Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Independant Nation in United Canada

meb999
November 28th, 2006, 08:06 PM
So what do you think about the vote that passed yesterday on the 'québécois' being an independant nation inside united Canada. Did Stephen Harper put oil on the seperatist fire or did he appease them?

Remember to keep this civil, I know political thread usually get closed because they get nasty, but I'm really interested in your opinions....just remember that we all have different ones, and we are all open minded enough not to spit on someone elses opinions http://foolstown.com/sm/kap.gif

Frenchy
November 28th, 2006, 08:09 PM
Everything will probably stay the same right ? If my taxes (tps/tvq) doesn't go down,I really don't care....

jiorji
November 28th, 2006, 08:10 PM
will they still be dependent on Canada or sepparated?

I don't follow politics, but Quebec on its own economically wouldn't do very well

Prin
November 28th, 2006, 08:19 PM
It depends. Am I Quebecois or not? ;)

meb999
November 28th, 2006, 08:20 PM
They are not independant...not really....yesterday a motion was voted in that Quebec be declared an independant nation INSIDE united Canada. What does that mean? Not a heck of alot. BUT I think it gives serious amunition to the Bloc to say : 'see? Even the federalists know we're a nation. So let's become one!!' I think we can expect a rise in seperatism...:shrug:

Prin
November 28th, 2006, 08:26 PM
No they mean it in the political science way, not in the country way. I hope Qc doesn't leave Canada... :fingerscr

meb999
November 28th, 2006, 08:30 PM
yeah, so do I....especially since I've just chosen a career that can ONLY be practised here :frustrated: :o

erykah1310
November 28th, 2006, 08:38 PM
See and I have always wondered what the big deal with Quebec wanting to seperate was?? I dont see what the point would be??

Like northern ontario wanting to seperate from ontario ( big thing on the news here a few weeks ago) and join Saskatchewan or something :confused: I dont get it... Atleast if that happened that whole crappy Pitbull thing would be over with for the time being up here, but I dont get it. They were saying that we loose too many jobs and mills because southern ontario doesnt care about us or something....

You know there is a problem with Canada as a whole if all the provinces want to sepperate all the time....

mummummum
November 28th, 2006, 08:39 PM
Take pity on someone who doesn't watch TV and has no time right now for print media and can't be bothered at the moment to search for my own answer :D ....

Was the wording of the motion : a recognition of the independent nation of Quebec within a united Canada or: a recognition of the independent Quebecois nation within a united Canada ?

Either way they are steps down a slippery slope, one is simply further than the other.

meb999
November 28th, 2006, 08:42 PM
that's the problem...they used québécois...

meb999
November 28th, 2006, 08:43 PM
very slipery indeed....

Frenchy
November 28th, 2006, 08:44 PM
If we separate I'm moving to Rainbow's place in BC :D

Prin
November 28th, 2006, 09:06 PM
They used Quebecois, because a people can't separate.. A land can.;) (So they think)

rainbow
November 28th, 2006, 09:06 PM
Smart move, Frenchy. :thumbs up :D

mummummum
November 28th, 2006, 09:31 PM
You heard Rainbow Frenchy ~ Get packin' ~ I'll drive !

I can't imagine what possible good Harpo thinks he will accomplish with this motion unless of course he is quietly determined to push the Bloc into another holding referendum and in doing so push Quebec out the door ~ which wouldn't surprize me either.

rainbow
November 28th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Me either. :eek:

mafiaprincess
November 29th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Quebec seems to want the benefits of being part of Canada.. sharing money passports etc, without any of the pitfalls.
Which is why when true separation comes up, push come to shove, that's not exactly what is wanted since they'd be takign their share of the national debt with them and such.
With the new definition of a nation within a nation though, it might create ground to sue the government for more money because they should then have more power.
Hopefully, things in the end will settle down and sort of be normalish, but it depends upon what group wants to push and for what.

cpietra16
November 29th, 2006, 06:39 AM
This is just another chapter in the book of " How to get a divorce and all the money". I can't wait until the chapter where parts of Quebec "the kids" will want to stay with either daddy or mommy:D ....:p the costody battle has yet to begin

Rick C
November 29th, 2006, 08:48 AM
Was the wording of the motion : a recognition of the independent nation of Quebec within a united Canada or: a recognition of the independent Quebecois nation within a united Canada ?



It was a recognition that Quebec francophones are a distinct society . . . . but that the land on which they occupy can never leave a united Canada.

Not sure if it was a good idea or not but it did cut off a Parti Quebecois motion that would have been worded modestly differently. Obviously Canadians, including Quebecers, are still partied out from the last emotional wrangle over this.

And its always been an interesting riddle how very distinct anglophone communities in Quebec would have been treated in a Quebec nation . . . . and if Canada would have felt responsible for ensuring their rights even after independence.

Interesting factoid that may shock some of you out east is the very distinct and old francophone communities in northwestern Alberta, centered around Fahler, McLennan, Jean Cote and communities like that. Hang around those places and find out that English is a second language.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

dtbmnec
November 29th, 2006, 09:14 AM
This is just another chapter in the book of " How to get a divorce and all the money". I can't wait until the chapter where parts of Quebec "the kids" will want to stay with either daddy or mommy:D ....:p the costody battle has yet to begin

ROFLMAO

I don't follow politics...

I figure I'd make a horrible politician cuz I'd actuall *gasp* tell the truth and such things....I'd probably be assassinated for telling the truth at that!

lol

Megan

technodoll
November 29th, 2006, 10:45 AM
I ain't staying here if Q becomes "independant" :eek: are you kidding, what a nightmare. that's like getting on plane where the pilot resigns in mid-flight and the ditzy stewardess takes the controls!

Prin
November 29th, 2006, 11:35 AM
I think the Asians in Vancouver need to start fighting to become a distinct society too. And the Acadians in NB... And well, Newfoundlanders too. They're distinct as heck already. Maybe if every province has an uprising like this, Canada will eventually be more equal.:D

SARAH
December 3rd, 2006, 02:02 PM
Seems to me it's a bit late. Used to be Quebec was part of a greater Louisiana which included a whole lot of present-day US states. This large Louisiana was so called after the king Louis XIV of France and the language and laws were French. OK, wars, lack of funds .... Louisiana was sold to the Brits or whatever, and just the little state of Louisiana kept the name and a sort of French language (understood by them, no frenchman can make heads or tails of Cajun French - I've tried, and so has my mother!). Quebec somehow got to be Canadian, not sure what exactly happened, that part of history isn't my favorite period. Maybe someone on the forum knows?

Anyhow, De Gaulle was all for an independent Quebec after WWII, maybe it would have worked then, as the world was in turmoil anyways, but now ?

Being a French national, I'm a little biased :) we'd love to see Quebec be French so to speak - independent, but all French-speaking :thumbs up but I must admit that I don't think it's realistic.

meb999
December 3rd, 2006, 03:01 PM
why all french speaking? I love our multi-culturalism....

chico2
December 3rd, 2006, 03:47 PM
IMO,Harper is just trying to win over Quebec,he's trying to do good for the Quebeckers for the next election.
As I see it,sure Quebec is a distinct society,I love Quebec,but every province is distinct in one way or the other.
Harper is being a troublemaker,fishing for votes:shrug:

Skryker
December 3rd, 2006, 09:13 PM
My first thought on it was "What has Harper just bought the support of the Bloc for?". With a minority government, it seems a trade to me-Harper puts this motion forward in exchange for the Bloc voting with Harper on some other issue. Must be a doozy.

I agree with Prin; there are so many distinct social groups within Canada, it doesn't seem fair to single out only one for recognition.

CyberKitten
December 4th, 2006, 01:39 PM
I think while Mr. Harper had to do something, given the dissension in his own caucus , esp the Quebecois et Quebecoise members over the "nation" concept, I do wish he had stood on principle and not added to the ridiculous notion raised by a certain also ran Liberal Leadership candidate. I campaigned thru the Charlottetown Accord (I opposed it in spite of my party's position) and I do not wish for any more debates on the constitution for a good while!! I was happy to see at least a few politicians, Mr. Chong and Mr. Kennedy, both of separate parties, proved to be men of principle.

Hopefully, it will die somewhere along the way - and the Liberals thank God or someone - did not raise it during their convention, wisely I think. However, we Canadians do seem to have to cope with the Quebec issue forever. I believe it is a distinct society but we are a multinational country and growing - Canada is more than the sum of the English and the French, there are the Irish, the Italians, the Ukrainians , you get the idea.

Anyway- I could write a lot more - being a political junkie and one of the 3% of Canadians who belong to a Canadian political party who holds an office in that party - I will prudently keep my own counsel.

Stacer
December 4th, 2006, 03:09 PM
I missed this thread until now and I had been wondering if it would be brought up here considering the great numbers of Quebecers on this forum. I'm glad someone brought it up. I agree with most of what has already been said. I think that the definitions of terms used in the motion should have been laid out before the motion passed. Because now we have even more debate over what does it mean to be Quebecois, who is considered Quebecois and so forth. And what does it mean for English speaking Quebecers and the Aboriginal people of Quebec, not to mention the throngs of immigrants that arrive each year? What exactly will it change? If it changes nothing then what is the point? Purely symbolic?

I personally love Quebec, it's the province I visit the most. When the referendum took place back in the 90s I was stressed, the thought of Canada being divided over things such as language and distinct cultures seemed crazy to me. Hasn't this country been built on distinct cultures coming together to make us what we are? Canada would lose alot if Quebec were to leave and so would Quebec. In my opinion we all need each other and I like the way things are.:grouphug:

meb999
December 4th, 2006, 07:32 PM
but we are a multinational country and growing - Canada is more than the sum of the English and the French, there are the Irish, the Italians, the Ukrainians , you get the idea.


See, that's the thing that bugs me....why don't the italians get a distinct society status? Or the asians? Why do we need this 'independant society'....

I think labeling the québecois a distinct society just adds fuel to nationalist flames. And we'll find ourselves in another referendum. For those who don't live in Qc, let me tell you living through a referendum is NOT fun. I rememeber the last one we had, I was run off school grounds (I was in CEGEP) because some guys heard me speaking english.....then again, I went to the MOST francophone-seperatist school in Montreal (CEGEP du Vieux Montréal)

Maybe I'm just being a pessimist....maybe this will apease the soft nationalist into stopping voting for the Bloc, and we can finally put the seperation issue to bed. :shrug:

Prin
December 5th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Yey Stephane Dion! (Sorry, it just seemed to fit here). :highfive:

rainbow
December 5th, 2006, 01:25 AM
I second that. :highfive: