Dear Prime Minister Harper,
Re: Quebec as a ’nation’.
I have to agree with Andrew Coyne’s view of this. I, along with a majority of Canadians, already voted against the idea of special status for Quebec or any other ethnic group. It seems to me that the role of Canada’s ‘federal’ government is to promote what unifies Canada as a nation, not to promote differences that separate us.
You may believe that the ‘nation’ debate is meaningless semantics. But most Québécois certainly do not. The separatists in particular consider this to be their ‘raison d’être’ for Quebec independence. Now they have federal recognition of it.
Can we now look forward to similar declarations for Newfoundland’s, Alberta’s and ...[your group here] .... status as a ‘nation within a united Canada’? And, what now is the meaning of the ‘Canadian nation’?
Pandering to Quebec nationalism may help secure the vote in Quebec in the short term, but I honestly don’t see how this can be good for the nation in the long run.
On more careful reading of the text of the Liberal, Bloc and Conservative resolutions there are some subtle differences which may or may not make a difference.
The Liberal resolution refers to the Quebec nation. The Bloc refers to Quebecers. While the Conservative resolution refers to Québécois forming a nation within a united Canada.
Looks like fodder for endless, useless debate. Bleeeaagh!! Enough of this crapola!
"The word Québécois can be politically charged because it combines notions of territory and residence (in the Province of Quebec), ethno-cultural identity (of French-speaking Quebeckers), and ancestry ( Québécois de vielle souche). Government publications generally refer to Quebec territory and residence, while the news media focuses more on issues of ethnocultural identity — especially facing separation or nationalist issues. "