Indepedence for Quebeckers!!

[Ninot]

They aren't frogs. The correct terminology is pepper, or if there are kids around, patates.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Asher
Well, you are. So there.

Wow, it seemes that English speaking Canadians live on the same planet as their neighbours to the south?
What's it called? Earth is getting boring and is heating up, I might wan't to move to happy evangelist globalwarming-is-not-a-fact and we-are-wining-in-iraq planet.

I could watch Fox and be ignorant of all other cultures around me!

[Spec]

If there was another referendum, they should let the whole country vote, that way, we'd be sure to get kicked out.



Spec.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ninot
They aren't frogs. The correct terminology is pepper, or if there are kids around, patates.

I recall something to do with pepsi.

[Wezil]

NYE - I'll see your Chantal Hebert and raise you one Michael Harris.

By MICHAEL HARRIS




Stephen Harper lobbed a grenade into national affairs by winning all-party support for the Quebecois nation within a united Canada.

A lot of people thought it was not a bomb, but a barricade, a brilliant tactical move that stopped the mischievous Bloc Quebecois in its sneaky little tracks, and stole Michael Ignatieff's thunder going into this weekend's Liberal leadership convention.

Best of all, the word "nation" didn't mean anything -- no new rights, no constitutional change, just a clever gesture to improve dismal Tory numbers in Quebec and trump the PM's political opponents.

What has happened since, and will surely pick up speed, is that two freight trains are heading toward each other.

Through the thick mists of partisanship, Tory supporters initially denied the coming head-on collision. Their best defence was that the granting of nation status to the Quebecois was okay because it was meaningless -- a strange accolade for so controversial a change in our politics.

Then came the passionate words of Professor Michael Bliss:The very idea of Canada was under attack. What did the Quebecois nation mean -- ethnic nationalism for francophones, second-class status for others? Did it mean nothing? And if nothing, how could anyone expect Quebecers to be bought off with empty rhetoric?

Bliss called the prime minister's use of the "N" word "near-criminal recklessness." Even as a tactic it depended upon an absurdity; that other politicians and Canadians from other parts of the country would see Harper's gambit as harmless rhetoric.

Then Harper's Quebec lieutenant, Lawrence Cannon, self-immolated at his first attempt to define terms.The Quebecois nation did not mean all Quebecers, he said, just francophones. The ugliness of ethnic nationalism was out of the bag and not even the loyal obfuscations of Sen. Marjory LeBreton could put it back in.

The government of Canada had conferred nation status without apparently knowing or caring what that word actually meant.

Then came the first resignation of a Harper minister -- Michael Chong.The man responsible for the unity file also saw what the prime minister had done as fundamentally wrong.Chillingly, the minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was not in the loop while this dubious tactic was being planned. Unlike Meech Lake and Charlottetown, this roll of the dice came out of a single hand -- Harper's.

Enter Jean Charest, federalist premier of Quebec. No sooner had Cannon fallen on his face in that first dreadful attempt to define the Quebecois nation than Charest offered his own interpretation of those words. "Let's not stumble over what it means when we talk about the Quebec nation. We are talking about every citizen regardless of their origins."

And let's not stumble over another thing -- the Tory contention that no new powers will be bestowed on one province by Parliament's declaration of nation status for the Quebecois. Charest has already indicated Quebec will now go before the Supreme Court and argue that Quebec's laws must now be interpreted differently from the rest of Canada. Will the claim of offshore drilling rights in the St. Lawrence River be far behind for the new Quebec nation?

First Nations peoples in Quebec are bitterly disappointed with both Harper and Charest, first because Parliament left them out, and second because Quebec claimed them as Quebecois.No wonder Natives are keen to talk about this during the Liberal convention, if only in the halls.

It is no accident that the leaders of all three provincial parties in Quebec have forcefully rejected the view that the Quebecois mean only francophones.Yet Harper chose the word "Quebecois" for his motion, not Quebecers.Why?

Like wounded buffalo walking in circles in a snowstorm, Tory MPs like Myron Thompson are trying to figure out what to tell the folks back home.Don't worry Myron, the big boys don't know either.

The gambit is not being unanimously applauded.

[Fake Boris]

Interesting articles, but as usual they ignore an significant piece of the puzzle: Quebec's reaction. Separatists don't think it's enough, and (most) federalists will be disappointed when they see that the motion was mere talk without legislative oomph. This could backlash against Harper quite fast.

[Wezil]

But we already know Quebec's reaction. It is as predictable as the sun coming up in the east.

I take your point however, that is the risk.

[Fake Boris]

But why has the move been commended as a smart one then? Ultimately it boils down to whether you give the PQ ammo or not, and it's not clear he hasn't.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
But why has the move been commended as a smart one then?

That would be because Conservatives across the land drank the Kool-Aid.

[Krill]

Meh. Vote of no confidence arriving anytime soon, or can I look forward to Quebec becoming a nation and suddenly finding themselves severely in the red?

[Ninot]

nation != independant state, Krill

[Krill]

na‧tion  /ˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own.

[Wezil]

That is the problem Krill. There are several definitions out there. Even the one you provided can fit in the Canadian context. Quebec has its own government.

[Krill]

WTF are they subsidised by the rest of the country then? Just toss them out on their backsides and tell them to live in the real world...

[Ninot]

Krill, I don't believe you understand the situation.