Quebec nation debate could be re-opened in Liberal race

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So what exactly is your commentary on the linked Toronto Star story in the OP? You claim to be opposed to the Conservative Party's policy that recognizes Quebec as a nation, so am I to assume that you support the subset of Liberal Party members who don't agree with Harper on this matter? That's doesn't jive with your recent string of Liberal-bashing posts, so I really have no idea what your position on this issue is.

One can support a particular party yet not be in complete agreement with everything they do. I do support those Liberal Party members who are against the creation of a Quebec nation.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

One can support a particular party yet not be in complete agreement with everything they do. I do support those Liberal Party members who are against the creation of a Quebec nation.

So again, what is your commentary with respect to the TorStar article you linked in the OP? Are you saying it's a good thing for Canada that some Liberals want to re-open this debate and adopt a policy one way or the other on recognizing Quebec as a nation? Or were you posting this to show that the Liberals lack party unity on an issue that's very important to Quebec voters?

It doesn't exactly set the tone for intelligent debate and discussion if you start a thread by just linking an editorial without posting your own thoughts on the matter.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So again, what is your commentary with respect to the TorStar article you linked in the OP? Are you saying it's a good thing for Canada that some Liberals want to re-open this debate and adopt a policy one way or the other on recognizing Quebec as a nation? Or were you posting this to show that the Liberals lack party unity on an issue that's very important to Quebec voters?

It doesn't exactly set the tone for intelligent debate and discussion if you start a thread by just linking an editorial without posting your own thoughts on the matter.

I wanted people to discuss the article rather than my thoughts on it. My thoughts, frankly aren't that important. The article however brings up some interesting points and it is after all, published in a very well known, some may even say "national" newspaper, by a respected journalist and tv commentator.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who says they want to leave? I would bet that if a referendum were today it would be pro-Canada about 65-35. Just because people (politicians) bring it up doesn't mean its popular or contemplated.

That's my point. I used to care a lot about this, but now I'd support them leaving if they wanted to, except for the fact that Quebec is almost in the middle of the country and there would be a country in between.

If they left I wonder if we'd boot the Alouettes from the CFL.

[CaptainCrunch]

Maybe we could get Calatrava to build a highway bridge over top of Quebec without using any supports that touch Quebec Soil

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe we could get Calatrava to build a highway bridge over top of Quebec without using any supports that touch Quebec Soil

just don't let the bid go to Quebec firms - it'll take forever to build, longer to pay for and fall apart like tinkertoys.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Rerun

No.... a distinct society within Canada, yes.

Isn't that a nation though? A nation is distinct from a sovereign nation-state.*















*I think you have me on ignore so you're probably not going to read this.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

just don't let the bid go to Quebec firms - it'll take forever to build, longer to pay for and fall apart like tinkertoys.

Snicker

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It was a joke, cupcake. Relax.

I love you too.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Isn't that a nation though? A nation is distinct from a sovereign nation-state.*


*I think you have me on ignore so you're probably not going to read this.

I took you off.

As to your question.... not by my definition. To me its a recognition of their distinct character and the right to preserve that character, through provincial laws or whatever.

When people say "nation" in regards to Quebec, I think most people, especially the Quebec separtists, envision a "sovereign nation-state" which has powers equal to that of Canada.

This I don't believe in. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Rerun

No.... a distinct society within Canada, yes.

I reckon you are about to get dawg piled, but doesn't that by default make all provinces distinct?

[Bunk]

I tend to think french-speaking Quebecois consititute some sort of 'nation' of peoples with shared history, culture and language, but Quebec as a province is not a 'nation'. There are many nationalities embedded within the province. Are aboriginals part of a Quebec 'nation' - I don't think so.

As Trudeau said, if Canada is divisible, isn't Quebec also?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

just don't let the bid go to Quebec firms - it'll take forever to build, longer to pay for and fall apart like tinkertoys.

Now thats a whole different kettle of fish...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4353628/

A star witness at a corruption inquiry said Quebec’s political parties are awash in kickback money, and being financed by a “clandestine empire” larger than he’d ever suspected.

The inquiry’s first major witness, Jacques Duchesneau, said he believes 70 per cent of the money used by Quebec’s provincial parties comes from outside registered donations.

Amazing if its true.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Rerun

One does have to recognize the distinctness of Quebec society with in Canada however.

No. They can celebrate what they perceive as their uniqueness in the world all they want on their own time. But we are all Canadian, nothing more nothing less.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I reckon you are about to get dawg piled, but doesn't that by default make all provinces distinct?

Perhaps I will... but the fact is that Quebec is distinct from the rest of Canada.

They speak French as the primary language, the rest of Canada uses English as their primary language. Their culture is a French culture while ours is, for the most part, English. Their judicial system is based on the French system, ours is based on the English version.

Does this make them distinct? Yes, does it make them special? Perhaps. Does it entitle them to more rights and priviledges than the other provinces... not in my opinion.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by zamler

No. They can celebrate what they perceive as their uniqueness in the world all they want on their own time. But we are all Canadian, nothing more nothing less.

I agree.

[Rerun]

Anyways, back to the original article...

Chantal Hebert states this :

Most mainstream Liberals believe that their party cannot come back to the major federal leagues without doing better in Quebec.

Most federal Liberals from Quebec — in particular the party’s shrinking francophone cohort — believe that there can be no recovery in the province without the party coming to terms with modern Quebec’s view of itself as the home of a distinct nation.

How do the Liberal supporters on here feel about this statement? Is it valid?

Do you feel that in order for the Liberal Party to recover in Quebec they will have to align themselves with the view of Quebec being a distinct nation (as opposed to being a distinct society I guess).

If they do this will it affect their support in the rest of Canada?

It somewhat looks like they are kind of between a rock and a hard place... unless they bury the discussion completely of course... which is always an option (not one that Slava wants to happen, which I agree with).

[MarchHare]

Do you feel that in order for the Liberal Party to recover in Quebec they will have to align themselves with the view of Quebec being a distinct nation (as opposed to being a distinct society I guess).

If they do this will it affect their support in the rest of Canada?

I can't see how it would affect their support in the rest of Canada, seeing as how both the CPC and the NDP voted in favour of Harper's "Quebec is a nation" bill in 2006. If this was an important vote-deciding issue for anyone outside of Quebec (and I don't think it is), which party would they support if all three have the same policy?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I can't see how it would affect their support in the rest of Canada, seeing as how both the CPC and the NDP voted in favour of Harper's "Quebec is a nation" bill in 2006. If this was an important vote-deciding issue for anyone outside of Quebec (and I don't think it is), which party would they support if all three have the same policy?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...tion-vote.html

Conservatives, most Liberal MPs, the NDP and the Bloc voted 266 to 16 in support of the controversial motion, which earlier in the day had prompted the resignation of Michael Chong as intergovernmental affairs minister.
Fifteen Liberal MPs voted against the motion, including Liberal leadership candidates Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe, along with Independent MP Garth Turner.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had introduced the surprise motion on Nov. 22, raising the ante on a Bloc Québécois motion that sought to declare Quebecers a nation without reference to Canada.
The motion states: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."
The prime minister has said he is using the word nation in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense.

I think the italicized portion of the quote is very important. You are making more of the vote/motion than there was. Its quite clear that Harper in no way supports a somewhat independent Quebec with nation-state status, which is definitely what the PQ motion was all about.

Edit: The question is, will the Liberal Party have the same policy, after the leadership convention, as the Conservatives and NDP or would this change in order to garner more votes in Quebec. From what I've read Marc Garneau seems to feel this is the way to go.... as in more powers for Quebec.

By the way, MarchH, you only answered one of the four questions I asked...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...tion-vote.html


I think the italicized portion of the quote is very important. You are making more of the vote/motion than there was. Its quite clear that Harper in no way supports a somewhat independent Quebec with nation-state status, which is definitely what the PQ motion was all about.

Are you suggesting that the potential Liberal policy (that may or may not even be adopted) would be in favour of an independent Quebec as opposed to a mirror of the Harper/NDP position? If so, on what information are you basing that assumption?