We had our dinner today - I second that. 
I only had one pumpkin pie tart - I think I need to make a batch tomorrow.
I have to agree with Rick. I’m reminded of an Anglophone friend who was born in Quebec, but who left when his parents moved to Toronto when he was age 2. Today, he lives and works in Washington DC, where he has lived for the past twenty years. Is he the kind of person that the PQ wants to have voting in a referendum? Probably not. And I’d agree with the fact that, owing to non-residence in Quebec, he cannot vote in a Quebec referendum, even though he was born there.
Yeah, fair enough. I know the US allows its citizens to vote despite living outside the US; a friend is an organizer for Democrats Abroad. I’ve never had call to investigate whether Canada has a policy like that at the federal level. Absentee voting is evolving; I’ve been unable to vote in a number of provincial and municipal elections because I’ve been out of town working at the time. The system of absentee ballots, advance ballots and voting by proxy is slowing improving. (Please note: for none of these elections that I’ve been shut out of have I changed my residence; it’s just that if the election gets called when you’re working in Vancouver for 5 months, you’re out of the picture.)
I agree, that I don’t think it would be practical; I’m mostly being a facetious provocateur with that suggestion. I would argue, however, that certain Québec government policies (ie., la loi 101) have had the effect of driving away citizens who were not in a demographic noted for its support of the separatist cause. It would only be fair to allow those who have left to have their say.
And the Parti Québecois knows full well that the ex-pat Anglo community would be voting ‘No’ in a solid bloc.
With a few exceptions you have to have lived abroad for less than five years and intend to come back. See Registration and Voting Processes for Canadians Who Live Abroad.
But you then go on to describe a** federal** election. In this case the USA is no different from Canada. Eligibility for a national election is, quite logically, based on one’s citizenship.
Within Canada, however, whether you are entitled to vote in a given provincial election (or, for that matter, a municipal election) cannot be determined by citizenship because there is no legal status for being a “citizen” of a province or a municipality. There are, therefore, reasonably set definitions on what constitutes an eligible voter in a provincial election, and such definitions pretty much have to be based on residence.
I admit I find this last part absolutely mystifying. If a person has chosen to no longer be a Quebecer - not a temporary work assignment, but actually choosing to leave and build their life elsewhere - then why on earth should they have any moral claim to have a say in Quebec’s elections? Choosing not to be a Quebecer means you aren’t a Quebecer anymore, which has some pros and, presumably, some cons. You don’t have to pay the high taxes or worry about what language your signs are in, but you also give up the right to vote there. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you choose to leave Quebec and reside in, say, Alberta, then you’ve chosen to be an Albertan, and should get the vote THERE. If a person wants to have a say in Quebec, they should move back.
I’m not sure what’s mystifying about the sentiment. If one was born and raised in Quebec, but moved for whatever reason (and particularly if that reason was due to PQ policies), one probably still thinks of Quebec as home and has an emotional stake in the question of Quebec nationalism. It’s not really a mystery why such a person would feel emotionally like they ought to have some say in whether their home remains a part of the country.
Completely unworkable, of course, and bad policy to boot, but I don’t see how the sentiment is mysterious.
Freeman on the land update - I had dinner last night with a guy who had just been hunting with a guy who owns the cabin that the Freemen tried to take over. His reported conversation with the RCMP was entertaining - something very much along the lines of, “If you guys don’t get him out, I will.” No two years in the courts crap for him. 
I’m just butting in here to point out that your link is broken. I found another CBC link. (I’m intrigued by these guys in a what-the-hell-can-they-be-thinking kind of way.)
Thanks for the updated link, Esox.
Could the RCMP have been afraid of another Mayerthorpe, and were deciding how to proceed on the basis of that tragedy?
Probably - you’d have to think that Mayerthorpe is very much in their minds in this kind of situation.
This made me laugh a lot - ‘Margaret Atwood’ (played by Cathy Jones) congratulating Alice Munro.
Very nice. Well, not exactly “nice” - you know what I mean.
I took some time out of my day today to watch the Speech from the Throne. It just ended.
It was interesting to actually see the ceremony involved: Black Rod knocking three times on the doors of the Commons, being challenged by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and leading the MPs to the Senate chamber. Nice traditions!
I thought that was interesting too. I love all the pomp and ceremony.
I was pleased to hear that Malala has been made an honourary citizen of Canada.
.
You’re welcome. Good news about those guys must be shared.
As am I. She seems to be doing more for women’s rights than would be expected of someone of such a young age. But I am glad to see her continually activating for women’s rights and education. Go Malala!
As for the pomp and ceremony, I would have thought that Black Rod would have “left more room” between his knocks. The Commons intentionally ignores the first two knocks: traditionally, we, the people, through our democratically-elected representatives in the Commons, will not jump to the Sovereign’s order. We will make her wait for our response until the third knock. This signifies that the Monarch is actually subservient to the People. Is there any reason why Black Rod was so quick this time?
EU free trade – almost there.
I guess there are some concerns from market boards and pharmaceutical companies, but from a consumer perspective, I can’t see any downside to this. Of course I’m not an economist and don’t really pretend to understand all the ramifications.
Consumers get a broader access to goods from the EU at presumably lower prices, and my guess is that Canadian goods will have the same benefit in the EU.
Again, I don’t see the downside.