[QUOTE=RickJay]
The concern out here is that separatists see this as an ethnic issue.
[/quote]
It’s funny that that should happen at the very moment when the Bloc has just about finished redefining the sovereignty movement to be about everyone in Quebec. They don’t even talk about the Québécois as an ethnicity anymore, but talk about everyone in Quebec constituting the Quebec nation and having a place in a sovereign Quebec.
It’s better than Parliament not recognizing reality…
[QUOTE=Waenara]
Call me cynical, but I think it’s just so Harper and the [del]Reform Party[/del] [del]Alliance[/del] Conservatives can show that they’re not all about the West, that the voters all across Canada should support them, and that they’re not anti-Quebecois.
[/QUOTE]
The cynical motive, as far as I can tell, was simply to cut the legs out from under the Bloc on this issue. The Bloc assumed that everyone else, especially the Conservatives would vote against Quebec as a nation. This is a startling political misstep for them.
[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
The cynical motive, as far as I can tell, was simply to cut the legs out from under the Bloc on this issue. The Bloc assumed that everyone else, especially the Conservatives would vote against Quebec as a nation. This is a startling political misstep for them.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. For the last few days, Gilles Duceppe has looked like nothing so much as a man who’d had his thunder stolen.
[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
It’s funny that that should happen at the very moment when the Bloc has just about finished redefining the sovereignty movement to be about everyone in Quebec. They don’t even talk about the Québécois as an ethnicity anymore, but talk about everyone in Quebec constituting the Quebec nation and having a place in a sovereign Quebec.
[/QUOTE]
So, in other words, Quebecers are a nation. Which makes them, in a sense, an ethnicity. Look, they can draw the lines wherever they want; it’s the language of division no matter how you slice it.
But Parliament has already passed a similar motion, years ago.
Why shouldn’t Parliament now pass a motion declaring French Canadians, as opposed to the province of Quebec, to be a nation? Why not pass a motion declaring Canada to be a nation? Or Newfoundland? If we need Parliament to make rudimentary statements of fact, why not have them pass a motion saying that two plus two is four, or that horsies are pretty? Perhaps Bill C-273 can be passed stating that “It is declared that a perfect bowling score is either 300, if playing ten pin, or 450, if playing five pin.”
No, I’d say this motion is quite stupid, really. It does nothing whatsoever of benefit for Canada and gives the separatists still more ammunition. It’s such an obvious bait-and-switch, it’s just not funny.
Unfortunately, this isn’t just Stephen Harper’s doing; it’s been in the works for years as patriotic fools continue to believe that the solution to the separatism problem is to kneel before the separatists and beg and plead and given them little sops like this.
The idea that Gilles Duceppe has had his thunder stolen is simply preposterous; Duceppe knew full well Harper would react with a re-worded motion. It was his plan all along, and he’s playing along to get this new motion passed. Duceppe is not nearly as stupid as he looks; he knows that incremental bites at the federalist pie have slowly legitimized separatism over the years. We now live in a country where a great many people think Quebec separatists have an actual right to hold a legally questionable referendum, win with a tiny majority of a quarter of the population, and destroy the entire country - because, believe me, if Quebec separates, Canada will dissolve utterly. It’s unfashionable to say what the citizens of almost any other nation would say; that no part of the country has the right to unilaterally separate, and that allowing such a thing effectively would destroy the country.
One wonders why we can’t have a politician have the guts to say “Canada is a nation and it is indivisible.”
Oh, wait, we do have such a politician: Stephane Dion. I’ve got my fingers crossed.
[QUOTE=Barbarian]
I believe Harper’s motion is being interpreted in different ways in French and English, but I believe it should be interpreted as it was originally written, in English, which means that “les Quebecois” are a nation, but this nation does not include everyone living in Quebec.
[/quote]
Are you sure that it was originally written in English? (It might have been, but I have no idea where we’d find confirmation of this.) And are we sure that your meaning is the one that was intended by Harper’s government? I think that the motion is purposefully unclear. It allows Harper’s ministers to spin it different ways depending on their audience. I’ve already seen Lawrence Cannon explain this motion in two different ways when speaking with the press. The more I think about it, and the more I think this motion is awful, given that it was presented without any definition. I think it would have been difficult for me to vote for it.
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m saying that political beliefs usually have no bearing on which nation you are a part of (if we use the sociological definitions of nation). I’m willing to concede that in some cases, choosing to affiliate to one nation or another may be a political act. But that’s not what we’re talking about. See that neither me nor matt_mcl think that to be part of the Quebec nation, you have to be a sovereigntist. Most people I know would answer the same.
Well, I don’t know how you are in person since I’ve never met you, but for what it’s worth I assure you that I’m not going to hold anything against you just because you’re an anglophone. And most people I know would be the same. Sure, there are people with a chip on their shoulder everywhere.
What “accomodations” do you have in mind? And I agree with matt_mcl, I think Quebec’s economy is going in fact quite well. I’m sure some businesses left for Toronto during the years after 1976, but the economy recovered.
Oh, sure, English Canadians are more likely to immigrate to another province than francophone Quebecers. Is that surprising in any way, given that Quebecers are likely to consider Quebec to be their home, their nation, while Canadians from the rest of the country are more likely to consider Canada as a whole to be their home? I’d be willing to move to another province or country temporarily to work or study, but I’d probably want to move back to Quebec at some point. I don’t see how this is a negative point for Quebec. And keep in mind that Quebec receives a lot of immigrants too.
If you’re interested in my personal experience, for many years I went to another province every day. But then again I’m not the usual Quebecer. 
Never heard of that, do you have a cite for it? And I am well aware that being a French-language society in a world where English is the main international language is going to present some challenges. If your first language isn’t French or English, and you want to immigrate to Canada, I have no problem understanding that maybe you’ll want to move to Ontario (or Alberta) instead of Quebec, especially if you already speak English as a second language, and maybe even if you don’t, since you’ll then have to learn it, while by moving to Quebec you’d also have to learn French. But despite all this, I wouldn’t want to just say “screw that, let’s become English and make some money!” 
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
A litlle known fact for non-Canadians to digest with respect to the role the nation of Quebec , which makes up 23% of the total population of Canada, plays within Canada is that since 1968 there has not been a single year where the whole country has been without the leadership of a Quebecois prime minister.
[/QUOTE]
Sure (if we define Québécois to mean Quebecer, as Larry Mudd points out). But keep in mind that if they were elected, it was because Canadians as a whole voted for them. It has nothing to do with Quebec imposing anything on the rest of Canada. All these long-serving prime ministers from Quebec (Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin) were also popular in the rest of the country. On the other hand, I see that you’re from the West, and the only one of these four men who might have been popular where you’re at was Mulroney, and I guess he lost it at some point. So I understand why you feel the way you do. But don’t blame just Quebec.
And do notice that between them, you also had a few prime ministers not from Quebec (Clark, Turner, Campbell, Harper). It’s not my fault if they didn’t last long. (And we don’t know yet what will happen with Harper.)
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The concern out here is that separatists see this as an ethnic issue. There is no question, none whatsoever, that sepratists will use this motion to justify further advances for separatism.
[/quote]
Well, as matt_mcl points out, most Quebec sovereigntists want to frame the issue in inclusive terms, so they’re certainly most unlikely to claim that the House of Commons said that francophone Quebecers are a nation. And your second point is something that I’ve seen a few English Canadians claim: that the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a nation will convince more people to vote for separation, or will convince the separatists to make more demands. I see no evidence of this. Keep in mind that inside Quebec (and especially among sovereigntists), there is a consensus that Quebec is a nation. Nothing really changes if you tell them that, since they already know it. And while outside Quebec the idea of Quebec independence isn’t seen in a much better light than treason, it is seen as a valid political option inside Quebec.
No, matt_mcl is right, Harper scored a political point against the Bloc with this motion. The House voting against a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation would have been excellent for the Bloc, since it would have been seen by many inside Quebec as a proof that the rest of Canada tries to prevent Quebec from affirming its existence. We’ll see if it will be helpful to him in the future.
Also, notice that Jean Charest more happy with Harper’s motion than André Boisclair.
I don’t understand what you mean. To me, nation != ethnicity.
Well, some things are more worth saying than others. But I’m curious: would you support a House motion recognizing that Newfoundland is a nation?
I’m quite certain that Duceppe never expected Harper to present such a motion. And he was so shocked at first that he thought of voting against it. He just decided that doing that would look truly bizarre.
Duceppe is certainly not stupid (and he doesn’t look stupid, except when he’s got a bathing cap on his head ;)) and he certainly wants Quebec to separate from Canada, and is willing to use political means to reach this goal. This said, nothing will stop him and other sovereigntists from holding what you consider legally questionable – and I’m willing to concede that you may have a point here, especially since the questions have been up to now oddly worded – referendums on separation. He believes that Quebec is a nation, and as such, has the right to self-determination. The House of Commons saying that it is or isn’t is irrelevant.
I’m not going to make any prediction either way here. But I look at the (English) Canadians here, and most of you seem to have a great attachment to Canada, or at least your idea thereof. A lot of regional tensions exist, but Canada as a concept seems to be rather popular.
Well, as far as I know, Dion did vote for Harper’s motion. And I certainly don’t think this man can become prime minister.
[QUOTE=severus]
Well, as matt_mcl points out, most Quebec sovereigntists want to frame the issue in inclusive terms, so they’re certainly most unlikely to claim that the House of Commons said that francophone Quebecers are a nation. And your second point is something that I’ve seen a few English Canadians claim: that the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a nation will convince more people to vote for separation, or will convince the separatists to make more demands. I see no evidence of this.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, I’m not English.
The rather obvious evidence is that the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion. Why else would they?
Look, I will bet you real, honest-to-God cash money, let’s say $100, that I am right. I will bet you one hundred dollars that within 36 months, the Bloc Quebecois and/or the PQ, if the PQ wins the next election, will cite this motion as their primary support for a demand for Quebec to gain more soveriegn powers, or will use it as one of their primary justifications for pushing a separatist referendum. It’ll be phrased something like “As the Government of Canada has agreed that Quebec is a nation, Quebec should now be granted the powers that other nations like France, Germany or Brazil have.” The “Nation” gambit is a bait and switch job and nothing else; the entire point is to float in it under one definition of the word “Nation” and then use a different definition at a later point.
Indeed, just what definition of the word “Nation” is being used in this Parliamentary notion? As matt_mcl points out, it’s remarkably vague. And that’s just the way the BQ wants it.
Wanna put up that hundred bucks?
So what is the point of the motion? Why is this a good thing for Canada?
Alright, I’m glad you said that.
So why, then, is Quebec a nation? If you’re saying all Quebecers are a nation, what makes them so? They don’t all speak the same language. They don’t all come from the same ethnic background. They don’t share a religion. They have no citizenship in a state called “Quebec.” Is their nationhood merely tied into living in the same province? If that’s so, aren’t all the provinces nations?
You would have a much, much stronger case for saying that Canada’s francophone community is a nation.
Absolutely not. If the Parliament of Canada were to pass motions recognizing all the groups in Canada that can be defined as “Nations” according to the dictionary, they’d be doing nothing else for years and years, and virtually every citizen of Canada would be a member of dozens of nations. By late 2008 they’d be passing a motion saying that deaf Canadians are a nation, that descendants of the United Empire Loyalists are a nation, and on and on. I would much prefer my government spend its time and money on something useful. This is a country, not a model UN assembly.
A shame, really, since Stephane Dion would, in my honest opinion, be one of the greatest prime ministers in the history of the country. I find it utterly amazing the Liberals are going to pick Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff. How did they come to the point of choosing between either one of the worst premiers in Canadian history or a guy who hasn’t even bothered to live in Canada most of his life?
[QUOTE=RickJay]
So why, then, is Quebec a nation? If you’re saying all Quebecers are a nation, what makes them so? They don’t all speak the same language. They don’t all come from the same ethnic background. They don’t share a religion. They have no citizenship in a state called “Quebec.” Is their nationhood merely tied into living in the same province? If that’s so, aren’t all the provinces nations?
[/QUOTE]
I discussed this in post #13.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
If the Parliament of Canada were to pass motions recognizing all the groups in Canada that can be defined as “Nations” according to the dictionary, they’d be doing nothing else for years and years, and virtually every citizen of Canada would be a member of dozens of nations.
[/QUOTE]
I understand this objection. However, what the Commons have chosen to do here is not to inform people that they are a nation, but to recognize the fact that a group of people already sees itself as a nation.
If the people of another province were to begin seeing itself as a nation, and that were to progress to the point that the House of Commons were in the position of deciding whether or not to recognize that, then we would have that discussion then. That has happened with Quebec, and the aboriginal nations; it has not happened with any other province or group.
Honestly, RickJay, the real reason why the COmmons are dealing with this issue now? Nothing besides the fact that the Bloc chose to bring it up when it was their turn for opposition motions, leaving the other parties in the position of either 1) agreeing or 2) disagreeing. There was no 3) ignore the whole thing altogether, and that’s kind of good considering it was a motion made in Parliament, and I don’t want the government choosing to ignore properly made opposition motions.
[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
I Honestly, RickJay, the real reason why the Commons are dealing with this issue now? Nothing besides the fact that the Bloc chose to bring it up when it was their turn for opposition motions, leaving the other parties in the position of either 1) agreeing or 2) disagreeing. There was no 3) ignore the whole thing altogether, and that’s kind of good considering it was a motion made in Parliament, and I don’t want the government choosing to ignore properly made opposition motions.
[/QUOTE]
Now, let’s be honest here; the “Qyuebec-as-a-nation” debate was thrust into the limelight by the Liberal Party’s Quebec wing in a run-up to their leadership convention. That’s what put this debate into the spotlight; without that explosion, it’s unlikely the BQ would have submitted the motion at this time.
But this simply doesn’t answer the question, which is why the Government intriduced the motion, rather than simply shooting down the Opposition’s motion. Actually, really, the root question is why the issue was even brought up.
And just as sure as hell, the passing of the motion has already created a national shitstorm of debate over just what it really means, which will doubtlessly provide the separatists with plenty of ammunition. Jean Charest and Lawrence Cannon are already disagreeing on what “Quebecois” means (you called it!) and Constitutional scholars are already saying it’ll be used as justification for special powers for the government of Quebec. Boy, oh, boy, this is a step in the wrong direction.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Now, let’s be honest here; the “Qyuebec-as-a-nation” debate was thrust into the limelight by the Liberal Party’s Quebec wing in a run-up to their leadership convention. That’s what put this debate into the spotlight; without that explosion, it’s unlikely the BQ would have submitted the motion at this time.
[/quote]
Fair enough. We, of course, passed the Sherbrooke Declaration in September, but as there was no controversy (it was passed with 95% support of the delegates from across Canada), there wasn’t much of a ruckus.
Because that would have played into Duceppe’s hands. Even if you believe that this motion helps the sovereignist movement, surely you can see how having Parliament vote against the motion would have helped it more. (“They won’t recognize us and never will; we can never be a nation within Canada, so we have to leave.”)
nod, just like Catalonia has more powers than La Rioja. There’s nothing new about Quebec’s having more powers devolved to it to deal with its unique place in Confederation, and that’s what it needs if it’s to reach its national aspirations within Canada. But I imagine this is yet another thing you and I will be in more or less permanent disagreement about. 
Also, can I point out that for someone whose hands are theoretically being played into, Duceppe has looked awfully funny skittering this way and that this week. He looked as though he truly did not expect this to happen and is belatedly putting his best face on things. If everything were coming up fleurs-de-lis for him, I’d expect him to look a bit more smug.
[QUOTE=severus]
Never heard of that, do you have a cite for it?
[/QUOTE]
It’s one of the reasons my wife and I returned to Quebec. She filled out the appropriate tax forms (supplied by her company) a while ago, but I never found out the specific names of the documents. I think it applies to inter-provincial immigrants too, not just international migrants. Searching through Quebec’s tax code to find an online cite defeats my google-fu, although my financial planner and others I have talked to are very aware of this program.
I definitely think Quebec’s economy on the whole has improved since the 70s (certainly Montreal is doing better than it was 10 years ago). I just don’t think it’s improved as much as it could have with respect to other provinces. There’s no reason Quebec should still be a ‘have-not’ province with regards to equalization payments.
As for other issues: Do you really think the Harper government is having cabinet meetings in French?
No, I think the motion was deliberately written using the word Quebecois in English with the expectation that the Bloc or the PQ would attempt to use this motion to advance the separatist cause. In which case the federal government will turn around and say “Yes, we recognize Les Quebecois as a nation, but non-old school francophones within the borders of Quebec are not part of that nation. We did not recognize the province of Quebec as a nation.”
[QUOTE=RickJay]
First of all, I’m not English.
[/quote]
Well, as I said earlier in the thread, “English Canadian” is the accepted term, at least inside Quebec, for Canadians of either English as a first language, or who have integrated into English-language society. I believe this applies to you: English is your first language, isn’t it? It doesn’t imply any English ancestry. But now I see, thanks to featherlou first and you now, that it does imply English ancestry outside Quebec. So I’ll try to avoid using it, and use “anglophone Canadian” instead.
I’m tempted to play. My only worry is that while I believe you are correct that the PQ will cite this motion to put some weight behind the idea of Quebec as a nation, it will not be their primary justification. I believe it will rather sound like “Quebec is a nation, a fact even the Canadian Parliament has recognized.” I mean, they already held two referendums without being given any kind of “permission” from the federal government to do so, so it’s not like they need it.
I’ll try to think of a way to reformulate this wager to take this into account, but it might be hard, since it’s kind of hard to play “what if”. As in, “would Boisclair have said this even if the House of Commons hadn’t adopted this motion?”
Well, for what it’s worth, I believe some people would like to introduce a notion of “Quebec citizenship”. We’ve already discussed the reasons why Quebec may be seen as a nation, especially in my first post in this thread. The fact that not all Quebecers speak the same first language doesn’t matter, since French is considered the society’s common language. The fact that not all Quebecers are from the same ethnic stock or practice the same religion doesn’t matter, since the definition used is not an ethnic one.
As matt_mcl points out, do any of them consider themselves as such?
Well, maybe Canada’s anglophones would accept the recognition of francophones as a nation inside Canada better, since it more closely matches their view of Canada and of its francophones, but that doesn’t mean they’d be right. There is no “francophone community” inside Canada, but many “francophone communities”. They have evolved separately in such ways that I don’t think they can be called a nation anymore.
Why do you think so? What has Dion done that is so impressive?
[QUOTE=severus]
Well, as I said earlier in the thread, “English Canadian” is the accepted term, at least inside Quebec, for Canadians of either English as a first language, or who have integrated into English-language society. I believe this applies to you: English is your first language, isn’t it? It doesn’t imply any English ancestry. But now I see, thanks to featherlou first and you now, that it does imply English ancestry outside Quebec. So I’ll try to avoid using it, and use “anglophone Canadian” instead.
[/quote]
I’ve never heard the term “anglophone Canadian” before. Out here on the West Coast we are all just Canadians. If we must hyphenate some Canadians it won’t be by language.
Do Quebeckers use the term “anglophone Canadian” ?
[QUOTE=Barbarian]
It’s one of the reasons my wife and I returned to Quebec. She filled out the appropriate tax forms (supplied by her company) a while ago, but I never found out the specific names of the documents. I think it applies to inter-provincial immigrants too, not just international migrants. Searching through Quebec’s tax code to find an online cite defeats my google-fu, although my financial planner and others I have talked to are very aware of this program.
[/quote]
By “tax break”, do you mean a complete exemption from provincial taxes (which is what I first understood it to mean), or just a tax deduction meant to help people move to Quebec, start a new job and possibly start a business? If the latter, I have no problem with it (although five years does seem a bit long). You are the proof that it does bring in immigrants. Other political entities do similar things.
The real question, of course, is how long do I have to live outside Quebec to be able to qualify for this tax break?
Indeed, we shouldn’t. This is something that I really don’t understand, especially in the years that Saskatchewan gets into the “have” group. And I think it plays against Quebec’s reputation in the rest of Canada. On the other hand, there is no way that we can get the kind of economic growth that Alberta has, because we don’t have the specific kind of natural resources they have and we don’t have the same attraction they have due to us being a French-language society (and yes, I’m willing to accept the consequences of this). Also, I think Albertans as a whole are more willing to forego some governmental expenses in order to offer an attractive environment for business, as their voting in Conservative governments for decades now seems to suggest. I know many people here, as well as Lucien Bouchard and Mario Dumont, will say that it’s time for Quebecers to enter the 21[sup]th[/sup] century and stop expecting the same kind of social programs and work conditions as before, but that’s a decision that we have to take as a society, and we also have to remember that the “health of the economy” that these business types talk about is great, but it’s not everything.
Probably not (although I can dream about his ministers being allowed to speak French or English, and simultaneous translation being offered). But we don’t know who wrote this motion, when and where. We really don’t know much about the motion.
I think it was deliberately written using ambiguous language to allow Harper’s ministers to say two different things depending on who they’re speaking to (a long and great tradition in federal politics), while the motion itself isn’t worth much more than the paper it’s written on.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I’ve never heard the term “anglophone Canadian” before. Out here on the West Coast we are all just Canadians. If we must hyphenate some Canadians it won’t be by language.
[/quote]
I can understand that. There are a lot of ethnic groups present on the Canadian western coast, but the general language of the society is English (although I understand that some ethnic groups are so common that it’s possible to live there without ever learning English). The idea of a large francophone society existing inside Canada is probably hard to visualise for you.
When I speak about Canada outside Quebec, I have to mention that I’m talking about the society where English is the lingua franca. Ergo, anglophone Canada.
Not much. Usually it’s just anglophone, or “English Canadian”, and they are used to refer to Canadians whose first language is English, or who have integrated into the English-language society of the rest of Canada. So it fits for RickJay, whose first language is, as far as I know, English, but I’m also willing not to use it here since he interprets it in another way. Would it fit for you, whose first language is, as far as I know, Dutch? I probably wouldn’t call you an anglophone, since this usually implies first language. I might call you an “English Canadian”, since you’ve pretty much integrated into English-language society.
[QUOTE=severus]
By “tax break”, do you mean a complete exemption from provincial taxes (which is what I first understood it to mean), or just a tax deduction meant to help people move to Quebec, start a new job and possibly start a business? If the latter, I have no problem with it (although five years does seem a bit long). You are the proof that it does bring in immigrants. Other political entities do similar things.
The real question, of course, is how long do I have to live outside Quebec to be able to qualify for this tax break?
[/QUOTE]
Complete exemption for 5 years! That buys a lot of poutine. Or pays for the tax increase foisted on Montreal Boroughs and de-merged cities by Gerald Tremblay.
We’ve been out of province for 10 years, and out of country for 3. There might be an industry-specific catch (MrsB works in BioPharma) and was recruited – possibly another catch. I don’t know if I qualify for this, since nobody came headhunting me 
[QUOTE=severus]
Not much. Usually it’s just anglophone, or “English Canadian”, and they are used to refer to Canadians whose first language is English, or who have integrated into the English-language society of the rest of Canada. So it fits for RickJay, whose first language is, as far as I know, English, but I’m also willing not to use it here since he interprets it in another way. Would it fit for you, whose first language is, as far as I know, Dutch? I probably wouldn’t call you an anglophone, since this usually implies first language. I might call you an “English Canadian”, since you’ve pretty much integrated into English-language society.
[/QUOTE]
The term “English Canadian” just doesn’t work out here, but “French Canadian” does and you don’t even have to be able to speak French. You just need a surname like Chretien.
My first language is Dutch, but I can’t even speak it anymore. I’m a Dutch Canadian, but this could very well be the first time I’ve ever described my self that way. We pretty well expect everyone speak English around here except for French Canadians .
Francophones and Anglophones are originally French terms are they not? What would you call a Dutch speaker ?