm in Toronto. Language of choice in the office?

German.

Right. A unilingual German-speaker is going to be a winner in Toronto, have a wife who's quoted in the Toronto Star, get invited to charity auctions. Even if he's rich, he'll be out of the loop. (Frank Stronach learned English.)

---

Stephen Harper is a white-bread, anglophone, Protestant from Leaside, Toronto, Calgary who learned to speak accented French because he grew up under Trudeau. He understands Canada enough to introduce the motion about les Quebecois.

Harper's motion, viewed from Quebec, is remarkably sensible.

Canada has two "linguistic communities". Unlike 100 years ago, Canada no longer divides along religious lines: Catholic and protestant. We now divide on language. There is an entire world in French, in Canada, that most English-speaking Canadians have no knowledge of. It's a parallel universe. Moreover, it happens that most francophones live in Quebec.

Harper's motion simply recognizes this fact, obvious for over 200 years. Canada is not a nation because nationalism would tear Canada apart.

Pierre Trudeau did a great service to a federal Canada because he managed the shift for English-Canada in Quebec from religion to language, and he brought the French language to Ottawa. He perhaps unfortunately gave the impression to some English-Canadians that Canada was a single nation, a single entity. On the contrary, Trudeau was a federalist.

I know that "English-Canadians" hate this implied "duality". They hate the idea that Quebec tries to be one side of a coin when the other side is so much bigger, and so much more diverse.

In fact, there are two linguistic sides. People live complete, successful lives in two different languages in Canada. Canada is a country with two universes. Harper's motion recognizes that fact, respects it, states that we all have a say in any change and then requires nothing of anyone. It isn't a constitutional amendment.

I cannot believe that anyone in English Canada would oppose what Harper has done. (I'm not saying this out of partisanship. On many days, I would prefer that other Quebecers give up on this obvious nonsense and this beau risque.) If Canada is to work as a single country, then the only way to do it is as Harper has suggested. Otherwise, let's change things. Really?

America should be thankful that it has such a civilized neighbour as Canada. English-Canada should be thankful that it has such a civilized partner as Quebec.

hmmm, there is also an entire rural world inside Canada that most urban people don't have much knowledge of, there is an entire multitude of worlds in Canada, what makes Quebec's so special? It's not like English Canada is trying to take anything away from you guys which might be contrary to some beliefs, we do know your different, good for you, if quebecers are that insecure that they need parliament to say that they are a nation that's not saying very much. It is the fact that you guys are going to parliament with these demands and threats that anger english canada. We were under the belief that everyone is equal and no one is more equal than anyone else. To be completely fair Harper can recognize all the groups in Parliament then too, what would you say to that? this is like a gay pride parade, yah your gay and proud of it good for you, get out of the street and quit plugging up traffic and get on with your lives.

here's a parallel, if Quebec is say a Dodge Truck, and the other groups of Canada other brands of Trucks with White Anglo Protestant being Chevy. Canada is equated with Trucks in general, are we all not Trucks and part of a much larger world of automobiles?

Im in agreement with you that Quebec is different, but I don't think it was something to make a big deal about. What I don't see is that since everyone knows you are different why do you guys need parliament to formally recognize it, and why not sign the constitution and put all this nonsense to rest. Rick Mercer was bang on with his latest rant.