babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Quebec as a nation: poll results

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Quebec as a nation: poll results
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 14 November 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In all this debate about whether Quebec is a nation, I had estimated that 15-20% of Quebeckers do not recognize Quebec as a nation. I decided to check some poll results. Here are two.

1. This poll from 2004 indicates the following views among Quebeckers:

Quebec is a nation alongside the Canadian nation 16%
Quebec is a nation within the Canadian nation 17%
Quebec is one of 10 equal provinces 21%
Quebec is a province that is a distinct society within Canada 42%
Other 0%
Did not know 4%

2. Here are the Quebec results of a November 2006 CBC poll:

Question: Do you think that Quebec is a nation within Canada?
Yes 61%
No 34%
Don't Know/No Answer 5%

Question: Do you think the Canadian constitution should or should not be changed to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada?
Yes 66%
No 30%
Don't Know/No Answer 4%

I am a quite struck by the difference in results: In 2004, we had 33% of Quebeckers agreeing that Quebec is a nation, either alongside or within Canada; and in 2006, we have 61% agreeing that Quebec is a nation within Canada.

But even with the higher 2006 numbers, many more Quebeckers than I originally supposed do not view Quebec as a nation: a low estimate would be around 30%. That is a huge number of Quebeckers who reject a Quebec-as-nation identity: a dissent rate of 30% is, I believe, enough seriously to undermine any claim of a Quebec-wide identity as members of a "nation of Quebec".

[ 14 November 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 November 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Polls, smolls. The Quebec nation question will be with us until such time the province goes its own way. And if Harpoon and the neoCons in Ottawa get their cherished majority, then the sooner we separate, the better. An independent Quebec actually appeals to me. I hope we build concrete walls between Quebec and Ontario to keep out the riffraff.

ETA: 1, note the 'smiley' at the end, and, 2, I'm tired of this endless debate.

[ 14 November 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 14 November 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The polls are asking different questions. When you don't give the distinct society option, many people, who formerly opted for distinct society, will choose "Quebec as a Nation". This is partly because the concept MEANS different things to different people - some interpret it as something akin to distinct society (or alternately, some people thought distinct society was the same thing as Quebec as nation).
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 15 November 2006 06:41 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
When you don't give the distinct society option, many people, who formerly opted for distinct society, will choose "Quebec as a Nation".

This is a very elegant explanation of why the numbers for the "nation" option are so much higher in the 2006 poll than the 2004 poll.

In any case, I am now quite convinced that the "nation dissenters" in Quebec are a very very substantial minority: as I said above, a whopping 30%.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 15 November 2006 07:20 AM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, the two polls are consistent when one looks at them carefully

75% of Quebecers chose Nation within Canada/Nation alongside Canada/distinct society

When the word Nation within Canada is only used that 75% falls to 61%.

The reason being that the word Nation may be interpreted by some to mean Country, i.e. seperate State. Some would also agree that Quebec is a Nation but not within the Canadian Nation but alongside it. Which may explain why when asked about a constitutional amendement, the 61% rises to 66%.

Québec is a multicultural society with an Francophone majority of about 80%. On can easily assume that the above polls in support of nationhood are far larger by at least 10% within the ethnic Francophone majority and probably fall within anglophone and allophone communities who may see the word Nation as a seperatist threat.

Nevertheless, if the term Nation is defined so as to underline language, culture, history and institutions and broadened to safeguard Québec's multicultural and anglohone realities as well as recognition of the First Nations and if the question is posed in a way that underlines Québec being part of Canda, I think we would see a dramatic rise in support for such a concept of a Nation.

These are evolving terms and hence, subject to interpretation.

[ 15 November 2006: Message edited by: Tom Vouloumanos ]

[ 15 November 2006: Message edited by: Tom Vouloumanos ]


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 15 November 2006 09:34 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The first poll exposes the complexity of the different conceptions that people identify with, unlike the second poll. Maybe the second poll sounds more like a PQ referendum question.

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
These are evolving terms and hence, subject to interpretation.

Bingo. But let's enshrine a word in the constitution first, and then argue about it later. And hope everyone's idea of it will remain uniform and unchanging over the decades and centuries.


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 16 November 2006 11:16 AM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And hope everyone's idea of it will remain uniform and unchanging over the decades and centuries.

Words within the law and political philosophy will evolve and be influenced by the "social consensus" (which more often than not is elite consensus)of a particular period. As equality, justice, liberty have always evolved and the courts will interpret this terms as such. Only in Ancient Sparta were the iron laws of Lykourgos engraved in stone so as never to be modified. So I think keeping the words open and relevant with the times is a good thing.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 16 November 2006 12:27 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
So I think keeping the words open and relevant with the times is a good thing.

Yes, let's keep the word "nation" open. But let's not enshrine the nationhood of Quebec in the constitution -- especially since (1) there is such unclarity about what exactly we would be enshrining in the constitution and (2) a huge minority of Quebeckers do not even believe that there is such a nation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Rikardo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5018

posted 16 November 2006 03:26 PM      Profile for Rikardo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Everyone I know here (for over 30 years) considers Quebec as a nation within/alongside Canada. The poll shows around 75%. If the Liberal Party of Canada rejects the motion of its own Quebec wing it will not be a happy day for Canada. None of the other provinces want such recognition. I'll be in Montreal and I'll be voting FOR the resolution.
From: Levis, Quebec | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 17 November 2006 02:59 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But let's not enshrine the nationhood of Quebec in the constitution -- especially since (1) there is such unclarity about what exactly we would be enshrining in the constitution and (2) a huge minority of Quebeckers do not even believe that there is such a nation.

Please see this document:

SHERBROOKE DECLARATION


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 18 November 2006 05:55 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
On can easily assume that the above polls in support of nationhood are far larger by at least 10% within the ethnic Francophone majority and probably fall within anglophone and allophone communities who may see the word Nation as a seperatist threat.

One can also assume the "official nation" proposal is seen as a separatist threat by Canadians outside of Quebec. Or, do these people simply not matter, when Quebec exercises its God-given unilateral right to decide the wording of its own status within Canada?

quote:
by T Vouloumanos:
Nevertheless, if the term Nation is defined so as to underline language, culture, history and institutions and broadened to safeguard Québec's multicultural and anglohone realities as well as recognition of the First Nations and if the question is posed in a way that underlines Québec being part of Canda, I think we would see a dramatic rise in support for such a concept of a Nation.

These are evolving terms and hence, subject to interpretation.
[...]
I think keeping the words open and relevant with the times is a good thing.


How long before the time arrives when the "official nation" of Quebec evolves into an "official nation" separate from Canada?

There are better words that can be used. I agree with Martha. Do NOT use the word "nation" in the constitution to describe Quebec's legal place within Confederation.

[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 18 November 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have skimmed the useful link to the NDP's Sherbrooke Declaration, and think I could agree in principle to most of it. I still think enshrining the word "nation" to describe Quebec's place in Confederation would be a colossal boo-boo. As I have only skimmed over the Sherbrooke Declaration, please tell me if I am quoting the below out of context.

From section 6, bottom of page 7

quote:
The New Democratic Party recognizes that exercising the right to self-determination in some form is part of a political process. We feel that to legally formalize this process is not useful or necessary. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its opinion on the question…

[snip]
and on page 8
quote:
…the court’s judgement did in fact reinforce the long-standing NDP view that the future of Quebec within Canada is ultimately a political question and not a legal one.

[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 November 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dion offers new wording for Quebec `nation' resolution

excerpt:

Draft circulates in Liberal camps Seeks to avoid convention clash

Dion's compromise seems to revolve around finding words to make sure all Liberals could support the idea, even if it does land on that floor.

Even if he wasn't a leadership candidate, Dion said, this is an issue that would have prompted him to get involved.

Other camps weren't commenting yesterday on the Dion draft, saying only that negotiations were ongoing to ensure the controversy doesn't swamp the Liberal convention.

It has been bubbling ever since the Quebec wing of the party approved a resolution several weeks ago to send to the Montreal convention, which calls for Liberals to study ways to "officialize" Quebec's status as a nation within Canada.

Dion and fellow leadership candidate Bob Rae slammed the plan, saying it was a naive and dangerous path toward a national-unity minefield and accused front-running candidate Michael Ignatieff of recklessly leading the Liberals into this trouble.

Dion said yesterday he recognized that Ignatieff didn't sponsor the resolution, but he believes Ignatieff encouraged it.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 18 November 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quebec is a nation alongside the Canadian nation 16%

Only 16%? I thought this number would be higher.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 19 November 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
One can also assume the "official nation" proposal is seen as a separatist threat by Canadians outside of Quebec. Or, do these people simply not matter, when Quebec exercises its God-given unilateral right to decide the wording of its own status within Canada?

This is why the term NATION has to be defined, explained in order tyo build consensus. No, Québec is trying to negotiate its status, within the Canadian federation. Not a single federalist Québec premier has accepted not having a clause that defines Québec's difference within Canada. Québec has always been seeking a negotiated settlement to this issue. Unilateral declarations by any government wouldn't fly here.

quote:
How long before the time arrives when the "official nation" of Quebec evolves into an "official nation" separate from Canada?

Official nations are not defacto States. One does not include the other nor does a state necesarily form a single nation. Québec can only seperate from Canada by a referendum asking the citizens of Québec if they want sovereignty. I would find it very difficult for seperatists to argue Québec has bad deal within Canada and should opt out once the other Provinces have accepted Québec as a Nation. A major argument seperatists have is that the RoC does not want to recognize Québec's identity within the consitution.

quote:
There are better words that can be used.

We tried distinct society and that failed, given the fact that it was argued that every Province is a distinct society and that Quebecers aren't better or stuppid arguments to that effect.

Claude Ryan then began promoting the idea of a Peuple.

Stéphane Dion has Société unique.

I think we should just gorw up as Federatoin and say that our counntry (Canada) comprises various Nations: Acadia, Québec, First Nations.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 23 November 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
Our country (Canada) comprises various Nations: Acadia, Québec, First Nations.

Duex nations: les Cris de la Baie James et les Québécois:
quote:
En février 2002, les Cris de la Baie James et le gouvernement du Parti Québécois dirigé par Bernard Landry signaient la Paix des Braves, une entente de « nation à nation » qui constituait un tournant majeur dans les relations entre les deux nations. Aux élections de 2003, le Grand Chef Ted Moses donnait son appui à Bernard Landry et au Parti Québécois.

Cinq ans plus tard, quel est l’état de la situation? Les projets de création de parcs éoliens par les Cris en partenariat avec des compagnies ontariennes modifient-ils les perspectives?

La question autochtone est d’une importance stratégique pour le mouvement souverainiste. C’est pourquoi le SPQ Libre organise une assemblée d’information et d’échange sur le sujet.

Au programme, la projection du documentaire La Paix des Braves, un documentaire de Jean-Pierre Maher, produit par Zone 3, suivi d’un échange avec Bernard Landry et Ted Moses.



From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca