Letters from the Editor in Chief

This blog was great! was being the word.
the whole idea of quebec is over for the rest
of us and most of the young people i know in
quebec want jobs, a shot at the future anything but talk about this. this is usually reserved
for stormy holiday dinners. you folks at the
cbc might have noticed van ran out of water?
our soldiers dying like flies? dont give the
politicians an inch more publicity for something
as dumb as this!

No one can tell what the fallout of yesterday's motion will be, but the genesis of it should point to the actions of 2 men, M. Ignatieff and S. Harper and their total lack of understanding of the issue, the irresponsible and reckless manner of their remarks , for political gain. In the process they have created a mess for everyone else to clean up. Thumbs down for these 2 men.

As a sheep herder Harper has found his calling.It was disgusting to see these gutless sheep vote for this no brainer "A NATION WITHIN CANADA"

How can anyone blame Harper for reacting to a motion that was going to be brought up by Duceppe? The BQ motion would have been far more destructive. Now, hopefully, we can get on to more important, current issues.

DUMB- As long as politicians believe that Canada can be everything to EVERYBODY this Nation wil only be a group of Nations. I really thought that Harper would have the balls to just ignore it, just give the BLOC its day, defeat the motion and get on with trying to build a COUNTRY. It was not to be. My thanks to the idiots in the Liberal party for kicking the sleeping dog. Sheesh:(

Perspective from Quebec:

It seems that people have forgotten why there were two previous attempts to address constitutional problems. The fact is, Quebec is not a signatory to Canada's constitution. In the eyes of many here, the fact that Canada's constitution hasn't been ratified by one of its biggest provinces and one of two founding peoples is a major slap in the face and rejection of these same people. It's a major feeding source of separatist frustration, and a major scab they pick at whenever they please. The fact that someone is trying to address this is great, as it robs them of their moral high ground.

Kudos to Mr. Harper for pulling this rug under Duceppe's feet, who was trying to trap the Liberals with this issue.

M. Toscano

The whole concept of a nation within a nation no matter what semantics you want to use is ridiculous. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords and both referendums all point to one thing. Politicians in this country are STILL disconnected to the public they serve; CANADIANS. This 'nation' matter was political skullduggery and mischief for each of the main political parties to position themselves for their own political gain at the expense of the will and interests of the people. Its disgusting. These people were elected by the people to REPRESENT them...especially on major issues...and to lead on lesser ones that their respective politicial platforms were campaigned on. This issue is way too complicated to just pull out a policy/direction rabbit out of the politician/ magicians hands. Harper should have had the guts to stand ground on this issue and let the Bloc raise it and then defeat it. Harper chose to ignore his ideology to try to garner Quebec support to win a few more seats. Harper governs not in the best interests of Canadians but in the best interests of the Conservative party to win a majority election. Shame on Harper. And shame on Ignatieff for even raising this divisive concept. That is the Bloc's role. Every region of Canada, every culture and sub culture is unique in its own way. So to try to recognize just one amongest many is foolhardy. There were many other ways to recognize and demonstrate to Quebecers that they bring different values to the Canadian table. Some of which I would say would benefit all of Canada. ie. their daycare and environment plans and programs. Its this mosaic of cultures that make us all uniquely Canadian. We have provincial and other jurisdictional opportunities to govern our respective regions and local cultures. But leave Canada alone. And to Quebec....please find a way to sign onto the Constitution and work within its framework to ensure your proper place in this great country

Even though this vote is largely symbolic as it is outside the Constitution - it is "fuel" for futher discussion and will be used in courts as an issue. It is also a slap in the face to the real nation(s) of this country - the aboriginal first nations !
Everyone else, including Quebec, was first a colony and later on a province - but not a nation (except maybe Newfoundland).
The lesson here is - IF Quebec is a nation(without a ratified Canadian Constitution) within united Canada THEN Quebec can be a nation(with its own Constitution) outside Canada - one day !

I disagree with the ambiguous wording of this motion. There does not seem to be any consensus on what a "nation" is, or what specifically the word "Quebecois" means. There are many groups within the country now that can use this motion as a precedent to fight for their own recognition as "nations" within a larger "nation," the First Nations being the most obvious. This situation seems more likely to breed division than unification; indeed, sharp divisions on the place of Quebec in the country have already been made apparent by this motion.

Also, I wonder what all the people in Quebec who feel they might not fit the definition of "Quebecois" are thinking. I would likely be feeling rather anxious in their place.

That the Bloc holds a number of seats in Parliament indicates a considerable percentage of the people in Quebec still feel alienated from the country. The discontent of these people should not be ignored, but I feel that this motion has, as some separatists have mentioned, taken "a first step" toward casting Quebec from the fold rather than drawing it in.

The die was cast long ago. The Quebecois want separation and the PQ and Bloc were created to facilitate this.

The current crisis was started by the ham-handed, clumsy ramblings of Ignatief who was pandering to Quebec for their votes.

Duceppe capitalized on this and upped the ante by threatening to turn this into a motion for Quebec's nationhood. Canada was in for a loss regardless of which way the vote would have come down...the Bloc would spin things so that YES would mean Canada supports nationhood (and hence separation) and a NO would mean that Canada wants to "keep the Quebecois under subjucation" (and use that to further stoke the fires of separation). That would have been a disaster.

Harper called the bluff and tried to salvage the impending disaster as best he could...he re-directed the motion to both recognize the Quebecois' uniqueness as well as to reinforce the concept of a united Canada. Certainly, Harper would NOT have made this motion if Ignatief and Duceppe had not forced him into this...and this was the best solution to the no-win situation we were stuck in.

No one likes what has happened...but something bad was going to happen regardless. This motion was the lesser of two evils and we were stuck with this mess because of Ignatief and the Liberal Party of Canada. Thanks for nothing!

Congratulations to PM Harper for making the best of a bad situation. Finally, some leadership and intelligence from the government in this country!

History, by it's very nature, has yet to pronounce but international news agencies have.

http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=393085&lng=1

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3881702a12,00.html

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1066614

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/1128/breaking20.htm

I would like to first point out that Prime Minister Harper after being forced by the BLOC did not make this decision alone. He consulted with his caucus, the two opposition parties leaders as well as liberal leadership hopeful Stephane Dion. You can be assured the best constitutional minds in our country were also consulted before the decision was written and finalized.

The views expressed so far reminds me of fans when their team loses a game, everyone suddenly becomes a Saturday night quarter-back.

Would the people of Canada feel the same way if a motion was brought forward to recognize the unique culture and language of the people of Newfoundland? I think not. And that's because we as Newfoundlanders are recognized and loved by Canadians because of our very nature. Thus I believe the resistance to the motion declaring the Quebecois a nation is based on our bias against Quebec and we need to work on that

I am somewhat mystified by the apparent lack of any comment from the Francophone communities 'outside ' of Quebec. There are huge numbers of Francophones in Ontario, as well as Manitoba. Yet there seems to be no comment or any media interest in their opinion. Do they feel left out, betrayed by their Quebec cousins. Perhaps they are as confused as everyone else about the definition of 'Quebecois', and 'nation'.

Ambiguity such as "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription," a Charter of Rights and Freedoms with a legislative override, and now "a people/nation within a united Canada" are more than political mealy mouthing and doubletalk. The mere existence of Canada shows that there are some realities that escape our attempts to define them.

The fact that we may never have a definition should not deter us from responding to more modest challenges when a new statement is called for. The division of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada in 1791, federalism in 1867 and parts of the 1982 Charter of Rights & Freedoms are all attempts to deal with "the stone the builders [originally] rejected": Quebec which became the keystone of Canadian pluralism.

If it were not for Quebec's durability and cohesiveness, none of the other groups and regions now recognized as distinct would have advanced as far in their distinctiveness.

Two factors may make this latest attempt more successful than the Meech and Charlottetown proposals. One is that it was a collective action. Stephen Harper's motion, however long he may have envisaged it, came in response to initiatives launched by others. It was not his personal footnote to the constitution as Meech Lake was for Brian Mulroney.

Second, the fact it was championed by a PM from the area where resistance is strongest--Alberta--gives it an advantage over earlier eastern-based attempts. Like Richard Nixon's reaching out to China in 1972, it often takes a conservative to force other conservatives to recognize a persistent reality.

A nation within a united Canada means that Canada is a united nation, regardless of how you define the word nation. So I propose that we go one step ahead and change our "nation"'s name to The United Nation of Canada.
Now the only time we should be embarassed is when we go to the UN.
K. Nguyen

The threat of Quebec's impending separation and Ontario's efforts to pacify Quebec has been the preoccupations of Upper and Lower Canada for more than half a century. This has led to the disintegration of the country. Multiculturalism leads to multinationalism. Canada is a collection of ethnic identities. There are no Canadians who aren't hyphenated by themselves or by others. Divisive policies have made it so. I'm part of the Western Canadian Nation. Upper and Lower Canada are foreign countries to me, my family, and my colleagues.

Quebec is distinct. How many people defeated in war (the one between Wolfe & Montcalm) still retain everything, except who gets the tax money. They are distinct because no one understands them. The gesture means nothing, except to those willing to use it at a later date to split up the country. If the PM had let the Bloc's motion go through, it would have been defeated in the house. There would be no need for more pointless discussion. But then again, great way not to do the real work of the house, governing the country.

Just how Canadians can elevate a politician, and proving to be a good one at that, to the exalted status of 'leader' is beyond me. Mr. Harper's at best meaningless political gesture was a political step to upstage Mr. Duceppe and to throw a bone to a Liberal contender who is proving to be just as dithering and right of centre as the previous leader of that party. This is exactly what Mr. Harper wants because he knows that the academic Mr. Ignatieff is no Mr. Trudeau and no match for his political machinations.

This situation is no mere football game or an event that should be handled on a play-by-play basis. Nor should any Canadian's concerns be discounted. Also, this is a uniquely Canadian situation, and no comparison to any other resolution at any other time or place in the world will assist us.
I am glad I live in a country with many thoughtful, democratic people who are willing to share all things in this country equitably. This alone gives me hope that we can come to a long lasting resolution for a problem that had its origins far in the past.
Our biggest hindrance may be a political system that does not offer us the right people on which to base our choices for the direction we should head, or the resolve we should take. Many people believe that democracy equates with unfettered freedom and that is not accurate. Rather, real democracy would work to achieve equitable sharing of freedoms, opportunities and access for the greatest majority of us.

interesting and intriguing

This whole separation issue strikes me as treasonous! The majority of Canadians want a democratic and united Canada, and yet we allow political maneuvering that attempts to destroy this creation. 100 years ago they would have been hung from the rafters for this! If all cultures are equal why should one be treated differently than another? These separatists should be run out of the country.

Prince Edward Island is distinct.

Of Peoples and Nations: Just a word of explanation to add to the confusion… Just because two words are spelled the same way in two different languages does not mean that they share a meaning. Such is the case for the word "nation". Many years ago, Pierre Trudeau explained that the root of one of our long-standing Canadian problems is that, strictly speaking, "nation" in French does not necessarily mean "nation" in English. The correct English translation for the French word "nation" is "people", while - you guessed it! - the correct French translation for the English word "nation" is "peuple". Thus, in Canada, we have "Une nation et deux peuples" just as well as we have "Two nations and one people". However, many people, particularly in the media nowadays, use the word "nation" indiscriminately. Thus, the debate on "nationhood" will surface every now and then, until the end of times (or of Canada as we know it), and since we cannot read the minds of politicians, we will never know when a politician is just playing on words to confuse us, or just confusing the two words as we all do…

If Quebec wants to be reconized as a nation what about the native people who were there before who still want to be true canadians, can they seperate from quebec and leave the french with quebec city?

Charlie wants to run us out of the country. Please run us out of the country Charlie - je t'en prie. That way we can continue developing the progressive social policies that separate our rich culture from the spirituelly sterile fundamentalists - while Ontario becomes a vassal to the new United States of Alberta (its capitol will be in Texas of course).

The only thing that stands between you and soulless American assimilation is us Charlie. And you know it. You aren't going to be running us nowhere because we are the real Canadian patriots. Real Canadians don't "hang people from the rafters". The way they did things "100 years ago"?? - is this really a cogent argument for anyone with a vision of the future?

Voyons donc - n'importe quoi! Pour Charlie penser autrement c'est de la "trahison". Pour nous c'est une richesse.

To me the Government includes ALL Parties, and it seems that they ALL REVEAL A Disconnect with the public. The latest by-elections involved less than 60% in Montreal, and just over 40% in London, ON. A democracy runs because more than 50% are interested enough to vote. We aren't voting because the issues being 'floated' are as light as stomach gas. They don't have any impact on the real issues facing Canadians and the Future of a healthy Canada, a strong Canada, a resourceful Canada. Our youth leave town, leave the Provinces, leave the Nation. We have been disconnected from our Land, Strong and Free!

Dividing Canada into Virtual Provinces takes us into a smoke and mirrors extension of wordsmithing and that seems to be a trademark of our failure in mastering the value of clear, tactible languages. If we drive to the US Border, we can touch the little concrete posts that define the boundary. Our Politicans seem to think that moving the goal posts will make their perpetual and repetitive dilemma with Quebec dissolve, either by adding more non-Quebeckers (the 'immigrants' who voted against the PQ motion) or superimposing a pacifier. And we want these advertising deluded spinners to lead us?

Its time for more independents and new Election Legislation to give independents all the rights of the Parties (funding, motions, bill-introduction, et cetera.

Partisan politics has shown its ugliest flaws in this Parliament. Even the non-ruling Parties don't object or criticize enough. There's tacit acceptance and a 'go-along to get-along' atmosphere in Ottawa, and that, unfortunately, is about the way we vote.

I was opposed to the Charlottown agreement on principle, the same as I am opposed to this "recognition"

It was and always has been my opinion and feeling that Canada included Quebec. Try and tell those vets who fought in war they were not fighting for ALL of Canada including Quebec as a province. Tell the Quebec veterans the same thing. Tell Canadian artists and performers that their efforts excluded Quebec. Tell Quebec's First Nations Peoples they are not a part of Canada. (Just try that one.) I think you have the idea here.

Today, Quebec is as multicultural as any province in this country. It is not just Quebecois. The province has a long and deep French cultural identity; something no one in this country would deny. But does a now minority cultural identity translate into a national identity when the population is so diversified?

Quebec needs a better deal on transfer payments. So does Ontario, BC and other provinces. This is where the government needs to address the needs of Quebec, not some "symbolic" gesture of parliament.

It is time our politicians woke up and saw things for what they are. This country is being allowed more decentralization causing a rise in regional nationalism, and that doesnt just mean Quebec. The government (past and present) have pandered to these interests and it is about time someone stood up and said "Canada United".

Put me at the head of the line please.

The decision to recognize the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada is a step forward in our pursuit of a strong democracy. Hopefully we can now make our Dominion an example to the world of how people can live together by embracing diversity with equality.

This will require leadership from elected representatives and action by the media to counteract the selfish and intolerant attitudes promoted by manipulative, misleading, misinformation messages. These messages play on destructive emotions to bolster popularity for bad ideas. In Alberta we hear our leaders and others declare the rest of Canada is against Alberta. I am sure similar marketing is used in Quebec and other provinces.

It is no surprise that many people see the presentation of facts that contradict their emotionally based opinions as biased reporting. The CBC must continue to report facts that contradict manipulative marketing even though it will be unpopular. The Conservative Party’s tight control of media contact is probably due to the fact that, in the past, the reporting of quotes from their members contradicted their carefully prepared marketing messages.

The CBC needs to be more vigilant to ensure that none of its reporting contains marketing messages. A recent CBC item included the marketing message that drinking red wine was beneficial when, in fact, eating grapes is the thing to do. Also, presenting a variety of manipulative messages along with facts does not make a media unbiased. By filtering out all marketing attempts, and restricting reporting to fact based information, the CBC can limit the success of those who try to manipulate public opinion with misleading marketing.

The undemocratic influence of manipulative marketing must be challenged and the attitudes it creates must be reversed. Only then can we hope for a coming together of all areas of our Dominion to improve the life of all Canadians – equally and embracing diversity.