Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Quebec is a nation, like it or not, says Charest

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 10:51 PM EDT 12/11/06

No permission necessary to define identity, according to Quebec Premier ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Barry Turner from Canada writes: Sorry Premier. Quebec is not a nation. It is a province. French-Canadians might be a nation in the same sense that aboriginal peoples are accepted as nations - on the basis of their ethnicity, culture and language. But that includes all French-Canadians, not just Quebecers. In that sense, English-Canadians, Irish-Canadians and Serb-Canadians are nations too but don't feel compelled to engage in such ridiculous jingoism. To the extent that Quebec has defined legal powers, territory and jurisdiction over people within the limits of its legal powers, it is a province of the great country and nation of Canada. No amount of wishful thinking and creative constructions of the meaning of the word nation or naming of institutions or cities the 'National' this or that will make it different.
  2. Sibley M from Canada writes: It's okay with me,Jean. BTW Newfoundland is a nation too.
  3. Joe Mead from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Most of us already have a nation here - its called Canada. If you don't like it, how is this for a simple solution - LEAVE. Canada is one of top countries in the world for treatment of its citizens and lifestyle. If Quebec stands alone, it currently is a have-not province - so it shall be a have-not nation.
  4. .. .. from Canada, Canada writes: I am a nation. My dog is a nation. My house is a nation. Wouldn't you like to be a nation too?
  5. David P from Calgary, Canada writes: Fine, recognize Quebec as a nation, then give them their share of the debt and cut off the transfer payments that the rest of the country has to pony up. It's great that Quebec has a distinct identity - not sure why it needs to be rammed down our throats. This debate will continue on and on and on...So until you decide which fence to sit on Mr. Charest, I have no time for your penny theatrics anymore. You are a meaningless entity to me and nothing more than a drain on the rest of Canada.
  6. Have Pun, Will Travel from Christmas Island writes: Quebec is a province, like it or not. Vote to leave Confederation and voila, you're a country...till then, Quebec is just another province.
  7. BC Refuge in AB from Canada writes: Sure, Quebec is a nation within Canada, just like the Acadians, Capers, Newfies, Albertans, Vancouverites, Torontonians, Ukranes, Inuit, Aboriginals, and several other defined cultural groups. But unless you recognize all these groups within the constituition you lay the groundwork to turn us into another country torn apart by cultural wars. I for one would probably become a Western separtist if Quebec were ever given formal recognition with special powers.
  8. Glenn Hawley from Calgary, Canada writes: '...neither do I believe that Quebeckers have any permission to ask from anyone to be who they are.'

    If only more of the franco-quebecois felt this way, they wouldn't be continually demanding that the rest of us canadians create their nation for them in the Constitution.
  9. Nova Scotian by the Ocean from Canada writes: I've lived in Ontario and now Nova Scotia, and I have no problem recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada -- the way Scotland is a nation within the United Kingdom. It's just not that big a deal, and some Liberal Leadership types are trying to make it into a big deal so they can win by bashing those who believe in Quebec as a nation.
    Unlike Ontario, the west, or here in NS, Quebec has a different language, legal system and culture. It's different. And that's okay. It's just not the big deal that some are trying to make it out to be.
    Maybe if the rest of us were more secure in our identities, we'd be okay with that.
  10. D. B. Cooper from Vancouver, Canada writes: Quebec French speakers already have special powers (as mentioned by #7) not shared by French speakers in other parts of Canada or by speakers of other languages. They have the right to ban signs in other languages, to force people of other cultures to study in French and not their own languages, and so on. However, I agree that if the Quebec French are to continue to have these rights (or even more rights) then other 'nations' within Canada should have the same rights. E.g. the people and government of Alberta should be able to ban signs in French (and Chinese, and Russian, and Amharic....), stop paying for French bilingual education, stop putting up bilingual signs, and etc. Likewise, if the Chinese end up a majority of the population somewhere like Richmond, B.C., they should be able to ban signs in French and English. Well, okay both those suggestions are ridiculous and offensive to a modern, pluralistic society - but then, so are Quebec's laws and special rights. Quebec takes and takes, while giving nothing to its English, Chinese and other language speakers, while English, Chinese and other language speakers in the rest of Canada are forced to provide services to French speakers. This should change, or Quebec should split off and starve in its own special way.
  11. James Cyr from Balmertown, writes: Okay, the nation of Western Canada and the nation of Ontario recognize the nation of Quebec!
  12. R. Carriere from Canada writes: 'FUDDLE-DUDDLE'-Jean Charest!
  13. Vapor Pressure from Alberta, Canada writes: Whatever. Most thinking people know the 'nation state' concept is dead (ie: globalization is a fact of life now). But then again there are still people who don't understand evolution as a fact. Move on, Next subject! When your dealing with things like this there are no 'reason'able discussions. There is only quotations of dogma in elevated tones.
  14. Jonah Jamieson from Hamilton, Canada writes: If you've ever visited Quebec, you'd have to be blind not to have noticed that there is something distinct about the place. Charest is right in pointing out that Quebecers need no recognition of their status 'as a nation' (whatever that means) from any one else outside the province. However, there's something distinct about each province of this country, as they have all been differently shaped by geography and history. Should Quebec's distinctness be entrenched in the Constitution any more than Newfoundland's or Alberta's or any other part of this country? Absolutely not. I have loved going to Quebec on thrice-yearly visits for over forty years and I would be sorry to see the province go. However, if we have to go through yet another round of making the province feel okay about staying, then perhaps it's time for our insecure sibling to leave the nest and get a place of its own. But I suspect that this time the clamouring isn't coming from inside the province. What this really seems to be about is Michael Ignatieff's attempts to obtain support from Quebec delegates for his Liberal leadership bid. And if that's what it takes then I say bring on Bob Rae or Stephane Dion or Gerard Kennedy. Mr. Ignatieff please go back to your patrician friends in the chattering classes of London or the U.S. and leave the job of running this country to someone who has a better understanding of the issues that truly matter to Canadians.
  15. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: now we know why so many billions of ontario and alberta dollars are flowing into quebec. it is because it is a nation and we are helping them to fight for their freedom, just like we're doing with our billions of dollars for afghanistan. it sounds like charest is desperately trying to stem the growing popularity of the PQ by out-nationing them with the empty rhetoric. ok ontario... fix those potholes on the 401.... there might be renewed heavy traffic along that route.
  16. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: Nova Scotia is a nation too. Only it was conquered by the British circa 1750 and the French were sent to New Orleans. In the same war Quebec lost at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham circa 1759. The people of conquered Quebec (PCQ) seem to think that history didn't happen. In as much as Nova Scotia is a nation without the French (there are a few noisy Acadians) Quebec is a nation sans beaucoup des Englais. Quebec wouldn't send soldiers to liberate France, I recall mass weddings (20,000 people at a time) so that the french men could avoid conscription. So I hardly believe they would be willing to defend themselves today in a rebellion. So if the french haven't the guts to leave, they remained conquered and part of Queen Elizabeth's Canada.
  17. Cat Stephens from Canada writes: great, will I now need a passport to cross the border into Que. for weekend shopping?
  18. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: I guess that I'm a vacuum!!
    I didn't vote for Quebec to be a Nation, or Alberta, Nunavit, Ottawa or any other place.

    Quebec is the vacuum, with blinds on the windows so that reality is kept out.

    As long as they are willing to accept money from equalisation programs from the rest of Canada, then they should shut up and be happy. IF they want to become a Nation, then let's cut off all the money NOW, and see how long Nationhood lasts, especially with every other group in La Belle Province crying out that they don't wish to belong to The nation of Quebec!!
  19. george carere from toronto ontario, Canada writes: charest has failed at every thing he has touched-as a federal tory a provincial liberal and now as a political scientist-canada is a nation :quebec like pei is a province-duh as the kids say or is it wacky tabaccy as we used to say - think the globe has better use of its space ...george carere
  20. jc pomerleau from montreal, Canada writes: The french version of O Canada in it s first line refered to Quebec as a nation (Terre de nos aieux meaning land of our ancestor).It was the anthem of the Société Saint Jean Baptiste (Basile Routier 1880). So here s a country that as a national anthem that refer to a nation (then les canadiens, now the quebecois) that does nt exist. Funny, non. And another funny thing, the canadiens medias advocating the fact that one of the founding nation does nt exist at all. And this pathetic Charest who says it does nt matter because I recognize my self in front of a mirror. About coming to term with this complete non sens situation whereas the ROC as to camp in a negationist position vis a vis the existence of Quebec as a nation. If Quebec want to be recogniize as a nation, not only by Canada but all of the World, it have to become independent. Finaly the picture is guetting clearer. Thank to you M Ignatieff. The only thing Quebec need to get there is that Canada live up to the standard of democracy set by Serbia in the case of Montenegro and wher out. End of the big BUG. Unfortunatly Canada is not there yet.
  21. goofy fathead from Canada writes: when we cut off all federal money transfers, and they no longer look to my paycheque for handouts, then they can be a nation. same goes to the indians.
  22. Robert Rose from Mont-Royal, Canada writes: What a cheek! Claiming to know better than they,who Quebecers are. Nothing but sub-American arrogance! So much ignorance and confusion would be amusing, if it were not so pathetic. Reminds me of Canadians I have known, in England, constantly wondering, during all those years abroad: 'What is it, really, that makes us Canadians? It is not obvious, you know?' I knew then, and I still know now. No, what makes you what you are is by no means obvious. It's so much easier for you, therefore, to consider your dog, your house and your flees are a nation, isn't it?... Go for it!
  23. Josiah Smith from Japan writes: Quebec is hardly a nation. A nation means having a common (to a certain extent) identity and sense of unity. I imagine that the area in and around Quebec City and Montreal might feel that they are Quebeqois and not Canadians, and at the end of the day, we could let that little chunk of the province go. The vast majority of Quebec, populated by First Nations, would stay with Canada. Then, the federal government could nationalize the St. Lawrence River (while guaranteeing current trade conditions with private companies or other countries using the river), and all of sudden, 'Quebec' is a little, resourceless, land-locked 'nation.'

    I am getting very tired of certain Quebecers' mewlings for special status and privileges and recognition, as tired as I am of Alberta's whining for the same (and I'm Albertan). We are all part of the same family, and tearing a family apart causes nothing but pain and regret. Let's try and make it work as a family.
  24. Scenic Sask! from Canada writes: Quebec will be a 'nation' when it is recognized as such by the U.N. Until then it is still a Province of, and drain on, the nation of Canada.
  25. M Phillips from Canada writes: Good bye Quebec. Sad to see you go given I was born there. Take you share of the debt and leave. Who cares if you want to be called a nation or not. Your constant whining on this issue is tiring so why don't we have a referendrum on whether to invite you to the new Canada we want to form. So as not to seem like you are being picked on the question would be structured something like this: Please check off present day provinces and territories you would like included in a new Canada. For a existing province or territory to qualify they would need to receive 60% support from all eligible voters. Now after Quebec was advised via this cote that the rest of us did not want it they could hold their own vote and vote to succeed. At this point we could divy up the debt, and move on. I would still drive through Quebec on my way to the maritimes and so purchase a tank or so of gas, so they would not lose everything, but that would be just about it. Good bye, good luck and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
  26. Maurice Caissy-Cyr from Canada writes: To bad, all those from #1 to #7 did not express their real wish on the nigt before the 1995 referendum!!. No, we had a big bunch of people coming to Montreal, crying to stay in a big 'love parade'. Compromise to come, they said. It remember my brother in law before divorce. She stay for a couple month, then with no more love, in sight, mud hit the fan. I have the money, he said, you will suffer, you own me, I keep the house, I keep the kid and so on. They are divorce now, settle an agreement on money, house and kids. He was nasty, she responde with the law. # 1 to 7, just wish next time, you stick with your wishes. If we all together pull in the same direction, separation will be easier. You push us out, and we pull us out. For me it's a deal. Stick to your conviction and dont look back in bad filing. We will be fine, maybe not as if we where Canadian, but fine as a full worldwide recognise nation. Last time It was close: 49.6%, to be a full world nation and a big 50.4% to stay as a part of Canada. Close, I wonder why I am confident for the next one!!
  27. Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: The term nation is widely used, by extension or metaphor, to describe any group promoting some common interest or common identity. 'Nation' is not a synonym for 'country' or 'state.' Quebe is a Nation. If we confuse the meaning of words, we don't solve problems, we create problems, as these posts appear to prove.
  28. Bob Rollheiser from Canada writes: What would be the nation of Quebec's gross national product? OK now deduct transfer payments received from Canada? When does the nation of Quebec plan on paying it's own bills? Nation, national joke perhaps? Well, keep trying, there is a market for maple syrup, and barrel for barrel it's worth as much as ungraded crude oil.
  29. G. H. from G.T.A., Canada writes: I gather those like Mr. Charest, who wish to call Quebec a nation have all agreed on the appropriate definition of nation. If so and they concur with my dictionary that the nation of Quebec is defined as: an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages, then I have no problem. If however they wish to use another definition, such: as a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own, then clearly we have a serious problem and we are forever doomed to repeated attempts at creating nationhood when one, namely Canada, already exists.
  30. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: What do you expect? Quebec has been told for so long it is 'special', they are beginning to believe it. They are little more than the spoiled child of Confederation.
  31. Derek Holtom from Swan River, writes: canada would be a different place without quebec
    no more bilingualism. no more pumping billions into an over-represented province. no more having to deal with their childish threats of separating. no more bloc members in the House of Commons wasting our time and money. a lot less Liberals as well.
    keep thumbing your nose at the rest of canada quebec. and then see if anyone cares if you leave or not. just be sure to take your share of the national debt with you if you leave. and get your own currency and passports.
  32. Marc D from Canada writes: Quebec can call itself a planet for all I care. So long as they abide by the Canadian Constitution, specifically but not limited to sections 91 and 92, they're welcome to whatever terminology makes them happy. If they're not happy with following the Constitution and being part of Canada, let them leave with what they entered with: the land between Montreal and Quebec and a little bit around that. Everything else was given to Quebec as part of Canada, not to the country of Quebec. They also get to shoulder their fair share of the national debt when they go. Same for any other region that wants to leave Canada. Frankly, I'm starting to think that regionalism is where it's at. Fervent nationalism just seems to lead to more trouble.
  33. Jim Sandles from Canada writes: Hey Jean

    When did you bump your head? Quebec would be a nation if it paid its own way. Right now it relies on the the ROC to provide it with the cash to support a social program that it cannot support on its own. You will be a nation (as you will be an adult by comparison))when you pay your own way in life. Until then suck it up and shut up.
  34. Kim Morton from Canada writes: So no more labels in French? How about no more CANADIAN tax dollars for Bombardier. Any more symbols of nationhood you want Charest?
  35. Pierce Nettling from United States writes: By Charest logic Canada should go the Spain route and be the Kingdom of Spain.
    the country of Quebec
    the country of Ontario
    the country of British Columbia
    the country of Alberta
    the country of Nova Scotia
    and so on.
    wow, this is getting ridiculous.
    If you want to be a nation in the 'first nation' sense fine. It won't give you anything you'll just be like a tribe. What's in a word apparently. Who cares to be honest. Hullablue over a word geesh. Quebec can call itself whatever it wants it won't change anything its still a province and always will be.
  36. nathan w from China writes: It was summed up nicely by Charest when he said that it was a highly theoretical debate. 'Nation' has a lot to do with personal identification and historical legacy of a group of people, especially the group of people you identify the most with. A 'state' is a formalized power structure with things like military and international recognition as a state. For those who believe that the words 'state' and 'nation' mean the same thing, you should make yourself aware of the fact that these words are somewhat technical terms in political science that carry very specific meanings which differ from conventional usage of the words. Talk of Quebec's nationhood has little to do with political sovereignty and a lot to do with respecting the fact that many Francophones identify themselves more strongly as Quebecois than as Canadians. While Quebec is politically and economically a province, they really and truly share something that is much like nationalism, but without it's most negative expressoins, and hopefully it stays that way. It's all a play on words, but possibly a meaningful one that could make the Quebecois feel more at home within the Canadian federation. This has mostly been said on previous forums on the same topic, but no one has said it yet this time.
  37. COLIN HOLLINGWORTH from Ottawa, Canada writes: So this is how separatists are going to deal with losing referendum after referendum, by pretending they're a nation, as opposed to officially winning the right to be? Stating that Quebec is a nation is nothing short of loony, is technically and legally inaccurate, and everyone knows this! 'Hello, visitors from Ottawa. Welcome to the Nation of Quebec. Please present your passports and insert $2 into the bucket at the toll gate, drive on through, and have a nice day!' This notion of Quebec as a nation is absolutely crazy and nothing more than delusional thinking by separatist deniers living in a bloody dream-world! Get a life already!
  38. Randy Canuckistan from Canada writes: These morons must get up pretty early in the morning to think of ways to destroy what once was the most beautiful NATION on earth.
    Once again Trudeau started this with his charter of rights where the rights of the individual take precedence over the rights of the state. Now everyone is selfish, greedy and, of course, everyone, and I mean everyone is a martyr.
    Any bets on how long this nation holds together???
  39. p m from vancouver, Canada writes: I'm tired of this continual nagging and follow-up blackmail, it's getting on to over 100 years of bitch and complain.

    Let's just say GOODBYE! and considering the liberal, federal and provincial, stand on this issue, you can take them with you!

    No more confederation subsidies for Quebec goods, and we will have a substantial reduction of tariffs on international goods that were placed to support Quebec products.. no more TRANSFER payments to Quebec.

    Hey...why don't you guys leave now!!
  40. Uke-Canuck Kobahsaw from Ukrainian-Canadian Nation, Canada writes: We Ukrainian-Canadians, comprising that portion of Canada from Northern Alberta to Manitoba, and parts of Northern Ontario and Toronto, hereby demand that we shall hereafter be the Ukrainian-Canadian Nation. Given that French-Canadians, based on their self-anointed “pure wool” racial purity, declare their part of Quebec to be a nation, we as another of the important founding nations of Canada demand equal treatment.
  41. doug webb from Toronto, writes: Charest is just posturing. Simple as that.

    There's an election coming and he has to look tough. If he appears to be too kissy kissy with Ottawa, he's going to get thrown out on his ass. As it is, he's going to be in a run for his money against the PQ. He's simply pandering to the soft separatists to gain votes. Since no-one in the other provinces get to vote for him, he can say what he likes.

    It's a smart move on his part.

    As to all the chest thumping in the previous posts, I would suggest that you not fall into the trap that the separatists love to set.
  42. Richard Soley from Cochrane, writes: Please Mr. Charest make it so. Quebec the Nation, independent and free. At the age of sixty I look back and see a life time of Quebec, Quebec privilege. Quebec born Prime Ministers, Quebec wants, Quebec needs, Quebec language, Quebec Pur lain. Cut to the chase and lets make Quebec a Nation no more BS and no more silly polticis like having the Bloc in the house of Commons. Quebec is Quebec and the best for the rest of Canada the twenty five millon or so that do not speak Quebec is to have a Nation called Quebec. Please get on with it. And Mr. Charest please close the door on your way out there's a draft from the east.
  43. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Mr. Charest, you can call yourselves anything you like; it doesn't mean the rest of Canada has to acknowledge it (we have a few other choice names for you to consider). But, Jean, if you are a 'nation' perhaps you should line up behind Malawi, Bangladesh, Haiti and a few other poor nations for your Canadian foreign aid hand-out.
  44. Keith Ball from Ottawa, Canada writes: Nathan (post 36): You beat me too it.

    'Nation', 'state' and 'country' are not interchangeable words because they do not mean the same thing.

    Mr. Charest stated that Quebec is a nation not a country. To have a sense of nationhood is to have a common bond with the people, history and culture of a place and it is not confined to Quebec. My mother has lived in Ontario for over 45 years but she still identifies herself as a Cape Bretoner.

    However, if you ask her what her country is she will state Canada. The same is true for all but the most ardent separatists in Quebec by the way. If you ask them what country they are from they will say Canada.

    So they believe they live in the Quebec nation within the country of Canada. I believe I live in the Canadian nation and the Canadian country. Certainly, they are different but as long as Quebecers, Albertans, Metis, or any other group who would call themselves a nation continue to believe they are from Canada I can live with that difference.
  45. chris jenkins from Free the West, Canada writes: I think we can all just about agree that Canada itself is no longer a Nation. The treasonous burrowings of the Trudeau-ites of Eastern Canada have changed the nature of who we were when I grew up. As a Western Canadian, the love I had for Canada has long since been soured by the tax-bloated, dictatorial, corrupt and truculent Governments imposed on us by the voters of Quebec/Ontario. The venom I hear expressed in this forum from Ontarians against Alberta, and us in BC, is actually a common tactic used by Eastern politicians to garner votes in their ridings. The time for separation really has come.
  46. Midtown Bob from Toronto, Canada writes: Re #4 I agree with you except for one thing: My dog is a nation, not your dog.
  47. Mary Quite Contrary from Canada writes: And here I thought that 'a rose by any other name is still a rose.'
  48. Triple Infidel from Montreal, Canada writes: It's depressing to see the comment thread after every story on this issue regurgitate EXACTLY the same spoon-fed slogans every self-styled Quebec expert who never set foot here in his life thinks are his unique, original insights: Newfoundland! Aboriginals! Acadians! The one true definition of the word nation is XYZ! You're not what you consider yourselves, you're what we say you are! And then, inevitably: Transfer payments! Socialism! Let them try and go it alone! Etc. Just as pathetic as quibbling over semantic debates spawned by the Bloc and the PQ is the belief that if we just patiently explain why it's not an issue, it'll stop being an issue. They're always setting the terms of debate precisely because of the kind of head-in-the-sand response on display in these threads whenever things get more complex than slogans ('There is no issue, it's the same as case XYZ. No, there are no finer points. What, that didn't shut you up? Fine, leave!'). Canada is complicated. Quebec's place in Canada is complicated. People who want it to be neat and simple have cost us the leadership on the issue for 11 years now -- to the point where we find ourselves today, without any federalist solution on the table (besides the status quo), just Duceppe and Co's latest move to constantly talk about (or dodge and weave around). But most pathetic by far is the tough-guy posing of those who'd capitulate to the separatists, and echo their insistence on the harmless effects of dissolving confederation (to 'us' anyway -- 'they', of course, will end up a third-world backwater). Because then we can just patiently explain to the world at large that we're not really a failed state -- we're just new and improved. And that too will magically stop being an issue, through the sheer power of our denial, and everyone will drop it. Please, please, consider instead the virtue of embracing complexity. It's your heritage.
  49. J Law from Canada writes: Charest should try to understand that Quebec is not the French and French is not Quebec. The founding nations are the French and the English ( why Native Americans are not included is a shame, but . . . ) and Quebec is not the French nation it is Quebec the province.
    To say Quebec is the French that is the nation is an insult to the Acadians, people of Northern Ontario and all other French speaking people's whose forefathers were part of the founding nations.
  50. Tommy Mark from Toronto, Canada writes: We should accept the fact that being Canadian is already lucky enough. Why should we Canadians have to devote enormous amount of negative energy debating semantics that can never be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned???
    Since we all can agree that Quebec is a province unlike the others and it has many distinct features others don't have, whatever English or French word Quebec uses to describe itself should not matter that much to most Canadians; it surely doesn't change its status within confederation!! Quebec has changed the name of its Legislatiure to National Assembly for many decades and as far as I know Quebec is still a provence in Canada!!! So I hope we Canadians stop wasting so much of our energy on a divisive subject which may not enen have a symbolic value!!!!
  51. canadian immigrant from Canada writes: YES,I AGREE....QUEBEC IS A NATION AND CANADA IS A COUNTRY!
    The members of a nation are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual's sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different applications.Two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by others, as members of the same nation. Members of a nation are considered to share certain traits, values and norms of behavior, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.

    The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes 'ethnos'), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.

    Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national homeland. Some live in a historical diaspora, that is, mainly outside the national homeland. A state which explicitly identifies as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about their legitimacy. Where territory is disputed between nations, the claims may be based on which nation lived there first. Especially in areas of historical European settlement (1500-1950), the term 'First Nations' is used by groups which share an aboriginal culture, and seek official recognition.

    OUI, QUEBEC EST UNE NATION....LE CANADA EST MON PAY!!!

    Tony
  52. Ethan Train from Buffalo, United States writes: Canadians can call Quebec whatever they choose, but until someone defines what 'nation' means, i.e. how does it translate into politics and different treatment then the debate is meaningless. Right now everyone seems to have a different idea about what a Quebec nation would mean - and that's no way to begin a debate.
  53. John Hinkley from Thornhill, Canada writes: If ever anyone ever needed a reason to not vote for Michael Ignattief this stupid 'Quebec is a nation' concept and nonsense is more than enough.

    Quebec has been part of Canada since Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham. It is not a separate entity. If it were then our 'first nation' brothers and sisters would be as well.

    It is definitely too bad the BNA entrenched the two languages / two religions.

    Talk about expensive shackles!
  54. Rob Smith from Kitchener, Canada writes: I really don't feel that the history of Quebec justifies the desire to leave our country. I do however, believe that Quebec should be allowed to separate, given the following conditions are met:
    1) More than 51% of Quebeckers choose to separate;
    2) Those that choose not to separate are allowed to leave, and are subsidized appropriately at the Quebec government's expense for all income and property lost. Similarly, those living outside the 'country' would be given the same courtesy from our own government;
    3) The new country agrees to take its share of the national debt, according to a 3rd-party audit.
    Until both sides can agree that these terms are 'reasonable', which would indicate an element of maturity and rationality that has been lacking, I feel that we should consider the topic officially beaten to death.
  55. Ted Boychuk from Calgary, Canada writes: Mr. Charest you are off side and in reality you are only in a self-preservation mode.There are provinces/nations in this fine country with a lot more 'muscle' than Quebec.If you believe that Quebec is a nation within Canada you may get what you want and it will not be in the best interests of Quebec.
  56. Arzie Chant from Canada writes: No, M. Charest, like it or not, Quebec is not a nation. The French are a nation, the English are a nation, and the Aboriginals are a nation. And together the three of these groups formed one united nation, the Dominion of Canada. It's time to stop digging for support by playing Quebeckers against their brothers and sisters in other provinces, Charest. Either govern like a real premier and earn popularity and re-election honestly, or get lost.
  57. Joel S. from Canada writes: The debate is irrelevant, like many others have said before me. Enshrining Quebec as a 'nation' in the Constitution will be little more than symbolic, and its symbology is nothing more than words. Can someone PLEASE tell the politicians that we are TIRED of talking about this. While I'm at it, just a little point I'd like to make-- the people of Quebec voted TWICE against separation from Canada. So, are they going to keep trying until they win? Or is this a best-of-7 series? In the meantime, can we please just illegalize regional parties? ...They're uselss (ahem BQ).
  58. Terry H from Moncton, Canada writes: I guess my previous comments on this issue were too insulting or something. After looking through the posted comments, I feel mine were well within the arbitrary guidelines, but that's life I guess. So, to put it lightly, Quebec is NOT a nation, or a country, it is a Canadian province, just like PEI or Alberta. And I agree 110% with post #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, 53, 54, 55 etc etc etc and on and on. Goodbye and good riddance, if you wanna go...then go, we are sick of listening to what Quebec wants for the last half a century. And cut the certified cheque before you leave.
  59. Erik Newson from Pusan, Korea, Rep. of writes: Quebec is a nation. Canada is a STATE.
  60. glenn walsh from United States Outlying writes: Mr Charest is correct. Quebec is a nation and should go its way- as soon as possible, along with its inflated share of the debt, its language rights, and its political hammerhold on Canada. Da Stink Society should promulgate its independence and leave us alone to create what our forfathers envisioned some 300 years ago
  61. doug webb from Toronto, writes: Poster No. 53

    Not quite. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham was in 1759. Control of New France (of which Quebec was a part) was ceded to the British in 1763 by France after the British won the 'Seven Years War' in the Treaty of Paris.

    After the Seven Years war was over, Britain, France, Spain and Portugal basically all sat around a table and dealt away protectorates like so many pieces of old clothing. To make a long story short, France had lost the war, Britain had won. Britain allowed France to keep whatever colony it wanted. France chose to protect Guadaloupe (seriously) rather than Quebec because France figured that Guadaloupe had sugar and Quebec had rocks. Sugar was seen as more valuable than rocks. The British weren't stupid and they wanted North America.

    Hence Quebec came under the authority of Britain.

    Quebec was never taken by force. France simply abandoned Quebec and Quebecers to Britain in exchange for Guadaloupe. The thing I find amazing is that France could have retained Quebec, but instead wanted Guadaloupe. Kind of anti-climactic I know to be traded away for some sugar cubes, but that's the truth. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to 'Je me Souviens' doesn't it.
  62. Ace of Spades from Vancouver, Canada writes: Canada is a nation, Alberta is a nation, BC is almost a nation, now Quebec is a nation.
    How albout we all just separate and be our own nation. Enough of the arguing and fighting!
  63. Stéphane Perron from Montréal, Canada writes: Sadly, I have seen all the clichés of intolerance and ignorance in this column. I do really hope that most canadians dont feel this way, for I wonder who feels insecure. And truly, one cannot build a country if there is no communication. Most quebecers are somewhat fluent in english and one of the best university in the world is an anglophone university in Montreal. Most french speaking québequers are proud of this. However, territories that are francophone in Canada, safe maybe northern NB is bound to diseappear within the end of this century (especially so if the face the arrogance and intolerance akin to the writers of this column). No solid francophone instution survived in most of ROC, even though there were historically large territories that were francophone and would have benefited from laws that did not support assimilation, but tolerance. I have an affection for this province/nation, with its tolerance, creativity and diversity (both french, english and allophones). If I was convinced that all canadians were like the writers of this column, I would become an ardent seperatist. I many of my anglophone friends would join the fray.
  64. david walters from Canada writes: #1 has got it exactly right!!
  65. Dino Tiberia from Canada writes: Mr. Charest why do you dislike Canada so much? When the rest of the World respects our great country for what it is a tolerant, generous, and peaceful nation. Of course if the people of Quebec truely want to separate then the rest of Canada will reluctantly let you go. Because we are tolerant we would do this because of the reasons I mentioned. However, Quebec will also take on it's share of the debt, lose any funding and lose all the fine things given to you buy the rest of us over the years. Nobody really minds that Quebecer's speak French or have a French identity. We've already accepted this in the rest of Canada with bilingualism, French schools, and accepting the distinct society. So really how could Quebec really benefit more by separating as it's own Nation? It would only lose financially and culturally too.
  66. Scott Burton from Guelph, Canada writes: Having looked up the definition of "nation", I can see that under certain definitions, Quebec could be considered a nation. Under other definitions, it could not. Also, depending on the definition used, Canada could be considered a country of one nation, or of dozens of nations. It's all about semantics. Let's not let this country get torn apart over semantics.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top