Each province can claim a separate and unique culture but does it have some legal consequence? Each province can each claim it has unique constitutional powers but does this conflict with being a part of the Canadian federation? The Quebecois can certainly claim that that they are a nation based on their unique ethnicity and history but so can the Iroquois the Inuit and probably the Newfs. Not to mention the Kurds, the Palestinians and the Tibetans. So what do you do? Put it in the constitution that the Quebecois are a nation (note: there is a difference between saying the Province of Quebec is a nation vs. the Quebecois are a nation. (Iggy is a professor human rights, you've known him for 40 years, he should know the difference)? To what end? And what is the legal effect of mentioning it? And what does it do for the other nationalities within the borders of Canada? And finally, how does that put an end to the equally legitimate concept of separtism? The issue of the identity and role of Quebec within Canada is too caught up in the political motivations of ambitious megalomaniacs like Ignatieff and the hardline separatists like Parizeau. I say let Quebec separate. Then we can negotiate the terms and a new international arrangement with them.

Oh yeay. To answer your question: No Iggy can't. He's too pompous to get out of his own way. He's got at least one more wardrobe malfunction in him before December.

Ignatieff can, I think. He's already re-opened this godawful constitutional issue, and he hasn't even become leader yet.

Which is kinda why I supported him, earlier -- he shakes things up.

Of course, this idea is one of his more destructive ones. Still, we'll see how it plays out.

(Backpedalling)

Mind you, just because he can, it doesn't mean that he will...

I am astonished to find a Mulroneyite tendency amongst Ignatieff supporters. Quebec "nationhood"... the second most tedious question in Canadian political life.

I'm with Hans... Quebec separation may be the best thing for the maturity and evolution of both countries (same goes for Scotland and repealing the Act of Union). Once the real or imagined historic grievances disappear, then both paties can dispense with the trivialities and focus on essentials. Just because we happen to think it's a giant step backward is no reason to prevent somebody else from doing something boneheaded.

I am shocked that after 4.5 hours no one has identified a putative Bonnie Prince Quebecois!

I think his name was Lucien Bouchard -- but he moved on to other ideas, and the movement didn't follow.

While Quebec nationalism is only Canada's second-most tedious question it is the source of Canada's biggest political misconception, i.e. that Quebec "separatists" want Quebec to "separate" from Canada. I would have thought the lack of a "Bonnie" "Prince" "Charlie" would have been among the more important clues.

I hope this isn't on the exam because I don't know the first most tedious question in Canadian political life... The monarchy? Triple-E senate?

I guess the Clarity Act was supposed to clarify this misconception about separation. Whether or not they actually want to separate, maybe they should be asked to consider it. And if they don't want to, Canada should decide if it has the will or the means to accommodate their continued inclusion in the national mosaic on the terms they propose.

I won't bite on the Bonnie Prince Charlie question: I defer all matters of "the auld alliance" to Alistair MacLeod.

I will bite on the other matter: what is the first-most tedious question in Canada?

Hans: I need your postal address as you won a prize. Email to genx40@gmail.com.

Is this the #1 question in Canada?

Thanks! I am giddy in anticipation.

The monarchy and the triple-"E" senate are, I grant, both tedious subjects. As too are martinis (though Michael is correct to point out there is no such thing as a vodka martini).

None of these subjects approch the boredom factor of the number one most tedious subject in Canadian political life.

I think I know the number one most tedious subject in Canadian blogging.

Seriously, you'll kick yourself when you realize what it is.

The number one most tedious subject in Canadian political life? It must have something to do with the Tories as they are the most tedious party. Who is the most tedious Tory? Peter MacKay. Makes Paul Martin look decisive. So the most tedious question must be did Peter Mackay refer to Bels as a pooch. Do I win?

Ye gawds magnum. I go away for a day of "corporate vision training" and you start a post about nationalism, the day after I advocate revolution on my blog.. Good show old bean.

When My spouse and I were in Salem Mass, we shared breakfast a few days in a row with a very stern woman who was at that time a SNP member of parliament. Regardless of my telling her how I was named after a famous Actor-Scot who is a firm supporter of SNP (as I have been financially in the past) or that I fully supported the separation of Scotland from the UK she would only briefly smile. Mayhap she thought me to be from Mi6....

Anywho..I digress.

Its the economy stupid....

There are ever so many tedious subjects in Canadian politics.

And yet I find myself drawn to them...

Don't ask me, as a former Liberal, how I got this article, but I think contributes greatly to the dicussion here around this post:

The recognition of Quebec as a nation: a few preliminary questions

By Stéphane Dion, MP for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville and candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Wednesday, October 25th, 2006

Before entering politics, more than ten years ago, I maintained that we Quebecers could be described as forming a nation, in the civic and sociological sense of the term. Last Saturday, however, I voted against the resolution put forward by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada calling for the party to undertake the necessary steps towards a formal recognition of Quebec as a nation.

Before we ask other Canadians to support such a formal recognition (in the constitution no doubt) we should first of all determine what we expect from such a recognition. Hiding behind the apparent consensus in Quebec on this question are at least three disagreements.

First question: are Quebecers the only nation to be recognized within Canada, or will we accept that other groups, heartened by our example, be given the same recognition? Will the pressure exercised by an undetermined number of human groups in Canada, including in Quebec, to be recognized as nations lead us to conclude that our own national recognition has been trivialized or diluted?

Second question: is this recognition necessary or is it rather only something desirable? Those who say it is necessary must follow their reasoning to its conclusion: if we Quebecers do not obtain this recognition then we must leave Canada. Indeed, one cannot live without something that is necessary.

Those who say that, on the contrary, this recognition would only be a good thing to obtain should not place it at the heart of the Canadian unity debate. You do not break up a country on account of something that is good but not necessary.

Third question: do we want this recognition to be purely symbolic or, on the contrary, do we want it to lead to concrete consequences on, say, the division of powers or the allocation of public funds. And how does this approach square with the previous question? It is contradictory to affirm that the recognition of Quebec as a nation is necessary but purely symbolic. But that is the untenable position Michael Ignatieff has decided to advocate. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc leader, and Claude Morin, the former PQ minister, have already responded that if the recognition of Quebec as a nation in Canada is important then it must bring about “something” beyond symbolism.

We’ve seen this movie three times already. First it was the debate on the constitutional recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society” contained in the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Then came the Calgary Declaration, a 1997 episode which few people remember. The Premiers of the other provinces tried to define, for us Quebeckers, the type of recognition we wanted. They had their legislatures adopt a declaration that recognized “the unique character of Quebec society”. When the Declaration landed in Quebec, the province’s political class rejected it, stating that this recognition “had no teeth.”

So, here is my position: I am proud to belong to the Quebec nation within Canada. The constitutional recognition of such a fact, although desirable, is not necessary because nothing prevents us Quebeckers from participating and succeeding in this great endeavor that is Canada, a country we have contributed so much to building.

Nothing can justify that we renounce our Canadian identity. Such a rupture would be a tragedy, for ourselves, our children and future generations. We should not be encouraged to make such a mistake on the basis of a recognition that is desirable but not necessary. That is my position and I am more than willing to debate it because I do not underestimate the importance of symbols and recognitions. But I do not believe that we should ask other Canadians for such a recognition until we have clarified what we are hoping to obtain from it.

Although it is an important one, I do not believe this debate is the most important thing we can do to improve Quebec and Canada as a whole. For me, the main issue by far is to ensure Canada is part of the solution, not the problem, to the crucial challenge of the 21st century: how to reconcile humanity with the ecological limits of the planet. That is the vision and the plan of action I am proposing to Canadians in order to combine the three pillars of our success: economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability.

Quebeckers, we have better things to do than to see this movie for a fourth time. We should mobilize ourselves to make our country a pathfinder in the 21st century. Let’s contribute all our talents, energies and our own culture, as we have always done in the past, when we have had to respond with other Canadians to great challenges.

He had me at "before". Though he lost me at "ecological limits".

OFF TOPIC: I am too lazy to sign up to comment over there, but wanted to give a message to FLEA: special tribute to you, mister, over at my blog.
Flea may not be perfect folks, but he rocks, and THANK YOU.
http://grpottersblog.blogspot.com/

Re: "Ecological Limits": If you got that far, maybe you are willing to go a little further. Do you remember the name of the town in Mexico?

One thing to note regarding Scotland is that SNPers tend to count on royalties from North Sea oil stopping at the border and no longer making their way to London; so that's about a trillion reasons why we wouldn't see Scottish independence until, oh, say, the end of the 21st century.

Joe Howe, huzzah!!
http://www.mikecampbell.net/josephhowe.htm

I think I am dealing with double Hans. Hans from Quebec appears to be distinct from Hans from PEI. <p>and indeed: Joe Howe, huzzah!!

Kinda sounds like George and Opposite George.