Canadian PM declares Quebec a nation

[oberliner]

TORONTO - Prime Minister Stephen Harper stunned Parliament on Wednesday by introducing a motion recognizing the French-speaking province of Quebec as a nation within Canada — a moved aimed at pre-empting Quebec's separatist party which intends to do the same.

The Bloc Quebecois said it intends to introduce a motion Thursday that states Quebec is a nation. But the wording of that motion apparently does not include the words "within Canada," leaving federalists to worry it could be misinterpreted.

The flap has reignited passions over whether the French-speaking province should be given independence. Quebecers have twice voted down referendums seeking independence from Canada; the last one was narrowly defeated in 1995.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061123/ap_on_re_ca/canada_quebec_2

[tuvor]

1. Harper needs the Quebec vote.

Why just three weeks ago...

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused Friday to say whether he considers Quebec to be a nation, determined to avoid being sucked into the same semantic quagmire that threatens to swallow the Liberal party.

Harper danced around the politically explosive issue, being careful not to reject the idea while not endorsing it either.

He said he respects the fact that Quebec's National Assembly has adopted a resolution recognizing the province as a nation. And, while he said he doesn't think it's up to the federal government to define the province, he added: "I can consider whatever suggestion is brought forward."

Pressed by reporters following a speech in Oakville, Ont., to clarify his position, Harper said: "I did not take a stand. I said this is a debate on semantics."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061028/harper_nation_061028?s_name=&no_ads=

[enigmatic]

2. I was about to post the same thing

Without Quebec, no more CPC minority government, which is hanging by a thread right now.

[tuvor]

3. Hey, enigmatic, there's a bit of chat going on about this in the Canada forum.

You really must join in more often. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x18126

[enigmatic]

4. I'm there

And you're right :)

[tuvor]

5. We could use some more insights there, that's all.

Now that things in the USA have allowed me to breathe a smidge more comfortably, I'm thinking it's time I paid closer attention to what's going on with things that affect me more directly.

[Bassic]

10. Yes it's clearly intended for vote grabbing.

The Conservative Party couldn't give a shit about recognizing the French-Canadian nation, they want to go back up in the polls.

[Kagemusha]

6. Hey, if Harper thinks the neanderthal approach's not a vote-grabber

then more power to him. Just imagine - political reality making a right of center party act more reasonable (after a whole year's foot dragging or something mind you..) so that it is seen as representing more of the people. Imagine that.

[NorthernSpy]

7. Quebec IS a nation...

Quebec has all the attributes of an independent nation, except for the independence.

Harper is merely acknowledging the obvious.

[Bassic]

8. Thank you.

Although with the increasingly multicultural aspect of the province, one may not be able to say this in 20 years. But then again, if we take that criterion, Canada isn't a nation either.

[iverglas]

12. you might need to check the definition of "nation"

Harper is merely acknowledging the obvious.

Harper's motion is this:

“That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.

The Bloc motion that it pre-empted was the same ... but without the "within a united Canada".

During debate today, Bloc speakers repeatedly pointed out that "within a united Canada" is a matter of contemporary reality, and is irrelevant to the status of Quebec as a nation, and to the future.

Canada is a country. "Quebec is a nation." The two are not the same thing.

As Bloc speakers pointed out, there are countries composed of more than one nation. Belgium is the usual example. They also offered Russia, Spain and Great Britain.

Note also that they specifically did not refer to "the French-Canadian nation" as Bassic here does, and specifically pointed out that the nation of Quebec that they are asserting is also composed of the anglophone minority and the successive waves of immigrants who have settled in Quebec. They also referred to "the Acadian nation" and "the First Nations" within Canada.

"Independent" has nothing to do with "nation", necessarily. There are nations that form states, and there are nations within states.

The Bloc cited the Larousse dictionary definition of "nation":
"grande communauté humaine le plus souvent installée sur un même territoire et qui possède une unité historique, linguistique, culturelle, économique plus ou moins forte."
<large human community most often established in a single territory, which has some relatively strong degree of historical, linguistic, cultural (and? or?) economic unity>

and the Oxford Dictionary definition of "nation":
"A large body of people united by common descent, culture and language inhabiting a particular state or territory."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Yeah, England doesn't seem to have a problem with Scotland being a nation either.

AND Scotland doesn't seem to have a problem with being part of the UK, so why not?

[Bassic]

9. And now for the inevitable Freeptard response

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742972/posts

Yeah, sure, we'd surrender.

Idiot.

[jellybeancurse]

11. I'm a little confused

what exactly does Quebec gain by "being a nation within a country"? Does anything formal change? Pardonnez mon ignorance.

[iverglas]

13. nations are entitled to self-determination

A nation within a multi-national state can be self-determining in important ways, and to a sufficient extent that international law would not require an independent state / support secession.

The Bloc Québécois is of the view that Quebec cannot be self-determining, in ways that are sufficiently important to be determinative, within Canada.

Devolution in the UK -- "home rule" -- is an example of mechanisms for self-determination within such a state. The complex constitutional arrangements in Belgium, by which the major ethnic/cultural/linguistic groups have authority over their own educational systems and the like, are another.

Canada's constitution divides authority over various legislative areas between the provinces and the federal government. The provinces have education, civil law (which is why Quebec's civil law is still derived from European droit civil), health care, and all sorts of other things, but not, for instance, foreign policy.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says this:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

The big questions, of course, remain unanswered: when is some self-determination not enough self-determination, and what happens when it isn't?

The Supreme Court of Canada produced an enormous decision on the question a few years ago:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs2-217/1998rcs2-217.html
Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 2 S.C.R. 217

It's a fascinating read for anyone with a deep interest in the issues; the Court reviews the whole of human history as it relates to the question, more or less. ;)

The headnote summary:

2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self‑determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

Question 2

The Court was also required to consider whether a right to unilateral secession exists under international law. Some supporting an affirmative answer did so on the basis of the recognized right to self-determination that belongs to all "peoples".

Although much of the Quebec population certainly shares many of the characteristics of a people, it is not necessary to decide the "people" issue because, whatever may be the correct determination of this issue in the context of Quebec, a right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of people at international law where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. In other circumstances, peoples are expected to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state.

A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self‑determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states.

Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the "National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec" do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.

Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is not ruled out. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition. Even if granted, such recognition would not, however, provide any retroactive justification for the act of secession, either under the Constitution of Canada or at international law.

Hope that helped. ;)

[Bassic]

16. Canada's constitution does not recognize that right.

And I doubt the U.N. is going to side with sovereignists on this one.

PLus Harper specified that he believes Québec is a nation, if it is within a united Canada, whatever the fuck that means.

[iverglas]

20. Why do you think you're arguing with me?

Facts and ideas do exist whether we, or the UN or Harper or Duceppe or you or I like them.

PLus Harper specified that he believes Québec is a nation, if it is within a united Canada, whatever the fuck that means.

Actually, I took some time and put some effort into explaining the meaning of what he actually said, in this thread. It does mean something, as no one seriously discussing the issues denies.

Harper didn't actually say what you have said. He proposed the motion that the Québécois are a nation within a united Canada, not "if" they are within a united Canada. Obviously, if he believes the Québécois are a nation, he would believe they were a nation regardless of whether the nation was in a united Canada.

If one accepts that the Québécois are a nation, Harper's motion is just a rather pointless statement of fact, as the Bloc has pointed out.

It's like saying that Parliament resolves that my cats are a crowd within my living room. They may be in my living room right now, but they would still be a crowd if they went to the back yard.

[Bassic]

24. I'm sorry, English is my second language, so I sometimes come off

more aggressive that I would like. What I meant is that I don't think this will do much to fix out still unresolved constitutional problem while at the same time raising both hopes in Québec and fear in the other provinces.

So I wonder what exactly, other than to ne a nuisance to the Bloc, Harper expects to achieve with this move. As far as policital positioning goes, it was a master stroke, but I wonder what, if any, policy changes it will bring.

[iverglas]

25. heh

So I wonder what exactly, other than to ne a nuisance to the Bloc

I'd say that's about it. ;)

[Bassic]

27. I think Stevie opened up a can of worms that he took right out

of the hands of the Libs, to their great relief.

[Bassic]

15. It doesen't really change a thing,

This was simply meant to muster some sympathy within Québec, and to put the Bloc in a difficult position. It's short term partisan positioning.

[CHIMO]

19. How

Can you be so sure that it doesn't mean a thing?

[Bassic]

21. Well, the actual definition on nation in this context has yet to be

written, and I very much doubt that the Tory government is going to give Québec any special powers.

[CHIMO]

23. Perhaps

One should look beyond Quebec.

Is Harper's 'nation' a deal for Quebec?

But instead of a moral victory, Harper appears poised to give them a genuine one. His resolution -- "That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada" -- while probably of limited legal value, gives up a lot of philosophical round to Quebec's nationalists who, rather than being placated by it, will likely try to build on it.

So, far from buying peace, Harper has likely poured fuel on the embers of what was a smouldering, but contained, fire.

How long will it take for some firebrand from Newfoundland or Alberta to point out that if Quebecers can be a nation, so can Newfoundlanders and Albertans?

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=194c4411-465e-47c1-8a12-b62e338b9f7c

[Bassic]

26. That is the most common fear in English Canada

The danger is that nothing is fixed. At the end of the day, Québec wont have signed the Constitution and this is juts going to become another weapon for sovereignists.

[CHIMO]

28. So

One can then agree that it does have political weight. And an assumption that it means one thing only to find out it doesn't mean that, will in turn have an impact.

Some of the characters in Alberta are promoting the same thing. So thinking that the idea resides in one area of the country is misleading. Although those in the west don't have the numbers nor the same basis for their positions. It is more of a reaction.

[Bassic]

29. I think I expressed myself poorly.

Yes it does have political weight, it's a motion of the House after all. It very likely won't, however, have much of a legal effect concerning the position of Québec regarding the other provinces. So once this government is booted out of power, nothing much will have changed. Unless it gains another minority, where something similar to this will surface every few months in the hope of keeping the sympathy of Québec.

[iverglas]

14. not "Quebec", by the way: "the Québécois"

The PM's motion:

“That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.

Ordinarily, in Hansard, les québécois et les québécoises is translated as "Quebeckers" (yes, with the weird k).

Of course, les québécois et les québécoises means a little something different from "people who live in Quebec", although by current sovereignist definition it doesn't just mean old-stock French-Canadian Quebecers by descent.

The concept of "nation" being used is one that refers to a people, not a state -- so it is les québécois et les québécoises who form the nation, not the "political space" of Quebec that forms the nation.

[Bassic]

17. As I mentioned, this does absolutely nothing to change the political

situation of Canada, in the long run.

[iverglas]

18. and as I didn't mention

... well, I didn't mention the political situation of Canada in the long run.

The issues here actually do go beyond the fortunes of the Harper Conservatives, although I certainly didn't say that the issue here isn't the fortunes of the Harper Conservatives.

I find the international law of the self-determination of peoples interesting. Shoot me.

[Bassic]

22. Sorry, my intention was not to put you down.

What I meant is that the concept of Freedom of nations has never been applied to Québec for some reason, and that it is highly doubtful that the final definition of exactly what Stevies means by "nation" will be strong enough to allow for that.

Sorry if I came off insulting, that was not my intention at all.

[w4rma]

30. Dumb. (nt)

[iverglas]

31. you cannot imagine

how much we foreigners appreciate this kind of incisive, informed, enlightened, useful commentary on our internal affairs.

[w4rma]

32. 1.) It's a dumb move politically. It is giving him and his party a net loss.

2.) It's a dumb move from the stand point of strengthening Canada. Quebec needs to be treated as part of the nation of Canada (despite what a small minority of Quebecans want for the long term).

But, it's good for his opponents. And I like that.

[iverglas]

33. well, that was longer

1.) It's a dumb move politically. It is giving him and his party a net loss.

It would be an unfortunate blunder ever to assume that anything Stephen Harper does is "dumb". His IQ is about twice what, oh, George Bush's is, I'd venture to estimate. This is not a stupid man, politically or any other way. This is a very clever and extraordinarily focused one. He did not join a pentacostal church because he believes in whatever the hell pentacostals believe in, or even in a god; trust me.

2.) It's a dumb move from the stand point of strengthening Canada.

Well, that's as may be, but it assumes that one wants to strengthen Canada and/or that strengthening Canada is a good thing.

It's also as it may not be, in any event. It may be a simple fact that Quebecers are a nation, and it may be that the sooner the rest of Canada gets over that, the better for all concerned. And that by no means necessarily implies a direct path to secession, or Quebec applying for a seat on the (US) Federal Reserve Board.

Quebec needs to be treated as part of the nation of Canada

Well, I guess all I can suggest is that you read up on the concept/term "nation", as it is being used in this context, and in a very legitimate and long-standing sense. In this context, Canada is a state or country, and it may be a nation, and a lot can be said back and forth about that. You could start with my other posts in this thread, for an understanding of the actual issues involved.

And really: reconsider telling other people what to do, most especially when you know so very little about anything of consequence to them.

(despite what a small minority of Quebecans want for the long term)

And what Quebecers want (I have no clue what a Quebecan might be) in the long term is something else over which much ink could be spilled. But it is not remotely accurate to say that Quebecers who regard themselves as a nation and/or say they want to secede or want some form of more autonomous association with Canada constitute a "small minority".

I think a somewhat more interesting distinction to be made is what many Quebecers want vs. what the current crop of sovereignist politicians is after.

[krispos42]

34. Harper might take insult to that!

It would be an unfortunate blunder ever to assume that anything Stephen Harper does is "dumb". His IQ is about twice what, oh, George Bush's is, I'd venture to estimate.

Only twice as smart as Shrub puts somebody in the 'borderline retarded' catagory.

Maybe three times as smart a Bush... now you're in triple digits, as least!

Bush not only has a room-temperature IQ, he's also done the Farenheit-to-Celcius conversion!

:rofl:

[Bassic]

35. I agree.

The fact that Québecers constitute a nation is widely accepted in Québec by both Sovereignists and Federalists, as can be demonstrated by the current Premier's reaction to this new motion.

[brentspeak]

36. Quebec separatists = prima donna snobs

Canada has bent itself backwards into a pretzel many times over to accomodate the unending, petulant demands from the Quebecois-we-are-"special"-and-speak-French crowd.

(note: Quebecois who are intelligent enough to want Quebec to remain part of Canada, excluded from the above comment.)

[oblivious]

38. I guess I vaguely had that feeling once, coming from Western Canada.

But then I lived in a small Quebec town for a couple of years in a heavily separatist area. The separatist sympathisers were anything but prima-donnas. The ones I knew were mostly farmers and factory workers. The lawyers and business people, who all spoke English, were normally much more sympathetic to remaining in Canada. The people there just didn't really have any identification with Canada as I knew it. They regarded Quebec as their home and country. The idea of being part of something larger and grander had no particular appeal to them. There was some vague concern about possible negative economic consequences of separation though.

[Bassic]

40. Thank you.

It's nice to hear something positive for a change. (Not that all posts are negative, but between the ones that are, and other threads that are just nasty on other beards, I feel a but overwhelmed)

[Bassic]

39. I resent that

Though I may not be a seperatist myself, I obviously know a lot of them. They are my friends and my family. Would you all petulant snobbish demands, we call necessary demands to preserve our culture and language. I agree that a lot has been accomplished in the las few decades to secure that, and that the political situation in Canada has greatly changed, but collective memory is a funny thing like that. That plus what media coverage they can sometimes hear about, coming from English Canada which only serves to exacerbate age-old tensions even more.

Calling all seperatits prima-donna snobs is the equivalent of saying all anglos are condescending assholes who believe French-Canadians would become Nazis without the strict supervision of anglo-saxon democracy. It is insulting, and it is wrong.

[brentspeak]

41. The entire separatist movement makes no sense

Canada has done almost everything humanly possible to accomodate French-Canadian requests re. French language and cultural preservation. The argument that many on the sovereigntist side have made -- that Quebec must be an autonomous political state in order to preserve Quebec culture and the use of French -- has no basis in reality, and the sovereigntists know that.

I feel the same way about the Alberta separatists. Why break up a great country (Canada) just to feel special?

[CHIMO]

43. A Bit of History

Quebec nationalism, a long history
Last Updated November 23, 2006
By Robert Sheppard, CBC News

The notion of Quebec as a nation, as a distinct entity unto itself perhaps even within the confines of a larger Canada, has been part of our collective custodianship of this awkward chunk of North America probably since the Conquest itself in 1760.

Lord Durham's elegant report in 1839 found "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state," and some would say not much has changed since then.

Fearful of being assimilated by an increasingly larger English-speaking counterpart, each generation of Quebecers put forward its nationalist champions as the need — Confederation, Riel, the Conscription Crisis, education rights, the list goes on — arose.

Today's sense of the term should probably be seen as emanating from the 1960s when the concept of Quebec as a nation took a quantum leap forward.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/quebecnation-history.html

One has to be a bit careful in establishing who is giving something to another party. The separtists would state that they are not asking to be given anything by the Rest of Canada (ROC). If one goes back to the founding of Canada it started from Upper and Lower Canada. Which today are called Ontario and Quebec.

In any event arguing about a sovereign country seems to me to almost be redundant, my appraisal is that all of North America is ruled by what is now called the Global Economy. So we are bashing our heads against the wall for the wrong reason and the wrong red herring. Until we have our countries back, we aren't sovereign.

Who makes the rules.

[Bassic]

44. I agree with that.

I also think the debate is moot due to everyone's inability to go against the interest of the global market.

[iverglas]

42. exactly

While I have no faith in the motives of large numbers of leaders of the sovereignist movement, what they do does not invalidate the long-held and very real feelings of identity of large numbers of ordinary people. The fact that an élite would exploit those feelings for its own ends is neither unforeseeable nor unique to Quebec.

[Bassic]

45. You are quite right.

As I mentioned, it is as unfair as pretending that all English-canadians feel the same way about French-Canadians as Diane Francis, Mordecai Richler or Jan Wong.