Is Quebec a Nation? TPSB to hold public inquiry? Raptors win?

This nation crap is pissing me off, because it's literally Stephen Harper deciding to ignore the dictionary. I don't know the story behind Quebec as well as I should, but a nation is a group of people united under an independent government. For example:

People in Scotland who are Scottish Nationalists want scotland to become a nation. It is a country but not a nation, even with a Parliament, as it's not independent.

In turn, no matter what you call Quebec (which isn't even a country, and has no parliament of it's own either) it will not be a nation unless it is independent. Whether that would be a good thing or not is not my call, but if I was from Quebec I'd resent being fobbed off with such stupidity whether I was for or against.

Quebecs provincial government is referred to as the "National Assembly".

Well, actually, the Cavs did simply crawl back into it.

The Raps lost the 2nd quarter by 9. No big deal. Then the Cavs caught up and the teams traded baskets in the 3rd until the Raps took over to stay. They had plenty of inside outside while the lead was disappearing. Then they took control of the game when it mattered - recapturing the lead for good with 10 minutes to go in the 4th against the #1 team in the east. That's anything but shabby. So no, it wasn't "an ugly, ugly win".

In English, the language Harper was speaking, "nation" also means
• a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language;
• a federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans;
• a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity.

In other words, he's rephrased "Quebec is a distinct society" without changing the status quo. That's politics.

Personally, I don't get why this has caused so much hand wringing since Ignatieff brought it up a while back. One doesn't have to spend much time in Quebec to see that they are a very distinct entity within Canada. I think they are well deserving of the title of "nation", under the first definition quoted by rek.

I'm not generally a fan of Harper, but I think he's handled this very well.

Dave, fair enough. I'm just glad they won.

#12

None of the three you list are provinces. Moreover, language could only ground the idea that the Quebecois are distinct, not the province itself, which, as you may be aware, has expanded its borders substantially since confederation and subsumes, amongst others, the first nations, which are recognized nations in themselves. And you use the Bloc reasoning for sovereignty to underscore the reasons for the Harper motion, which is odd to say the least. This is calculated move to (a) boost conservative support in Quebec; (b) ensure the re-election of jean charest; (c) divide the liberals on the eve of their leadership convention (although it may fail on this ground) (d) show the PM as a man of action, in sharp contrast to the Liberals, who have been batting the question around for weeks/years to no apparent conclusion; (e) pull a fast one on the Bloc (though through proposed amendments, the Bloc showed it is at least as shrewd).

#7
Saying something is a nation is not the same as saying it is a distinct society. Nationhood implies certain rights that the concept of "distinct society" does not capture.
This is not the status quo - it is a grave and ill-advised departure.

(14) Again - you are conflating arguments. Quebec or Alberta or Saskatchewan can be as unique as you want it to be. Unique does not equal nation. "Feels like visiting other country" does not equal nation (I add that the difference between Ottawa-Hull is overtly linquistic and subtely socio-economic). I feel like I am visiting another nation when I walk down Gerrard Street in Little India, but it doesn't make Little India a nation, does it? If not, what does? This is exactly what none of the unanimous parties to the motion can agree on - Ignatieff can't explain it the same way twice, for instance. In the absence of an understanding of what nation means, how it differs from "distinct society" (which was rejected by a majority of Canadians, you'll recall - what has changed since 1992 that gives parliament a mandate to pursue this?), what rights it confers, etc., one questions the wisdom in proceeding to stick it to opposition benches and experience a brief blip in support in a province where your chief rivals have been unequivocal for years on the answers to these questions (Nation means sovereignty; sovereignty means the right to opt out of national programs, represent oneself at international meetings; receive transfer of tax provinces from the Feds; opt out of currency and trade if desired).

No one doubts that there are certain cultural differences between parts of the country and to reduce the current debate to arguing about whose linguistic and cultural charms are sufficiently interesting or diverging from "Canadian" (itself without meaning) is excessively trite.

(16)/rek

Will try not to repeat post (15). The very problem is that there are multiple senses of the word and no one knows or cares to explain which sense is meant in this motion. "Distinct society" was an attempt to confer a bundle or rights that were less expansive than "nation" - and even then Canada - first by provincial delegates at Meech and second by popular referendum - rejected this. Also, you are being intellectually disingenuous by choosing the least onerous definiton of nation and ascribing it to this motion - you or I or PM Harper or anyone else has no idea which definition is meant by this. The dictionary as a list of possible definitions is of little assistance on this.

Distinctiveness is not a claim to nationhood! Please stop muddying the debate by confusing them. Claims to nationhood are historical and based on an implied sovereignty to speak for a people. The Quebecois may be a people. They may have a historical claim to nationhood. They may have implied sovereignty to speak on behalf of the people. Arguably, this was abrogated at Confederation when they chose to join the nation of Canada. How they can abrogate the legitimacy to the nation of Canada and still subsist as a separate, independant nation within Canada (as the motion terms it), is not explained. I submit the argument is incoherent. And this is only the smaller argument that the Quebecois are a nation. Explain how the territory added after 1867 gets subsumed to the nation of the Quebecois (instead of the nation of Canada which it was explicity part of at all times) is an impossible task.

"I find that walking down gerrard in little india feels like the canadian version of indian culture. Montreal, on the other hand, feels like the Quebec version of Quebec culture."

I urge everyone to read this twice and ask whether it has any meaning at all (what would the Quebec version or Canadian culture feel like? Or vice-versa? This is a semantic game, not an insight or a real distinction). While I can't quarrel with your subjective experience, it is nothing more than that, and certainly not a basis for a distinction to be made in law, nor something that the 300 or so bodies in the house of commons share when they vote on the motion.

"I'm chosing to take it as meaning a distinctive culture and society. Saying that Quebec is a "nation" in this case isn't giving them special rights, it's acknowledging that distinctiveness which I (and a lot of other people) feel they have."

This is wrong three times over.

(A) You choose to take it as something that is meaningless (in as far as distinctinve culture and society has no significance at international law, and distinctiveness has been recognized (as has "uniqueness"). Then why do it at all? Next you are going to tell me because of the symbolic value to it, which I assume to mean it makes the Quebecois (but not Quebeckers) happy. Quebecois and Quebeckers do not want to be told they are distinct (I note they already have been told this by multi-party resolution and through the Calgary Declaration), the Quebecois in particular want whatever distinctiveness they have to have interpretive value in (a) how national laws apply to them; (b) their sovereignty and rights to self-determine and opt out of decisions made at a pan-Canadian level. In short, they want whatever claims of nationhood to translate directly into increased powers at the provincial level in Quebec. So your offer of symbolism would be sent back to the kitchen like and undercooked steak. But keep insisting this is what it means, despite the illogicalities, if you find it comforting.
Conclusion: If "nation" means nothing more than "distinct", then it is (a) meaningless; and (b) redundant.

(B) Second, you assert that it isn't giving them special rights. I have no idea how old you are, but assuming you lived through Meech, recall that the phrase "distinct society" was chosen precisely because it did not have the connotations that "nation" or "people" do at international law, precisely because the latter two phrases imply sovereignty and the former does not. In short, "DS" was not loaded with a whole bunch of consequences that those negotiating found unpalatable, and this lesser standard was rejected by Canadians. Twice. How in the face of this you argue that they mean the same thing is beyond me.

(C) Third - Quebec is distinct. It is clear. It has been declared by parliament(twice). A lot of people share this view. I share it. Tell me why it is a nation because you feel it is distinct. Answer any one of the following questions based on distinctiveness (1) should Canada have the right to tax within the Quebec nation? (2) should Canada have a claim on the natural resources of the nation of Quebec? (3) Do the first nations belong to the nation of Quebec, to the nation of Canada, to their own nation, to both Canada and Quebec, to all three? who has jurisdiction over the first nations? (4) does the nation of Quebec have any territorial right to the areas ceded to it after 1867? (5) what greater powers does Quebec get now that it has graduated from "distinct" and "unique" to "nation within Canada"?

The only question you have answered is (5), which you say is none, which doesn't make any sense, given that you think the nation declaration has to have meaning of some sort.

Finally, recall that Quebeckers have twice rejected by provincial referendum that they are a nation. So, as a democratic unit, they disagree with you and the house of commons on this one. Explain how the symbolic value of giving a province something they don't want necessitates wading into the legal quagmire described above.

James:

Thanks for your response. Where different words are used to describe a situation or thing, law makes a distinction. It is assumed (unless there is evidence to the contrary) that the intention in choosing a different word was to mean something different, otherwise the same word would have been chosen. So if the intention was to confer some sort of symbolic significance, parliament would have chosen to use either "distinct" (the language of the original house motion) or "unique" (the language of the Calgary Declaration). The use of either of these words would be confirmatory of earlier actions, and would not create anything different than the status quo. Also, there is the fact that "unique" and "distinct" have no legal significance, by which I mean there is no generally understood legal meaning to the words.

By choosing "nation", the manifest intention is to mean something different that "distinct" or "unique", because otherwise one of these would have been chosen. It invites the question: what is meant by nation? Courts have numerous sources to draw on when faced with defining something that has not been defined in the parliamentary resolution. Like rek, sometimes they go to the dictionary. I have argued that the dictionary is of little assistance here because of the range of answers it gives. The argument that it means "distinct" or "unique" would be rejected because of the reasons I give. Another source is international law, which has a detailed understanding of what a nation is, what rights a nation has, etc. To my knowledge there is no common understanding of what "a nation inside a nation" means, although Belgium, Switzerland, and others are often cited as examples of multination - nations. I know very little about these so I will not comment further, other than to say that the consitutional accomodations to the nations within nations are distinct and extensive, so we know which path we have been led on.

In short - the only thing we can be sure of is that nation means more than "distinct" or "unique", which is to say it is not merely symbolic, which is to say it must imbue some rights previously not enjoyed by the non-nation of Quebec. When determining what those rights are, it will be persuasive to look at what rights nations have at international law. Quebec will argue that "nation" implies some greater sovereignty than "province" - they can do this by analogy to international law, or analogy to Canadian law in the treatment of aboriginal nations, which have an entirely different relationship to the Federal government than do provinces and territories. In the end, this has ceded sovereignty to the Quebec government. In the end, we will have to wait and see how bad the ramifications are, but it is no longer in the federal government's control. It legitimates the call of sovereigntists for greater devolution of powers to the provinces - that is, it strengthens (what was) a declining power in Quebec.

I note again that canadians have rejected this type of distinction twice (meech and charlettown) and quebeckers twice (1980 and 1995). All of these were rancourous national debates. This one is an idea sprung on a monday which will be voted on by the end of the week. Query whether this is a wise way to pull a fast one on your political opponents.

re yr point in 17 about confederation - i'm no expert, certainly, in history nor law, but it strikes me as likely that the government of quebec would have been stacked by the british since the occupation/defeat of french forces there. right? if you took over a territory, wouldn't you want relatively friendly natives to govern it, especially if they all spoke another language? and then, when you discuss forming a confederation to be able to joust effectively in a world rapidly changing, and with the american state below becoming a world power, wouldn't it also make sense for said stacked british-friendly native governors to concede that joining into confederation was a good idea? but was there any kind of referendum in quebec at the time?

(22) Quebec will claim in any matter interpreting its powers or the division of powers in the consitution that it should be accorded the rights of a nation, not as a mere province. Outside of the courts, sovereignty-associationists and decentralists within Quebec and decentralists outside of Quebec will make the same argument long before it gets to the courts.

(23) Your supposition contains so many historical inaccuracies it is impossible to respond to.

(24) Your naiveity is striking and you misstate a number of factual matters. Read today's and yesterday's statements by Gilles Duceppe (the most popular politician in Quebec), Jean Charest (the Premier) to name just two. Of course the motion did not specifically devolve the powers you mention. It need not. Quebec politicians (who make up a significant portion of all federal parties except the moribund NDP) have already begun claiming such jurisdictional ground and these claims are given legitimacy by the motion. Prior to the motion - all they could claim are the rights of a province which are expressly (though not without controversey in their interpretation) set out in the Constitution). You cannot as a factual matter claim that nation has no meaning - there is a rich and detailed body of law on this and it is already being referenced by opinion-makers in Quebec which shape political demands in the province. Federal parties who behave in this very opportunisitic manner in Quebec will be forced to continue to kow-tow to demands. If they do not respond, the Bloc will increase their seat take on the idea that the nation of Quebec cannot continue to flourish within a united Canada. Anyone with an understanding of constitutional history post 1980 understands this political dynamic in Quebec. You cannot just assume it away for the convenience of your argument.

You are right that the phrase is a "nation within a united Canada", but the recognition as a "nation" accords rights - it is entirely within its power to leave a united Canada on the terms of the Clarity Act, for instance. Or it can remain having achieved the sovereignty-association which was always the true objective of the sovereigntists, anyway. And the comparison to a first nation is entirely coherent (not incoherent, as you assert but do not demonstrate) and Canadian courts have already laid out a detailed body of what those obligations are and what rights the first nations have.

I won't address your claim that the motion is merely symbolic because I have done so at length above and in previous posts. Suffice it to say it is incoherent and non-sensical given the symbolic recognition accorded under the Calgary Declaration and the all-party resolution. If it is meaningless, why did Canadians reject the (less-onerous) claim to distinct society at Meech and at Charlettown? Whey the nation of Quebec reject sovereignty in 1980 and 1995? Did these results (after rancourous debate and detailed consideration) mean nothing too?

I add that the repercussions from this are a most unwelcome distraction. Governments should be focussed on continuing the unprecedented wave of economic prosperity, employment and wealth-creation that has made it the envy of the G8. Instead, we are going to have politicians ill-suited to the debate arguing test cases of international law, back-biting between the feds and Quebec, and rent-seeking groups in Quebec and around the country fighting to divy up the spoils of greater decentralization.