digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Prime Minister Stunning declaration: Quebec is a Nation 'within Canada'

cnn.com — Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stunned Parliament on Wednesday by introducing a motion recognizing the French-speaking province of Quebec as a nation within Canada -- a moved aimed at pre-empting Quebec's separatist party which intends to do the same

show profanity settings
expand all
  • blogger1947, on 10/12/2007, -32/+43Seems to me that the rest of Canada would be better off if they encouraged those soreheads in Quebec to secede. And chances are they'd be begging to be reinstated within a decade.
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40This is not Quebec secession..If you read the article, the PM explicitly says that Quebec will never be an independent nation.

      If it did secede, then the poorer Maritime provinces would be separated from the more prosperous western provinces...and the St. Lawrence seaway could potentially become a area of controversy. Secession is truly unlikely. However, the way CNN (and others maybe) spins this statement, the debate is likely to reopen and put Canada through another few years of constitutional disquiet.
    • blogger1947, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29martalli: I understood what the article said. The point I attempted to make (unsuccessfully) was that if Quebec DID secede, they would discover within a few years that total secession was a mistake. Precisely because of the St. Lawrence. However, I do thank you for your remarks in clarification.
    • melodramatic2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm not sure if the country would be better off, and if the people in Quebec were ever completely serious about separating, then they would be able to try again in another referendum.

      The separatist party (called the Bloc) is using the threat of separation to get special privileges and funding from the Federal Government.

      For those who will undoubtedly blame Harper and the Conservatives for this by saying that this announcement is giving in and taking the first steps towards causing Quebec to split from Canada, consider that his words were "nation within a united Canada", and the purpose of this statement was to preempt a similar statement to be tabled in Parliament in a few days that would not have included the words "united Canada". Also, keep in mind that this has no effect whatsoever on the status of Quebec in Canada and that most political parties are supporting the statement.
    • codplay, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Heh. Where do they get all their money? Alberta's oilfields perhaps? If Quebec manages to sneak away, what about us Albertans? Do we still have to send them lots of money every year? Or do we get to split as well, and get all the money from the oil sands to ourselves?
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9@codplay: You can have all the oil money if you want.. but have fun paying for your own social services, military, police force, etc. :P

      Besides, Quebec willingly joined Canada. We bought your province from the Bay. ;)
    • codplay, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Heh - yeah. Alberta really can't handle all this money, can it? I mean, here we are with a MASSIVE surplus, and it doesn't seem to be doing anything. It's - odd. We KNOW the health system needs money. We KNOW the education system needs money (I'm stuck in a tiny little school with not very much money...) We need a boss to look after us. ^_^

      As for military - does Alberta need one? We have the oil cowboys. I think they should be enough to scare most everyone else away...
      ^_~
    • blankartist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Here's my thoughts. First off, I want to say I'm a Canadian who is proud of our bilingual heritage. I met some of the warmest people when I visited Montreal. But if Quebec ever separated from the rest of Canada, it would be a devastating, fatal mistake for the French culture. Why? Think about.

      Who would Quebec conduct business with?

      Paris? Do you really think Paris gives a rats ass about Quebec? They share a language, and that's about it.

      The United States? To be blunt, the U.S. doesn't give a ***** about French or their heritage. If you're exporting to the U.S., you'll be speaking English. Period.

      Canada? I don't think separation will go down to well with the rest of Canada (especially Western Canada). And they sure as hell won't be speaking French.

      At the risk of sounding arrogant, the fact is the French Canadian heritage (as it stands) can only exist because of its existence within the larger picture of Canada.

      Fortunately, I think the whole separation issue is waning with the younger generation. Is Quebec a nation on its own right? Sure it is. It's no different than our many First Nations. I just don't think it's a legal nation.
    • da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The problem most people in Quebec(that want to seperate) is if quebec became an independent nation it wouldn't keep all of Quebec it would only end up being the area around the St.Lawrence so they would lose all that Hydro power in the northen regions not to mention what would happen with all the trade that goes threw St. Lawrence. For all the trouble it would cause they really wouldn't get much out of it(seeing as there are many many special laws already in place there)
    • Drealoth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The separatist movement is a bit of a sham. The only reason that people have said that it's close to 50% of Quebec wants to separate is because they weren't told all of the details. They're asked a question along the lines of "Do you want to be a sovereign nation?" Sounds pretty good, right?

      When asked the more accurate question of "Would you separate from Canada if it meant that you (and your family) would lose their RRSP's, would not be included in the North American Free Trade Agreement (which a separate Quebec wouldn't be included in) and would have to create your own currency?" the number is at about 10%, which is the traditional value it has held.
    • swOhio, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Bunch of hosers.
    • csaw, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3The rest of canada should hold a referendum on whether we allow Quebec to stay. And if its gonna cause issues, they can take the maritime provinces too. In fact, Alberta and BC will seperate, take all the money with us, and when the states break up in a few years Washington and Oregon can join, and that would be the sweetest 'nation' ever.
    • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It's just a play on words... it's acknowledging Quebec is a unique culture and unit, but still part of our great country.
      I don't necessarily agree with it being considered any more special than the other provinces... I believe in equality. Let's not forget Quebec isn't the only French-speaking province; New Brunswick has a great deal of Acadian descendants and is a bilingual province.
    • cmarseille, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0It was about time we are recognized as a nation. The comments mostly show that people don't even know what's going on here and that's sad. You'd prefer tell people we don't exist? I'm proud to be Quebec French speaking guy, and always will be. We actually have a good reputation in the world except Canada which is strange for a country that wants to be united.

      About economy: if there is separation, business will be done with the same partners, saying otherwise is FUD.
    • argoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0
      Ha, Quebec will never separate. It's all about the money and politics. You see, Alberta has one of the highest economic freedom rankings and Quebec has a low one among the provinces, and the people of Quebec suffer because of it. But rather than blame it on themselves, the leaders blame it on the English speakers which leads to a strong separation sentiment. The only problem is that it is Alberta that should be fed up with Quebec, because Alberta's tax payers are the ones subsidizing Quebec.

      So yeah, Quebec will wine and moan and point fingers and hate the rest of Canada, but they will never cut off their bread and butter. But Ironically, cutting off Quebec and forcing them to go it alone would choke off the "blame game" politicians and probably lead to more unity than ever.
    • FreddieD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, no way this will happen. The last time I saw a separatist movement, Anakin Skywalker killed them all.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Congratulations FreddieD! You and beotch are in a neck-and-neck race for "Dumb Ass of the Week"© Award. Never *****' say never. All it takes for Quebec nationalism to get on its high horse is another bunch like those *****-up geriatrics in Brockville. This isn't to say it will happen but never's a feckin' long time. Maybe if you educated yourself about the issue, you might be more intelligent than your post makes you sound.

    • themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I can only pray that the frogs are detached from Canada. If so, Canada will be able to be the best country in the world.
    • anacharcis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As a Québécois, I can assure you that the separatism movement is still popular. Lots of comments show the lack of understanding of the situation by English-Canadians. If you want more info on the issue, go read articles by Bernard Landry, for example, and the propositions he made for sovereignty. To give you an idea, there’s no question of changing currency, changing of our economical partners (be serious: do you think trading would change because of a change in political status: money talks louder than that!), no border control, etc. It’s a matter of international representation of Québec and finally deciding what’s good for us instead of dissolving our votes in this giant Canada.
  • gizmo13, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2Bah... Au Revoir Quebec, Enjoy your recession!
  • CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -27/+46Our PM is a ***** moron.

    • CanuckMakem, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10True dat
    • BenSerwa, on 10/12/2007, -19/+27Stephen Harper, what a sad, sad *****.
    • Shmoo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+18No he isn't, the move proved that the prime minister was a) willing to work with the other major parties (he discussed this move with NDP leader Jack Layton and others) and b) was able to take decisive, successful moves to undermine the seperatist movement in Canada.
    • PixelCloud, on 10/12/2007, -24/+11to even claim that harper is a ***** up, shows that you are just a blind liberal


      harper acutally *does* stuff unlike the liberal leadership which did *nothing* for years

      OMG BOB RAE FOR LIBERAL LEADER

      you kids have to be kidding
    • sardion2000, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8So how does it feel to have softwood up your ass?

      I guess it doesn't matter cuz soon you'll be able to split your income reducing your tax "burden" to below minimum wage!

      How did that 1% GST cut work out for us all again? Well it didn't cuz the businesses just opted to pocket the difference. Yay capitalism!

      I've yet to see anything of benefit to the areas of the country that he needs in order to construct a majority. Health Care, Environment, and Cities are priorities for a lot of people, period. His actions in these areas(or lack thereof) leaves a bad odor in the air and a bad taste in my mouth. The time is ticking until a Liberal Minority...great...
    • arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@CBTF: So... what does that make Dubya Bush? ^_^
    • tdawson2012, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11Agreed, he is the Canadian carnation of George Bush...without the war and what not....basically just a jackass.
    • Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34I see your moron PM and raise you an idiotic President.
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This was a total Quebec vote buying move on his part.
    • mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Stephen Harper has made some mistakes, but he has been the most real and honest Prime Minister Canada has seen in a long time. At least he isn't Prime Minister just to pad his own pocketbook like every Liberal PM we have had in 15 years.

      If standing up for human rights to China, recognizing the cultural uniqueness of Quebec, and getting the underimportant softwood lumber dispute out of the picture so we can concentrate on more important trade issues, and lowering taxes while paying down the debt is being a bad Prime Minister and stealing money from ones citizens, doing nothing to deal with carbon emissions, and creating divisions across the country, and raising taxes to god awful levels is a good PM then yeah I guess Stephen Harper isn't meeting your expectations of a good leader.
    • mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I guess my main question for you is what has SH done wrong? Its one thing to call a guy a moron, but for what reason? is it because he has done something you disagree with, or just because you have no understanding of the political realm and incorrectly equate SH with GWB?

      By the way, the Conservative Party of Canada's platform is far more left wing than the Democratic Party in the U.S's....bet you didn't know that.
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@mrhaines

      I have one big issue with Harper. The 1% cut of the GST. That costs the Government a lot of money, now they are forced to cut some badly needed social programs that were already underfunded. This cut doesn't help the poorest people because essentials that the poor buy are already tax free, it only helps on big ticket and luxury items (ie. for the middle class and the rich) and frankly a 1% cut in sales taxes means dick to me, I would rather have the money go towards beneficial social programs, and health care then line the middle/upper class pockets with an extra penny on each dollar. This tax cut does way more harm to Canada then good. At least wait until we pay down the national debt before we roll back taxes.
    • 10001110101, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

      Stephen Harper eats babies.

      http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060502/toronto_commuters_060502/20060502?hub=TopStories
    • AnonymousHero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1***** moron.

      I hereby declare Stephen Harper a suppurating hemorrhoid within the great greasy ***** of Canada.

      That he would play these stupid games with national unity demonstrates either his innate stupidity or his handlers exploitive cynicism. Probably both. Poor *****.






  • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10Ummm... Native Americans didn't do so well with that nation within a nation stuff.

    What were supposed to be soverign tribes were treated as 3rd class citizens at best.

    I would suggest that you hold out for a better deal.
    • PixelCloud, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7if quebec wants to leave

      let them
    • beotch, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Native Canadians are 1st class and everyone else is 2nd. They get free university education, the government pays employers to hire them, often they get money from their mineral rights on expansive reserves. *****! Sign Me Up NOW!
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Congratulations on the "Dumb Ass of the Weak" Award, beotch! I'd personally drive you to a nice reserve somewhere and plop your sorry ass down to spend the rest of your sorry life without such luxuries as indoor plumbing and such. Yup! First Class all the way! We'll even provide you with a lifetime supply of glue to huff (much cheaper than booze). You're so ***** un-connected it's unreal. We'd be pledging allegiance and singing the Star Spangled Banner now if it weren't for them. Read up about the War of 1812 if you don't believe me.

      Dick!
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3knickerbocker: WTF was that rant about? I couldn't tell if you are a racist, retarded or suffering from Tourettes Syndrome. I couldn't even tell who you were trashing. I could tell that you're a bastard and life's too short to pay attention to someone like you. Welcome to my block list bitch.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1jamessavik,

      "Congratulations on the "Dumb Ass of the Weak" Award, beotch"

      Note "beotch" at the end of the sentence. This is clearly who the slam was directed against. That and the fact that the post was located directly under beotch's post should've given you a half-a-clue.

      "We'd be pledging allegiance and singing the Star Spangled Banner now if it weren't for them. Read up about the War of 1812 if you don't believe me."

      That sounds racist to you? I guess if you idolise the KKK, perhaps. Otherwise, that sentence reads as an endorsement of the central role the First Nations played in maintaining this country as what it is as opposed to being a parcel of additional U.S. states. If this is indicative of your comprehension skills, then please add me to your killfile.
  • TheGenericName, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16I hate to defend Harper on *anything*, but he is right: Quebec is a separate nation within the state "Canada".
    • ricearoni, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Same here. I hate the guy, but calling Quebec a nation is by definition correct.
    • jonnyeh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13He didn't call Quebec a nation, he called the Quebecois people a nation within a united Canada. Quebecois is a non-constitutional word that has no real relevance. The Bloc Quebecois (a separatist party) were going to table a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation (not quebecois, and no mention of canada). Quebec is a constitutional term, and that motion could have led to a referendum. I'd say Harper is a genius and defused a very dangerous situation.
  • wyomingred, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32Quebec SHOULD be a separate nation. Then America will invade them, and use that as the launch point for our eventual invasion of Alberta. Precious precious oil fields...
    • greyfedora, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51If you're planning to invade Alberta from Quebec, you might be disappointed...
    • sardion2000, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6That's putting it lightly. Anyway, they don't need to invade Alberta, it's already 50+% American already.
    • mikeplokta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The nation of Quebec is still in the state of Canada, and defended by it. A nation is a cultural entity, not a political one. Just because the USA consists of a single nation which is contiguous with the state (except for a few Native American nations that everyone ignores) is no excuse.
    • RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Pfff, you americans can't even walk to a store around the corner, how would you drag your obese fat ass from Quebec to Alberta, it's quite a hike you know..
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In some way, this would be like calling the states in India separate nations. Sometimes, they have even seemed to operate that way - such as when the Tamil Nadu government was running training camps for the Tamil Tigers. India is an example of a multinational country that is not an empire. In fact, by trying to respect the various nationalities native to the country, they have done well, albeit with considerable fractitious relations at times.

      I don't want to carry the analogy between the two countries too far, but I feel it is dicey for the PM to speak in the way he has. Federal law should encourage states to have latitude on cultural issues, but one should be careful about talk which could reopen secession.

      Hey, I'm an American, so my views may not really matter, but I do care about Canada anyway!
  • dernynjunk, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9Harper is alright... better than Paul Martin
  • captjc, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Independence For Quebec!
    Viva Jay Sherman! Viva Quebec!
  • xstnothing, on 10/12/2007, -28/+4That's just sad. A province that wants to be associated more with France than Canada? I mean, at least Canadians are moose-riding, fur trapping pussies, the French have been pussies more consistently than any other nation in history. Except Switzerland, but who gives a ***** about them, eh?
    • UltimateFlynn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"Except Switzerland, but who gives a ***** about them, eh?"

      Compaired to France?

      Just about everyone.
    • MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7i think the phrase you're looking for is "Cheese Eating, Wine Swilling Surrender Monkeys"
    • bickdigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Obviously, you don't know anything about France's history. I assume that your clever statement refers to WWII's beginnings, when the German army (the world's strongest of its time) was not expected to blitz through Netherlands and Belgium to invade France, cutting the front and dividing the french army, with the one on the West side regrouping with the Brits and going in England to organize the "Resistance".

      Also you may think that the first ones who landed on June 6th in Normandy were Americans and not British and French? Also that Americans were the true liberators of Europe, when 80% of the work was done by the USSR... (Stalingrad battle?)

      Also you may forgot that France freed your country from the British (google La Fayette), and that your army did not win any of the war against 3rd-world countries (Vietnam, Somalia, Irak?)...

      Lots of things to learn, dude, turn off Fox News and move your fat ass to a library.
    • Altesse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Thanks a lot for this comment, bickdigg.

      However, I don't think we can do much against the stupidity and xenophobia of our american fellows, and others. Heck, one of them can't even spell correctly ("Compaired to"...). Hope for him english is not his mother tongue.

      The only thing they can do is invading other countries, or bomb them beyond repair, and flee or whine when the going gets tough (think Vietnam, Iraq). I'm so glad when a french-speaking nation bothers them.
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Apparently doesn't know much about Switzerland's history, either. A convential military invasion of Switzerland would be almost impossible. The major mountainpasses are mined, and every man is in the military. Since the initial formation of Switzerland in 1291, I believe that Switzerland has been successfully invaded only once, in 1798 by Napoleon, who had a great deal of difficulty controlling the country and ultimately had to restore Canton government. During much of that time, the Swiss had such a military reputation that they often were hired as mercenaries.

      So, I would give the Swiss their due and not trash talk them.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And he might note that the Vatican is guarded by the Swiss Guard. Poofy uniform notwithstanding, there must've been a good reason for it.
  • kmkwong, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2viva quebec
  • xstnothing, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1@UltimateFlynn
    It was a joke. You are a retard, and compared isn't spelled like that.
  • iOsiris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10[Not completely related to the article] The thing that gets me is that, when the Bloc Québécois advocates about Quebec separating from Canada is that they define Quebec as the region+people of Quebec (francophone only). The anglophones in Quebec are misrepresented, if the Bloc did manage to separate Quebec from Canada, they should have no right of forcing people to lose their status to Canada
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This is one of the big reasons why Quebec won't ever separate. Montreal, for example, is not too keen on separation. Also, Quebec entered the federation with much less territory than they have now. Oh yeah and they would owe a ton of money to Canada. Basically, they would be totally screwed.
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@MatttK

      Don't worry, if they separate we could just invade them and liberate them from the tyranny of their oppressors.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2dBliss,

      Even meant in jest, that was in poor taste.
  • cookiemonster01, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I live in BC, aside from the economic repercussions (Celine Dion probably accounts for 90% of their GDP) , I wouldn't give a rats ass if Quebec separated.

    What do we lose...a few good hockey players?
    • xixor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Quebec contains a tremendous amount of natural resources, including some of the worlds largest nickel deposits (Voisey Bay for example). The St. Lawrence water-way has tremendous economic impacts for *all* of Canada, even the distant West. I think that Quebec, both the land, and the people, are part of what makes Canada great: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

      As for hockey players, since a lot of players already come from the US, Sweden, Finland and other European countries, it will be no different bringing them in from Quebec. The big implication on hockey will be the fact that Canada will no longer be able to field a strong enough combined team to maintain its dominance in Olympics and other international tournaments.

    • mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Quebec also adds a huge amount of cultural diversity to this country which has allowed us to be a leader in progressie thinking. If it weren't for provinces like Quebec and BC, this country would be just another version of the south central U.S.

      I would be very upset if Quebec left Canada. They are an integral part of our country.
    • ukmountie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Xixor,

      As much as the Quebecois might like Voisey Bay to be in Quebec it is in Labrador, which is part of Newfoundland and Labrador. As is Churchill Falls, as are the majority of the Iron Ore deposits.

      That said you can bet that the first thing an independent Quebec, no longer bound by the Privy Council would do is to claim soverignty over Labrador,
    • ArtificialAnus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@mrhaines

      Got to agree with you on that one.
      Been in Australia for a while now, travelled all around, and it's really nice but it's HUGE and HOMOGENOUS - exactly like Canada would be without Quebec. I've never lived in Quebec, but I've visited, and had a great time. Great culture, great people.

      Aside: it's warmer here in Oz - although I miss snowboarding. They have it here in winter but it's *****.

      AA
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ukmountie

      I think us Newfies could take the French. They won't be invading nuthin'
    • aldebaran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Labrador was part of Québec's territory, but Canada decided to give it away to the Newfies if they agreed to join Canada. Guess what! The canadian government never asked les Québecois if they wanted to give away a large chunk of their land ... which is why we feel Labrador is still our land!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador#The_Labrador_boundary_dispute
  • xixor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5As the article mentions, in 1995, a referendum was held in Quebec to see whether the people wanted to secede from Canada and become an independent state. The result was a 50.58% for "No" to 49.42% "Yes": pretty close (image the mess some malfunctioning electronic voting machines would have caused in this scenario). This is a major political issue for Canada and its importance cannot be stressed enough.
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As was noted above, the question that was during that referendum wasn't whether they would Secede from Canada. It was ..

      "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

      Fairly loaded if not ambiguous question.
    • Nik420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1sorry, wrong thread
  • Breakdown05, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3can we still call the little ***** Kanucks LOL

    they aren't real french, we are
    • emotive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Yeah, they dont speak actual french anymore.. a mix of english and french, its ***** confusing.
    • IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Emotive,

      As an ex-Montrealer who's travelled the province I can assure that they speak French and not Franglais. Acadien is the language that mixes English and French.
    • aldebaran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@Emotive
      What the hell are you talking about???? We speak the same french as the French ... Just not the same accent! Try to get out a bit more. Tu serais peut-être un peu moins con!!!
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3aldebaran,

      Parisians might take exception to your statment. From their lexicon, Québecois is more of a patois that's closer to the French French spoken in the late 18th-early 19th Century than modern French. Mind you, you could just as easily argue that Québecois is more pur laine than modern French too. :)
    • aldebaran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ knickerbocker

      The french is the same as Parisian french ... the only difference is with the accent and the use of regional expressions. A newscaster from Paris and one from Montreal would use the exact same french (again except for accent)! If I took essays from a student in Montreal and one from a student in Paris, most likely you wouldn't be able to see which one comes from where.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well aldebaran, all I can do is relay the sentiments on the matter of a Parisian of my acquaintence. He doesn't share your opinion as I detailed above. As far as me not being able to tell a Parisian French essay from a Montreal French essay, that's damning with faint praise. My French is derived from French classes 30 years ago with no interim study. The subtleties of each would be lost on me I'm quite sure. :)
    • Nik420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Having lived in Quebec for 5 years, I agree that they speak very poor French. I can speak, read and write French, but could never understand most people speaking Quebecois French. It is not that the words are incorrect, but the words are spoken so quickly and without any enunciation that every sentence sounds like one long drawn out word.

      I can relate though. English speaking Francophones were constantly telling me to slow down(and stop swearig so much). I guess my Maritime English is little better than Quebec French.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Nik420 27 minutes ago Block/Report this User
      [comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 3 diggs bury this digg this
      Having lived in Quebec for 5 years, I agree that they speak very poor French. I can speak, read and write French, but could never understand most people speaking Quebecois French. It is not that the words are incorrect, but the words are spoken so quickly and without any enunciation that every sentence sounds like one long drawn out word.

      I can relate though. English speaking Francophones were constantly telling me to slow down(and stop swearig so much). I guess my Maritime English is little better than Quebec French.

      I'm not saying Québecois is better French or worse; only different, more different than they'd like to accept. Les maudits Anglais Canadiens are more receptive to les Québecois than they'd like to accept (notable loudmouths notwithstanding). Ultimately, Quebecers should recognize that their history both good and bad has been inextricably intertwined with Canada. From the moment de Salisbury fired his shot in the War of 1812, the long-term best interests of Quebec have been with Canada. Quebec stands stronger within Canada than without.
    • Nik420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3aldebaran said - "What the hell are you talking about???? We speak the same french as the French ... Just not the same accent! Try to get out a bit more. Tu serais peut-être un peu moins con!!!"

      I beg to differ. I took the Quebec goverment mandated French immersion courses at my local CEGEP, and every instructor there had a special section of their teachings for the differences between Parisian and Quebecois French. This is part of the Quebec government cirriculum, not some wacky Anglo notion

      I do agree with you on the accent being different as well. I always tell the difference from listening to how the English word "the" is said. Quebecers pronouce it "dee" while Parisians pronnounce it "zee". I worked at an office where many senior management were from France, and the difference was quite noticable, even to my anglo ears.
  • emotive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Give Quebec the boot...
    Get rid of the conservative gov't.

    AND.. they make referance to the Toronto sun!?!?
    Thats the worst paper I have ever read... spins things way outta porportion.
    • tehJR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The Toronto sun is aimed at people who read at a 6th grade level.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 tehJR,

      That's an insult to all the 6th-Graders on Digg. The Sun appeals to those whose mouths move when they read. AKA mouthbreathers
    • aldebaran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ emotive

      If it wasn't for the Québecois Canada would have a conservative government for eternity. Ontario doesn't have enough liberal voters!!!!
  • Simonetta, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2
    Il y a dix ans j'enfonçais le Québec sur la route du sud entre la ville de québec et Montréal.
    A peu près vingt kilomètres extérieur de Montréal que la route est forcée dans une allée et la circulation s'arrête.
    L'autre allée est vide. Après avoir attendu à peu près trente minutes, j'ai transféré ma voiture à l'allée inutilisée.
    J'ai conduit le passé la ligne de voitures arrêtées pour au moins cinq kilomètres.
    Je suis venu finalement à quelques ouvriers qui avaient bloqué la voie rapide pour qu'ils pourraient manger le déjeuner.
    J'ai sorti de la voiture, déplacé les blocs de route et a poussé à un endroit où il ne vous gênera pas le passé les regards étonnés des « ouvriers ».
    N'importe quels gens qui permettraient la route entre leurs deux villes principales être lundi fermés le mi-matin ne survivra jamais comme un pays indépendant.
    Renoncer vos fantaisies, mes amis.
    • shawnj, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2je ne comprendes pas parce que je ne parle pas francais

      woot there goes 10 years of french in public schools!
    • sergebeauchamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6sorry buddy, but automatic translators don't do a good job, we can't understand anything ;)

      (French is my first language)
    • iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think he's saying how pissed he was that the main road between Quebec City and Montreal was closed on a Monday morning. And that this fact is why Quebec will never function as a country...
  • mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The submission description and the AP article are inaccurate. Harper declared that Quebecers (as in the people) form a nation within Canada. At no point did Harper introduce a motion recognizing the Province of Quebec as a nation within Canada. It is a very important distinction.

    Also, what's up with AP referring to the Toronto Star and Toronto Sun as liberal? Does everything in America have to be labelled liberal or conservative?
    • farrellj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Please remember that to US conservatives, the most conservative Canadians are just slightly to the Left...but, in contrast, the network that most American conservatives consider to be a "Bleeding Heart Liberal" bastion is CNN...in Canada, it is considered a Right Wing mouthpiece of the American Government.

      I've lived in both countries...and it still confuses me.

      ttyl
    • IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Mousky is correct. Please reread his post.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Star is definitely small-l liberal. The Sun? Just to the left of the Canada Free Press and the right of Nationalist Socialism.
  • MalachiConstant, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Though this may give fuel to a divisive debate in la belle province, it is quite overdo for the Canadian government to stop ignoring the fact that Quebec is UNIQUE, like it or not. Just by going there, it is blatantly obvious that the cultural influences give cause for a completely distinct life inside of Canada.

    Outside of separation, hockey and ice storms, Quebec gets virtually no coverage in the media in Canada. Who's kidding who? YES, they are unique. YES, they are special. YES, they are a nation, as they are a bubble inside the map. Their television shows are almost completely locally produced (they pretty much have to be, without relying solely on dubbing and subtitles).

    Life is different inside Quebec and everyone knows it. How is it not a nation that should be recognized? We can still be partners with Quebec in every way possible, giving them a distinct status, without either side walking all over the other. This doesn't have to be all negative. Maybe it's just time we stop pretending that they don't have a unique way of looking at things, and that the cultural differences are distinct enough to be respected.

    This may be something that gets the ball rolling on an issue that otherwise will NEVER be solved. Finally, some action is being made, and I think all Canadians will benefit in the end. There's no reason to get pessimistic, because NOTHING bad has happened yet. Maybe nothing will. Maybe this just finally will settle the handling of an issue that has lasted hundreds of years on this continent.
    • philippe70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Tks, true! Merci pour cette belle argumentation!
  • captainwtf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Another reason all Canadians should vote for the Marijuana Party.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Americans as well. We have several here actually..
  • Tweaknews, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Harper is just kissing ass so he will get more votes in Quebec in the upcoming election campaign.

    Just a tactic to get more quebecers on his side when their minority government gets the non-confidence motion within the next 12 months.
    • mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6True, it was a political move...nothing more. But he had to do it or else the Bloc would have introduced legislation that would give them the political grounds to hold another referendum. Not an entirely selfish move on Harpers part...a smart political move on his part IMO.
    • RedSaber, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0We'll get another referendum no matter what Harper, or Duceppe, or all their little buddies says.

      It's funny how we look differently on history, and on the definition of a "smart political move", I'm sure you're the kind of person who thought the sponsorship scandal was actually something necessary to "save Canada", with that kind of argument.

      Ah well.
    • shoover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Harper is just kissing ass so he will get more votes in Quebec in the upcoming election campaign."

      Woah! A politician, kissing ass for votes. What an utterly novel concept!
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Woah! A politician, kissing ass for votes. What an utterly novel concept!"

      Plus ce change, plus ce meme chose. I seem to recall the Tories running on a platform of change. Guess the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
    • shoover, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Arguably they have, at least they haven't been *caught* stealing yet. Granted, it's a low bar, but that is why change is good.

      In any case, as long as there have been politicians, they have done things based on public opinion - after all, that's kind of the whole point of them being there.
  • philippe70, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I'm from Quebec, and yes we are a different nation whether it's in or out of Canada is not a federal question.

    A lot of English people really don't understand us, Quebecois.

    All the controversy about separation would be futile if Quebec had some legal distinction in the federal constitution. ... and Canada would still be the biggest country in the world!

    And it's so hard to get those legal distinction that our only tool is to call for separation. (since we're mostly non-violent people)

    Multiculturalism is dead, you've to recognize that french community outside Quebec are dying.

    (and I have to say that its sad to read so many misconception in lot of comments about my people!)
    • RedSaber, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Bah, peu importe, s'ils veulent pas nous reconnaître, l'important c'est qu'on soit capable de s'tenir.

      C'est marrant, je lis tout ces commentaires complétement faux et débiles sur le Québec, et j'me dis que, maudit, si on pouvait faire sortir ça, ca ferait changer les choses.

      J'suis franchement tanné de me voir dépeint comme un extra-terrestre.

    • buzneg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Canada isn't the biggest country in the world Russia is.

      And I think if any larg group of people want to separate from a country they should be able too, it's just freedom

      Maybe it should be whoever privatly, or oranizationaly owns the land should be able to put it in any country they wish ;0
    • Altesse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@RedSaber :

      De la part d'un français : respect. Vive le Québec (libre ou non) !
    • aldebaran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@ Altesse

      Merci cousin(e)!!!! ;o)
  • RedSaber, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Hey, sorry to spoil the party, but...

    Quebec is a nation, and hopefully, soon enough, out of Canada.

    Listen, we like canadians, you're nice people and all, and it's obvious that we'll be very important economical, military, and-all-that-kind-of-stuff allies someday after the whole separation happens, but... it's just... not working anymore?

    Yes, Harper is quite of a freaking opportunist, and Duceppe, the head of the Bloc Quebecois is a douchebag, but the truth is bigger then whatever those retarded and selfish politicians might say, or might want to argue about. Just come and live in Quebec for a few weeks (or months), and you'll realize that maybe that whole "nation" thing might be true after all.

    And, I could waste my whole time destroying all those funny and pointless economical, political, historical and cultural arguments, but I won't. However, I could set up some nice political conversation back in Montreal if you guys want, so you will discover that we actually speak the real french, and not a "mix of french and english" (???), and that we actually have the cutest chicks in whole North America... out of the inuits. (omfg).

    We lost the first referendum in 1980 by 60%... the second one in 1995 by 1% (50,5% said no, 49,5% said yes), trust me, the next one, even if the federal governement gets corrupted again like it did for the last one... will pass.

    We still love you, it's just that the kids have to leave the house someday.
    • Targo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5RedSaber, you speak as if Quebec were subordinate to English Canada, this may have been the truth forty years ago, but its definitely not the case today. Quebec is not a Canadian colony. I am well aware of what Quebec is like, having lived there myself and still having friends and relatives live there.

      If Quebec were to truly want separation, I wouldn't stand in their way. But I would advocate for TRUE secession, not any of this sovereignty association crap that Rene Levesque was peddling back in the early 80's. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As for the 'neverendum' trend, yes if the Parti Quebecois continues to hold a referendum every time it gets in power, I have no doubt that at one point there will be a yes vote...but even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while.
  • goalieca, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3You guys are all morons! Only a few of you actually understand the situation and the rest of you are simply ignorant.

    It really hurt reading this thread... really ***** hurt.

    And don't just give quebec respect, give respect to all the different french canadians across the country.
  • lbolla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0never heard about "Infinite Jest" by David Foster Wallace?
  • chargen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I seriously think that the rest of Canada should take preemptive measures by separating from Quebec, leaving them with the national debt!

    Take that, Frenchie!

    Seriously though, as a Canadian I am so sick and tired of the "we're special, give us more money or we'll make headaches for you" BS that Quebec generates. If they never will fully secede I wish there were a way to bring them in line with the way other provinces are treated!

    -Pete
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I'm still amazed that people actually elected Harper.

    That guy is a ***** douche. We need to get him out now before he really ***** up our country.
    And he can shove his 1% lower GST up his ass. DEAR god think the of SAVINGS!!!!
    • shoover, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Right, because the alternative of voting for a party of corrupt thieves seemed more compelling.

      Harper is an example of democracy in action - he was a reaction to the really bad job the liberals did, and next time they get voted in, hopefully they'll take that lesson to heart.

      And, if all you have to complain about is a 1% tax cut, then things are pretty good...
  • pthomp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What some of you may not realize is how many English Canadians there are in Quebec, especially across the river from Ottawa in Gatineau. There are so many federal buildings in that region it's crazy! I don't understand those stupid people who want to seperate but also work for the federal government in Ottawa... stupid people. I've lived in Quebec all my life and should it come down to it I'm ready to bear arms to stay with Canada!
    • Colosse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you think the peoples that work for the federal government want to separate, you are stupid.

      Federal workers don't want to separate, they want to keep their jobs.
    • RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You'd be a amazed how many quebec'rs there are working in Ottawa and how difficult it is to get a job nowadays in Ottawa when you are not bilingual. In some places (usually govt. buildings) they frown when they hear you speak english, even though you're in Ontario.
    • aldebaran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I live in Gatineau and work in Ottawa but I wouldn't mind to seperate away from you ... unfortunatly you're also live on the Quebec side .... Je pensais jamais qu'on parlerais de Gatineau sur Digg!
    • Mataouin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0"I'm ready to bear arms to stay with Canada!..... "

      Then you, my friend, shall be my first kill!!!

      Vive le Québec Français, Vive le Québec libre !!
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Vive le Québec libre !!"

      Kinda sad that your 'rallying cry' is a 40-year-old quote from a French president being a *****-disturber in a foreign land for his own chuckles.
  • Ifligus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is "stunning" how?
  • JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I will tell you the most dastardly thing about Quebec being a part of Canada. This is a secret that no one has ever discussed in public with other countries. Please make sure you're seated as this will shake you to the core.

    I went to buy a copy of Guitar Hero II (a version that came with the guitar) and the couple boxes on the shelves looked like they had all been opened. Noticing that, I asked the person stocking shelves if he had any unopened boxes in the back. He nodded and picked out a box from the back room.

    The box he brought back also looked open, but I felt bad having the guy go back there for nothing and just bought the copy of the game he gave me.

    I couldn't help but wonder why all the packages of the game looked open until I opened the box myself at home and realized someone had to hand-open and re-seal all the packages in order to include the French instruction manual. The same thing usually happens with other games, except the game box remains unopened and a French manual is attached to the outside of the box and the box is sealed with a second layer of plastic.

    I know, I know. Try to sleep tonight after hearing this tale. Our country has many secrets that the outside world knows nothing of.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Oh please! The nasty Québecois government made sure the nasty Québecois would be able to get instructions in the nasty Québecois language. Quit being a maudit Anglais whiner.

      This message comes to you from a maudit Anglais just in case you thought otherwise.
    • shoover, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm pretty sure he's being a sarcastic bastard, not a "maudit Anglais whiner".
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Maybe his subtle turn of phrase is lost on me. I doubt it though.
    • JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, it was most definitely intended as sarcasm.

      Key sarcastic phrases:

      the most dastardly thing
      shake you to the core
      try to sleep tonight after hearing this tale

      I'm kind of disappointed a fellow Canadian didn't pick up on the sarcasm. The US has mom, baseball, and apple pie. We have hockey and sarcasm.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Yes, it was most definitely intended as sarcasm."

      I sit corrected

      "I'm kind of disappointed a fellow Canadian didn't pick up on the sarcasm. The US has mom, baseball, and apple pie. We have hockey and sarcasm."

      Sorry to have disappointed you. However, given that there's dolts in this country (the dolts in Brockville stomping on the Fleur de Lis come to mind), you'll forgive my jumping to the conclusion that counted you among their number.
  • Taliasin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Quebec need to do one thing : Buy some nuclear weapons from North Korea or Iran. With theses weapons, we will negociate separation with the nasty federal government.
  • Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1***** Quebec!
  • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2OK, it's probably never going to happen, but how funny would a war between french / non-french Canadians be?

    It would be like watching girls fight.
    • Altesse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yes, I have the exact same feeling when I see American soldiers supercharged with technology being shred to pieces by beard mountainmen with rifles and rocks.

      It awakens erogenous zones in me. Pure pleasure.


    • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Our soldiers are infinitely better trained then your (judging by your comment you must be American) country's cannon fodder.
      Sending weekend warriors into combat is real smart.
    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2No, I'm British - I don't think any country could argue their soldiers are better trained than ours.
    • Altesse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Didn't do you much good in Afghanistan or in Northern Ireland, hmmm ?
  • thebog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4not even a hundred year ago this would amount to treason would it not?
  • Rory1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I don't know why people are dissing on the 1% GST reduction. It was suppose to be a temporary tax to help pay down the national debt (Look what a good job it did!) and it was brought by a PC gov.

    I've been saving for a downpayment on a home for the last 5+ years and finally got one a bit back. The 1% gave me a pretty big GST rebate. The 6% seems like more than enough paid tax. We as Canadians already get taxed pretty high.
    • UnderWurlde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The GST reduction is actually 2% spread in 2 parts. The 2nd 1% decrease is coming in summer 2007 (if my mind serves me right).
  • brianw930, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Wonder how long until all the illegal immigrants invading our southern border states in the US decide that they are a nation within our nation?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM

  • cub1c, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2As as french speaking Québecois, and also separatist, I can tell you that 100% of arguments against separation here are things that our society already discussed and are way behind us. I'm sorry to say to you that those arguments are WAY rhetoric and that they were first said at least 50 years ago. Québecois heard too much of those arguments that just by saying them, you are making the sovereignist movement stronger, which I appreciate. Seriously, we heard them ALL!

    Scare tactics worked with our grand parents and parents, but today, in 2006, Québecois knows that they aren't dumber or brighter than any other nation that already have a country.

    Thanks to you.
    • shoover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yea, congrats - you've matured and grown - now go take your toys and go play with someone else.
  • canadaneedsmusi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I personally don't care if Quebec stays or goes. I live in Ontario, and all I see from Quebec is complaining. For some reason they feel like they deserve some kind of special treatment, which, obviously is annoying as hell. Anyway, what I want to say is that people in Quebec who want seperation think that things will be the same for them when they seperate. However, this isn't true. International corporations are going to move any kind of head offices they have there to other areas in Canada, most likely Toronto. Quebec is going to have to create new trading policies, and other such things with different countries which Canada already has policies. Furthermore, what about all the people in Quebec who don't want to seperate? Firstly, they shouldn't have to leave Canada, but that could be a long arguement. Secondly, many of them will leave Quebec, and move back to other areas of Canada. What about areas of Quebec that are mostly English speaking non-separtists? They should have to go along with Quebec? The whole idea of seperating is just not smart because the issues that will come along with it will cause so much trouble it's unbelievable.
  • jb978, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@blogger1947 burn in hell, bitch!
  • carniv0re, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a bit of semantic issue, but the PM did not say Quebec is a nation. He was very explicit in saying the Quebecois people are a nation within Canada, and made sure to distinguish it from any geographical connection. The Quebecois people as a nation line means that Quebecois that have moved anywhere within Canada can still represent that nation, even outside of it.
  • Modeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would imagine that Quebec would leave federation with near the same territory in wich it joined, a small strip of land along the st lawrence, it would be in canada's best interest to maintain a land bridge joining east and west canada as well as preserving the natural wealth of the northern territories. setting up its own economy and assuming its share of the national debt, and living without the subsidy of taxes from the wealthy western states would make quebec a 2nd or third world country. with large corporations and large numbers of english and skilled bilingual workers leaving, the economy of a seperated quebec would be dismal.
  • Idonedigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I also heard him say California's a state "within" the United States. We were all like, "whoa dude, our minds are BLOWN."
  • RedSaber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Modeus, lies and lies again.

    It's insane how much you guys don't know anything about a subject, and yet, can talk that much.

    If Quebec was to separate, it would keep it's actual territory, including the North with the Natives, since Quebec is the province that take the best care of its native in this whole country.

    Industries and Corporations would stay, since it's actually one of our advantages to speak both languages, since no other province in this fake country speak both official languages... but Quebec. It has always been, and would still be to our advantage. There would be a possible exile of english-only speaking people, but on the day after it happens, they would most likely regroup, and consider a political action, to get some representation in the new governement, which would be completely understandable and legit.

    It is obvious that Quebec will be in economic troubles for a while, with the closing of some borders due to instability, and the insecurity concerning jobs and stuff, but that would maybe last 5 years or so, and then everything would get back on track. International treaties would be signed, the canadian dollar would be kept, and strategic alliances would be signed with the ROC.

    I studied in economy, and I'm also an entrepreneur, so please, stop shouting any kind of possible lies in a discussion you don't know anything about.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RedSaber,

      You honestly don't think that you're one of Parizeau's lobsters? You're deluding yourself if you think you've covered anywhere near the breadth and depth of the troubles that la Belle Province and TROC would sustain courtesy of any separation. That's the beauty of Parizeau's trap: once you're in after the deadfish bait, you're dinner.
    • Sebach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RedSaber, don't be so sure that the province of Quebec would keep the entire territory it now has. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the SCC Reference of 1995, has said that it cannot simply be said that it would split along the current borders. This has been repeated in the international community as well. Quebec is claiming the international right of self-determination in claiming a right to unilateral secession (external self-determination). And that right to separate only extends as far as the PEOPLE (nation?), not necessarily the territory. Either way, before the external right can be activated in international law, the right to internal self-determination must be denied first.

      Ultimately, one reason why Quebec has enjoyed relatively little international support is because the Quebecois nation are believed (compared to some global examples) to be given a great deal of power for internal self-determination; meaning economic, cultural and linguistic freedom and participation WITHIN Canada. I'm not saying that the Quebecois are not oppressed but compared to some oppressions elsewhere on the globe, it's not as bad.

      But if the right to secession is granted to the Quebecois nation, the same right must be considered for the Aboriginal population of Northern Quebec as well who could make similar claims. Quebec might not have any solid LEGAL grounds to deny this right. Not to mention the international principle of effectivity, the actual CONTROL over a territory, instead of a mere political claim. In this regard, the Aboriginal peoples (mostly Cree and Inuit) of the North, where few of us have ever lived, have a strong claim as they make up the VAST majority of the population. It might be one of the greatest historical hypocrisies if one people (Quebecois) separated because they were a unique oppressed peoples, and then turned around and denied that right to another group (Aboriginal peoples), no?
    • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Fake country. Someone needs to take geography. Oh and as for other provinces speaking french... Um northern Ontario and New Brunswick... even more geography needed.

      It's insane how much you don't know anything about a subject, and yet, can talk that much.
      Oh and if Quebec is so good to its natives, then why did they say they wanted to stay with Canada if you septerated
      QED
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2One word, fordprefect: Oka

      Oh and maybe Lasagna!

      Bwahahahaha!!!!! :)
    • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes Oka indeed. It was a local QUEBECOIS regional government (which the Quebcois mayor was a member of)that lead to the conflict when he wanted to turn there sacred land into a golf course and it was police (run by belle province) which were sent in, not the army (federal government) Shall I lend you a shovel, or do your prefer to dig with your mouth...or in this case keyboard?
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Clearly reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Maybe you just didn't get that my response was a backup of your previous post, not an attack. That said, the relationship between the First Nations and les Québecois have be deteriorating for a number of decades, incidents like Oka being only emblematic of a larger malaise.
  • RedSaber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Knicker,

    Honestly, I Think Parizeau is a complete dumbass, and got much more attention then what he actually did deserve. With his falacious declaration the night of the referendum, he just destroyed everything that the separatist movement had been working for, and a thing that says a lot about a man, it's the way he's able to see more of the big picture, then his own ideals.

    However, Parizeau was still a good finance minister back in the 70's (he's the one who got hundreds of millions from the jewish bankers in NYC so we could nationalize electricity), and he cleaned up pretty much the province finances.

    In 1995, he had a very thorough plan of how to survive financially the referendum. The major mistake he did, was playing the "stfu card", so you don't tell your plan until you have to do it, so the "supposed enemy" of the purist separatist movement don't get to attack it. However, since the population wasn't aware of the plan either, they got scared, and obviously did not trust his governement, so they voted no. I completely understand that, I would maybe have done the same thing.

    However, the truth is that we are aware of all the problems that would cause to both our nations, and we have plans to manage, and overcome all those problems, and that we know it's not gonna be a "beautiful morning after".

    But there has to be an economical and political plan to sustain the effect that a potential separation would cause. Since I'm involved politically, I know of such a plan, but the major problem with the retarded political parties we got here, is that they are so stupid and completely incompetent, that they don't want to make that plan public, and they don't want to work more on such a plan. The PQ and the BLOC are completely incompetent parties that care more about their own persons, then the nation. But then again... isn't that the problem of all modern day political parties?

    Honestly, if there would be a referendum hold today, nothing would change, the people are not ready to vote for a corrupted politician like Boisclair, and for fake smiles, and powder white teeth.

    But I just wanted to let you know, knicker, there is a major plan, it was well prepared back in the huge-ass parizeau days, to face all the troubles, but the PQ isn't what it used to be, so I doubt we could put any faith in any of those parties to work more on it.

    But it will come, and that doesn't mean Quebec shouldn't be it's own country. Give it a few more years, once we clean up the mess and get serious.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RedSaber

      "Honestly, I Think Parizeau is a complete dumbass, and got much more attention then what he actually did deserve."

      Sorry Red, but the man was the Quebec premier. Dumbass or not, it just goes to show you that the politicians leading the Seperatiste fight clearly have issues and agendas that the average Québecois may not be privy to and may be taken-in by. Don't, whatever you do, forget his 'ethnic and money' comment. That, in and of itself should make you wary of those pushing to remove Quebec.

      "With his falacious declaration the night of the referendum, he just destroyed everything that the separatist movement had been working for, and a thing that says a lot about a man, it's the way he's able to see more of the big picture, then his own ideals"

      Destroyed? Maybe. Look. I'm likely a damn-sight older than you and could just as easily be dismissed as a meddling non-Quebec Anglo. And, truth be told, you wouldn't be entirely wrong. However, I'm an Anglo well-versed in the relationship betwixt Quebec and TROC. That said, I have to say that you should be wary of politicians. They have their own motives for wanting to gain power and those motives usually involve pulling the wool over the eyes of as many as they can. Parizeau just let the veil slip. Be very wary of politicians of all stripes. There's nary an honest one among the bunch. Most junk want you to do their bidding.

      'However, Parizeau was still a good finance minister back in the 70's" (

      His strength. No quibble there.

      "In 1995, he had a very thorough plan of how to survive financially the referendum."

      Within the perameters that he could foresee. Personally, I believe he lucked-out with the referendum result. He could rail at the money and ethnic vote as he did and not have to put-up. That said, economists make horrible leaders because they expect the market to behave logically. Big mistake.

      "The major mistake he did, was playing the "stfu card", so you don't tell your plan until you have to do it, so the "supposed enemy" of the purist separatist movement don't get to attack it."

      Oh come on! He attacked every Quebecer who wasn't pur laine. That included a significant number of French-speaking immigrants of non-white background. He exposed the ugly underbelly of the separatist movement as it existed. They have long memories and won't be inclined to give future separatist leaders the benefit of the doubt.

      "However, since the population wasn't aware of the plan either, they got scared, and obviously did not trust his governement, so they voted no. I completely understand that, I would maybe have done the same thing."

      That's generous of you. In your shoes, I'd be angry as Hell at being used that way.


      "However, the truth is that we are aware of all the problems that would cause to both our nations, and we have plans to manage, and overcome all those problems, and that we know it's not gonna be a "beautiful morning after"."

      In that, you're deluding yourself. While the problems could be overcome in time, it's going to take more than your lifetime to correct the adventures of a bunch of ideological boomers. I admire your willingness to volunteer the lifetime comfort of yourself and your children to bring the boomers' fight to fruition. I hope that brings you warmth in your grave.

      "But there has to be an economical and political plan to sustain the effect that a potential separation would cause. Since I'm involved politically, I know of such a plan, but the major problem with the retarded political parties we got here, is that they are so stupid and completely incompetent, that they don't want to make that plan public, and they don't want to work more on such a plan. The PQ and the BLOC are completely incompetent parties that care more about their own persons, then the nation. But then again... isn't that the problem of all modern day political parties?"

      True, it is. Mind you, much more is accomplished within than without. That applies whether you're speaking of being politically active or as a larger metaphor for Quebec within Canada.

      "Honestly, if there would be a referendum hold today, nothing would change, the people are not ready to vote for a corrupted politician like Boisclair, and for fake smiles, and powder white teeth."

      And you believe that future leaders will be different.......how?

      "But I just wanted to let you know, knicker, there is a major plan, it was well prepared back in the huge-ass parizeau days, to face all the troubles, but the PQ isn't what it used to be, so I doubt we could put any faith in any of those parties to work more on it."

      That plan presumes much and is somewhat pie-in-the-sky in terms of its central conceits. Quite honestly, in the realpolitik world, it isn't worth the powder to blow it to Hell.

      "But it will come, and that doesn't mean Quebec shouldn't be it's own country. Give it a few more years, once we clean up the mess and get serious."

      As I said earlier, on balance, Quebec would be giving up far more than it would be gaining if it ever separated. I'd suggest that the time and effort spent railing at all the faults of Quebec within Canada could better be spent in helping create a more workable Dominion. Ultimately, no political circumstance is going to answer all questions or be perfect in all regards. However, I suggest to you that the status quo is the least bad of the lot. Should you want to discuss further, feel free to contact me at willcocks@rogers.com. The discussion is worth continuing.
  • -dXs-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Come on now, this is easy.

    Let Quebec seperate, then hold a national referrendum throughout remaining Canada to join the new country Quebec.
    Once we're all on aboard and part of the country of Quebec, we'll hold another referrendum to change the name back to Canada.

    On another note, I've noticed that Stephen Harper's facial feature are small and close together on a relatively large head.
  • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3argoff - How short your memory is. I am from Ontario and am completely against Quebec separation, just want to be clear. However it was only a few short years ago that Alberta sucked on the teat of another province and it was perfectly acceptable then. The very small amount of equalization funds Quebec receives is not all from you, much of it comes from Ontario. And I am HAPPY for it. I am glad that my province has enough money to help the less well off in the country. I am a Canadian first and an Ontarian a distant second. If Canadians need money, then they should have it. The hypocrisy of an Albertan bitching about equalization is appalling. Ontario funded your province for years before you found the oil. Additionally Alberta may not be putting money into equalization for very long, you needn't worry. Our sneaky federal government is considering removing non-renewable resource income from monies counting towards equalization. Making Alberta a have not province again and we will be funding you again. Quebec should certainly be treated no better then any other province and our Prime Minister is selling the country for the votes he will gain from Quebec. You don't like that, consider that every riding in your glorious Alberta was blue in the last election. We as a nation need to think of our nation first and our petty provinces last. Viva la Quebec, Viva la uni Canada!
  • RedSaber, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Sebach,

    Your first argument is completely futile, and does not represent the actual Quebec-separation problem. It has been stated already that the Supreme Court does not have the ability to judge anything related to Quebec's referendum, out of what they can judge now. Which basically means that the judges only gave a legal advice, and that's it, it is not legit in the Quebec's case.... and that issue has been fixed a long time ago. Never forget, there's a huge difference between what is "legal" and what is "legit". You are right, that has been seen as an major international issue, because the UN stated that a court shouldn't have to prevent a nation to self-determination. Canada was blamed for acting that way, and the United States and France, two major power, were supporting Quebec back in the referendum of 1995.

    You are so intellectually dishonest, it is completely nuts! Quebec was given major international support, by many major powers, and has close ties to many of the peaceful separatist movements around the globe.

    Concerning all the aboriginals, crees, inuits, mohawks and such, I wouldn't prevent them from holding any referendums on their territory, and I would even be glad to go up there and help them with any issues or questions they might have. However, the truth is, nothing would most likely happen, since they are now living on money our governement is sending them to help them, and, just as a reminder, a lot of Quebec's natives voted for Quebec's separation back in the referendum of 1995. They all know how disgusting you guys are treating them back in Canada. It was a MAJOR issue for the natives along Ontario's border, where the natives living on the Ontario territory prefered the way their neighbours were living in Quebec, then them in Ontario, and some even talked about moving in Quebec due to their poor situation back in Ontario.

    But then again, instead of being intellectually dishonest, maybe you should start thinking more about the natives problems before trying to use them (again... Canada is used to abusing people throughout history), to get whatever you want to get. They are dying in their reserves and have very very bad quality of life (some reserves closed a few weeks ago due to water poisoning in Ontario!).

    Please, have some real arguments, or get educated on the separatist question. Stop watching CBC and reading some french-hating newspaper, it's not getting you anywhere. If you want a french-federalist opinion, start reading "La Presse", maybe then you would get more reality-based arguments.


    • RedSaber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Oh, talking about the natives situation in Canada. I hope you also know that the UN issued a major statement to Canada concerning how bad they are treating their natives?

      It is one of the major problems why Canada lost its rank among the best places to live in the world.

      So I don't think you guys are in any shape to tell us what to do with our natives, we'll deal with them, just like we've been doing for the past couple hundreds years... until some english guy (Jeffrey Amherst) came and gave them blankets with smallpox so they could eradicate all of them.

      Trust me, we don't need advice from you guys on how to deal with our natives.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry RedSaber but nobody with European background can claim anything approaching high ground on the First Nations subject.

      "Trust me, we don't need advice from you guys on how to deal with our natives."

      The Surité handling of Oka would suggest otherwise.
  • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Shmoo- "No he isn't, the move proved that the prime minister was a) willing to work with the other major parties (he discussed this move with NDP leader Jack Layton and others)"
    Talked yes, then promptly ignored. Jack Layton is completely against this move. Ten points for political swing -10 for accuracy.
    "and b) was able to take decisive, successful moves to undermine the seperatist movement in Canada."
    Saying its successful when it has not been done yet is ridiculous and as for undermining separatist movement in Canada... well according to experts http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&q=harper+quebec&btnG=Search+News
    Even those from his home province.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061124.COSIMP24/TPStory/National
    and from the seperatists themselves
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/11/24/boisclair-nation.html
    This move only helps the sovereignty movement. So, I would have to say that this statement is also false.
  • justice7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1***** quebec

    they want to leave AND use Canada's money on top of it... screw that

    Get out, and swim back to france. It is going to get to the point that Canada wants their land back -- run now.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3justice7,

      Grow up. Yours is thd kind of unhelpful spew that does more harm than good. I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that your childish response only helps those who'd rather split the country up?

      No? I thought not.
    • justice7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1my comment was out of pure frustration over the matter.

      Quebeccers live in one of the best countries in the world, and they STILL complain.

      The fact is, they are not any more a "Nation" than any of the other provinces are. They want to be treated special, because they feel that they don't fit in with the english speaking canada. They are tired of being a "2nd language".

      so what? French is the first language in Quebec, and the rest of Canada has no problem with that.

      Quebec's culture is certainly not being hurt by being part of Canada. Why don't they realize that the culture that is in jeopardy is the French Canadian culture. A separation will lose our French Canadians.

      Something even I, a frustrated Ontarian, don't want to see happen.
  • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2shoover - you might recall this is not a crappy two party system. Additionally just because he did not list everything he does not like about Harper (which could have meandered on for quite a while and would deserved to be dugg down) does not mean he only has the one concern.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.