From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:11:32 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr13.151614.24133@bmerh2.bnr.ca> tcifelli@bmerh326.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.143823.22566@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10.151954.3717@cunews.carleton.ca> rwood@superior.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr10 schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>>>   For us, there is no such thing as "the nation of Canada". there is 2
>>>>   nations, and as long as TROCians won't recognize this, sorry, but
>>>>   there will be troubles...
>>>
>>>  My opinion exactly.  There are two nations, but TROCers are determined to
>>>press ahead with the pretence that there is only one Canada, requiring that all 
>>>10 components must be equal.  The end of this road will probably be something
>>>like a Commonwealth of Independent Provinces.
>>>  Quebec is not the same and should, I think, stand apart from the other 9 with 
>>>some form of independence (with a TROC equally independent of Quebec).
>>>  There will never be a united Canada.  What I want is a united TROC.
>>
>>
>>I think the two-nation theory of Canada is a myth.
>>I accept that there is a Quebec nation within Canada. I reject the 
>>concept of english-canadian nation.  
>>
>No. There is no "Quebec nation within Canada".  There is however a
>province called Quebec in Canada which has some properties different
>from the others (which for some reason beyond any rational human being's 
>comprehension, must be recognized formally in the constitution).  The 
>same however can be said about all provinces.  Each province has unique 
>or distinct properties.  These too could be formally captured in the
>constitution, but they are not crying like babies.


Well I guess it depends on whether we should take YOUR word for it,
or ask the people of Quebec.
A majority of the population of Quebec consider themselves a nation
(as do the majority within Scotland and Wales) and thus they are a nation.
You don't really have any say in whether a people consider themselves
a nation or not. Neither do I.
I am just reporting what the Quebecois have said (and have said for
a couple of centuries.)
Would you argue equally that the Scots are not a nation, because you
don't like the idea? (Remember that a nation need not form a separate
nation state.)       


>Canada must be united across ALL provinces and be bound by the
>constitution to survive as one nation.  Strong central government
>is required to administer and manage the common national agenda.
   

Unity based on what? A denial of how the constituent parts feel about
themselves? If other provinces (or other forms of community prefer
to think of themselves as nations) they have every right to do so.
The right of all peoples to self-determination (including secession, if
they so desire) is an internationally recognized phenomenon.
   


>I also do not agree with an English-Canadian nation.  I like
>the cultural differences we have.


Which cultural differences are these that you like so much?

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics