Manning gives two cents on 'Quebecois' nation

[Leafless]

"Recognizing the Quebecois form a nation without defining what it means is a dangerous move that could harm national unity, says former Reform leader Preston Manning."

And Mr. manning also said: "But if the phrase really leads directly or indirectly through the courts to conferring powers and benefits on Quebec not conferred on the other provinces then you've got a divisive situation again."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...8a8eafd&k=17425

Wikipedia also does not clarify the 'Quebecois' definition any better:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

But the real problem is how can Quebec ever be legally declared any kind of a 'nation' since the province also contains a significant number of plain Quebecers who might not want to associate their 'Quebecer' identity or support to the 'Quebecois'.

[seabee]

But the real problem is how can Quebec ever be legally declared any kind of a 'nation' since the province also contains a significant number of plain Quebecers who might not want to associate their 'Quebecer' identity or support to the 'Quebecois'.

In Québec, nearly half of its citizens do not want to associate their "Canadian" identity or support to the "Canadians". That's about 10% of the population of Canada. They have over 50 MPs representing them in the Commons. Does that mean that Canada is not a nation?

[seabee]

In Canada, the people who lived there before the Europeans came are called "First Nations". Should this not mean that the province of Québec should no longer be called a province but a "reservation"?

[geoffrey]

But the real problem is how can Quebec ever be legally declared any kind of a 'nation' since the province also contains a significant number of plain Quebecers who might not want to associate their 'Quebecer' identity or support to the 'Quebecois'.

In Québec, nearly half of its citizens do not want to associate their "Canadian" identity or support to the "Canadians". That's about 10% of the population of Canada. They have over 50 MPs representing them in the Commons. Does that mean that Canada is not a nation?

Canada cannot be defined as a nation, no.

To add to this, suprisingly Stalin has the most accurate definition of nation I could find, "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

That is not Canada.

[mikedavid00]

But the real problem is how can Quebec ever be legally declared any kind of a 'nation' since the province also contains a significant number of plain Quebecers who might not want to associate their 'Quebecer' identity or support to the 'Quebecois'.

In Québec, nearly half of its citizens do not want to associate their "Canadian" identity or support to the "Canadians". That's about 10% of the population of Canada. They have over 50 MPs representing them in the Commons. Does that mean that Canada is not a nation?

Canada cannot be defined as a nation, no.

To add to this, suprisingly Stalin has the most accurate definition of nation I could find, "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

That is not Canada.

I do believe that is Quebec though. I beleive French Canadians have their own culture and nation.

[geoffrey]

I do believe that is Quebec though. I beleive French Canadians have their own culture and nation.

Quebec is more than Quebecois, the Quebecois are a nation, Quebec is not.

[Remiel]

That doesn't exactly describe Switzerland either, but it doesn't mean that Switzerland isn't a succesful country.

Does Canada really need to be a single nation to be a great country? Not really. The purpose of a nation and the purpose of a country are two different things. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we can put this seperation business behind us and worry about being a succesful country.

[geoffrey]

That doesn't exactly describe Switzerland either, but it doesn't mean that Switzerland isn't a succesful country.

Does Canada really need to be a single nation to be a great country? Not really. The purpose of a nation and the purpose of a country are two different things. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we can put this seperation business behind us and worry about being a succesful country.

We should just realise that we are a good economic union and serve no benefit past that besides icing the best international hockey teams.

[Remiel]

Is that sarcasm I detect? I was not suggesting that at all. The country still has responsibilities to its constituent nations. The country and the nations may not be the same thing, but neither are they unrelated.

[seabee]

The purpose of a nation and the purpose of a country are two different things. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we can put this seperation business behind us and worry about being a succesful country.

What happens when nations within a country are at odds with each other? That definitely should raise doubts about the country becoming "sucesful" with its different nations fighting each other.

[geoffrey]

Is that sarcasm I detect? I was not suggesting that at all. The country still has responsibilities to its constituent nations. The country and the nations may not be the same thing, but neither are they unrelated.

That same approach led to the first World War. There can only be peace (whether in terms of violence or political) when people are ruled by those with the same interests at their constituents.

[mikedavid00]

I do believe that is Quebec though. I beleive French Canadians have their own culture and nation.

Quebec is more than Quebecois, the Quebecois are a nation, Quebec is not.

I agree.

Also, to show that i'm the real multi-cultural one here, my fiance is from Montreal born and raised.

We drive from Toronto down to Montreal often. We sat during the Jazz festival last summer on a patio (because you can smoke on patio's in MTL) and there was a French Canadian girl Jodi.. or Julie or Josie or something like that. She kissed me on cheeks when saying by. French are very personable, very friendly people.

When I first started dating my fiane a couple years back, I would sit in the car in traffic and I would be like 'I HATE Toronto!'. She would agree. I would say I HATE Ontario. She would agree.

So one day.. I thought.. hmmm... So we're in the care on a nice day just driving down the street and I'm like "Quebec SUCKS!' and she was like "HEY!! TAKE THAT BACK!" It was funny. Sometimes I'll be downstairs and say semi-loud "Montreal Sucks!" and all the way from upstairs I'll hear "HEYYY!!"

And despite her high taxes, and despite her socialism/communist ways, I shall always adore the clean washrooms, her cheap beer, the lovely french culture in Quebec! I head over the Jean Cartier brdige and head onto Rene Levec blvd and then to a cafe where you can smoke and listen to jazz.

I do find Quebec to be the best place in Canada. I'll go on the record as saying that.

I highly recommend you see this below to fully appreciate what I'm saying:

http://www.bloc.org/archivage/heureusement_pub1.wmv

[geoffrey]

http://www.bloc.org/archivage/heureusement_pub1.wmv

Pfftt... we have better skiing.

[Remiel]

And here I could of sworn that Bismarck dropping those papers on the floor of the Reichstag was a major event leading up to World War I.

[geoffrey]

And here I could of sworn that Bismarck dropping those papers on the floor of the Reichstag was a major event leading up to World War I.

Let's look at the root causes.... hmmm... ethno-nationalism (in more than just Germany)... hmmm...

Not saying that will happen in Canada. But, the tension is there. There is no reason for Canada to be ruled centrally be people mostly disinterested in the majorities life. It only takes 40% to win a sizeable majority in Canada. Just need a couple of special interests or ethnicities and your set. That's silly.

[Leafless]

But the real problem is how can Quebec ever be legally declared any kind of a 'nation' since the province also contains a significant number of plain Quebecers who might not want to associate their 'Quebecer' identity or support to the 'Quebecois'.

In Québec, nearly half of its citizens do not want to associate their "Canadian" identity or support to the "Canadians". That's about 10% of the population of Canada. They have over 50 MPs representing them in the Commons. Does that mean that Canada is not a nation?

Canada is a country and Quebec is a province.

But I would argue with your numbers as a recent poll of QUEBECERS indicates 64% think Quebec is a NATION as compared to all other Canadian provinces, approx. 77%, that Quebec does not form a nation.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13962

But notice that the poll indicates Quebecers and not Quebecois.

So the terminology is wrong again as Mr. Harper said: "Harper said Quebec forms a nation within Canada, but does not and should never form an independent society, he said. " This is contrary to the motion Bloc leader Mr. Duceppe introduced: "On Nov. 23, Bloc Québécois leader Giles Duceppe introduced a motion to declare that Quebecers form a nation "that is currently within Canada."

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper (centre) receives a standing ovation as he introduces a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within Canada during a speech in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday Nov. 22, 2006."

Notice Mr. Harper said "Quebecers" and not 'Quebecois' which is your definition (Quebecois) pertaining to 10% of the population.

I think it is clear that Quebec is looking for legal status pertaining to Quebec as a nation. Once that is achieved it is apparent concerning the powers Quebec already possess, could qualify it for the legal status of a country.

Mr. Mannings warning is accurate and I agree this 'nation' business does nothing for the unity of Canada and has the potential to destroy Canada and any talk of Quebec as a 'nation' should be discouraged by the Conservatives.

[geoffrey]

realise

That's "realize", Geoffrey ... tsk tsk tsk ...

Not in my country.

[jbg]

That doesn't exactly describe Switzerland either, but it doesn't mean that Switzerland isn't a succesful country.

Does Canada really need to be a single nation to be a great country? Not really. The purpose of a nation and the purpose of a country are two different things. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we can put this seperation business behind us and worry about being a succesful country.

For once I agree with Remiel. The US, as a melting pot, is many nations, and yet one.