It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Nation Within A Nation?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:39 PM
Just the latest installment of the Canada versus Quebec saga.

PM says Quebecers form nation within Canada

Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a motion on Wednesday that recognizes Quebecers constitute a nation within a united Canada, in a surprise move aimed at countering an imminent Bloc Quebecois motion.

"Do Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Quebecois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and will always be no," Harper said in an address to the House of Commons following question period.

"The Bloc Quebecois has asked us to define that, and perhaps that's a good thing, because it reminds us all that Canadians have a stake in the future of this country."

He called on his federalist colleagues, and also their separatist counterparts to, "do what we must to keep this country strong, independent, united and free."

Harper had already sought the backing of Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham and NDP Leader Jack Layton, reported CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife.

He then asked for his own party's support, reminding members of the combined francophone and anglophone infl

CTV Article

The article that is linked above is very extensive and discusses the issue very thorough. I highly recommend taking 5-10 minutes to browse through it and take a look at this issue from all angles.

I'll begin with some specific details of the article that caught my attention.

The Following Snips Are From The Article Above!

Harper's motion effectively counters the imminent Bloc motion, which calls for recognition of Quebec as a nation, but not within Canada.

Is this the lesser of two evils? It appears some Quebec citizens will not rest until they are considered a nation. Would we want them to be a nation outside of Canada, or a nation within our own nation? Or should we tell them to cram it and live with the hand they have been dealt?

Unfortunately, I don't think it is that simple. We are not in a position to hand out a list of demands. Compromises are going to be made, and I believe this might solve the problem for both sides.

The ramifications of this deal would be extensive though. How would this effect Canadian government? Legislation? Travel? A lot of these questions will remain unanswered until the time comes.

"The refusal to recognize the Quebec nation explains why Quebec is considered as a province like any other and no more."

This has been quoted by Duceppe. My question is, what is the problem? Why do they continue to insist on having to be more than a province? Why are they above Nova Scotia? Alberta? British Columbia? Could someone please inform me. When did being a Canadian province turn into such a negative?

"How could we ever support a motion on Quebec by a party that has zero commitment to Canada, which is blind to the greatness available for Quebecers within Canada, a country in which they are at home from coast to coast to coast?" Graham asked.

Exactly. The fact remains that the Bloc does not speak for 100% of the population in Quebec. Someone needs to remind them of this. Canada has made a stride to compromise, and it remains to be seen how they react to the proposal. I can easily see them laughing at the proposal and demanding their ability to stand as a sovereign nation.

If Quebec wishes to have their needs met, I believe they begin to look at some of the needs of the rest of the country.

If not, could we please put this issue to rest. I am growing tired of hearing about this separation, sovereign nation, more than just a province BS.


The Liberal Party Makes A Stand

The eight Liberal leadership candidates were unanimous in saying they couldn't support the Bloc motion because it doesn't mention the word Canada.

This has to be said. The lack of mention of Canada in their motion needs to be called. I am sure we have had a give and take relationship for quite a while, but ungrateful has to com to mind when we read some of this.

Taking a Look at Semantics

"What about recognizing Acadians as their own nation within Canada? You could take it down the line to different ethnic groups within Canada so it has become very controversial."

How deep does this rabbit whole go? Where does it end? First natons, will they be a nation within a nation? The Acadians, do we permit them to consider themselves a nation within a nation? Cape Bretoner's are a proud race, should we be a nation? Silly, I know but the argument stands. If we allow this, where do we draw the line?

The motion sent Quebecers the message that "we want you in Canada, we want you to be a part of Canada, we recognize the fact that you have a different history,"

Agreed. I would be disappointed if Quebec separated from Canada. Geographically, our country would be shot. Coming from the east coast, we would feel this very quickly. Quite literally, we would be a country divided. But the fact remains that this has been a long standing issue that does not seem to be going away. At some point, progress is going to be required. Maybe this is a step in the right direction.

I'm interested to hear the thoughts of our members.

Nation within a Nation, A Nation to stand alone, or just slam the door in their face?

What is the best course of action for everyone involved?

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:57 AM
Bloc amends motion on Quebecers as nation

The Bloc Quebecois has tabled an amended separatist motion declaring that Quebecers form a nation "that is currently within Canada.''

"We're tabling a motion that respects all sides without subjecting the recognition of a Quebec nation to partisan conditions. Yesterday the prime minister did exactly the opposite. He tabled a motion that recognizes a Quebec nation with a condition attached -- a partisan string attached," Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said in the House of Commons.

"So we see that the prime minister is merely trying to save face. The only respectful attitude toward Quebecers is to recognize them for what they are. ... A nation that doesn't stop being a nation whether it's no longer part of Canada, that's obvious, a nation with no conditions," the separatist leader said in French.

Duceppe argued that the prime minister had no place deciding the future of Quebec.

"Quebec's future belongs to Quebecers, period. Quebecers under the rules under of the National Assembly, can decide on their own future," he said.

Recognizing Quebec as a nation in the House of Commons is more than a symbolic issue or a partisan one, Duceppe said.

Link to CTV Article

It indicates that a vote is probable for Monday on whether or not Quebec will be considered a nation, within the nation of Canada. Does anyone else feel that this legislation will be approved?

For the rest of the nation, it is a hope that this will once and for all, silence Quebec and put an end to the separation movement. I believe, for Quebec, this is going to be used as a stepping stone. This is the first major step in steady line that will conclude with Quebec considering themselves a sovereign nation outside the realm of Canada.

Duceppe always seems to be pissed off whenever he is quoted in the media. The PM has made a compromise on his stance, and is willing to consider them a nation inside of Canada. How does he respond? Lashes out that Harper has no business in Quebec's affairs and the decision over whether or not they are going to be a sovereign nation.

Well, considering he is the Prime Minister. Considering Quebec is a Canadian province, I believe he should and does have some say. Whether you like it or not, his position should carry some weight on this issue.

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:36 AM
All I gotta say is why not?

It's about time. Let them have their nation within a nation, Europe does, things are fine.

They were here first, The British came second, they screwed over the indians, and then the french. It's about time they are recognised as they wish to be after 150 years.

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:01 PM
If it puts an end to this whole argument, I say let them be a nation within a nation. The First Nations are all individual nations within Canada, so there is precedent for it.

Ok, so it probably won't end it completely, but it will be enough for a lot of people and the separatists won't have nearly as much support, which translates to less votes. Duceppe isn't going to like it because his party's entire purpose for being is to fight for separation. If Quebec gets recognition as a 'nation within a nation' then the Parti Quebecois isn't very relevant anymore.

I'm not sure whether this will be approved or not. If it is and it is used as a stepping stone, as you mentioned, then I think it's time the separatists need to start seriously thinking about the details. I have yet to hear any sort of answer over what happens with the First Nations. Will Quebec start that new country with the glorious North American tradition of screwing them over and taking their land while not giving them a choice? Do the First Nations get to choose what country they want to be with? What hapens to outstanding land claims - one of which happens to be Quebec City?

And then there are the other questions - Does Quebec honestly think we are going to allow them to continue using our money and passports? Will they be a part of NATO? How can they afford to have a military that will allow them to be a partner in any sort of international action?

There is a lot more to being a country than just stomping your feet and saying 'We're a separate nation'.

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:53 PM
I believe they will make a strong effort to use these events as a stepping stone. But as you mention Duzey, the consequences of their actions are endless. Canada needs Quebec, however Quebec needs Canada much, much more.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few days.

Originally posted by TrueLies
All I gotta say is why not?

This is the problem though. We scream Why? And Quebec screams Why Not?

You can quickly see why we have made such little progress over the years. Seems like we are finally getting somewhere.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:29 AM
One can only hope that this is the beginning of some kind of resolution. I'm sure that there are some groups that will try to use this as a stepping stone, but a move like this could diminish support for the separate country thing.

I can't help but wonder how this would play out if it happened in the US.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:51 AM
I think we should look closely at some definitions here. According to the U.S. National Geographic Society, nations are defined thusly:

Distinct societies committed to their homelands, territories with which they identify a shared history and culture form nations. A nation is usually an ethnic group, a people sharing the same language, religion, history and icons-- symbols of their distinctiveness.

Source: The National Geographic Desk Reference, 1999

So I think Quebec does qualify as a nation, with a distinct separate culture than Anglo-Canadians.

It would be more correct to say they are a nation within a nation-state though, as nation-state refers to the politically recognized "state."

What does this mean? Absolutely nothing! I don't think this is going to do anything to appease separatists in Quebec.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Duzey

I can't help but wonder how this would play out if it happened in the US.

Well it already happened, that is why we had the Civil War. The South wanted to be separate from the 'Union'

Anyway my question...why does Quebec not want to be part of Canada?

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:05 AM
They are definitely a distinct society or a nation or whatever they want to be called. I just take umbrage with them trying to separate from the rest of the country. Quebecois get upset because they feel they are not appreciated and not listened to and they continue to ignore the opinion of any person in Quebec that doesn't want separation. When they don't win their referendums, they blame the immigrants and say if they don't like it, move. Does that seem a little odd to you?

We'll take your tax money but you don't get any say - isn't that why the US threw a bunch of tea into the harbour? Taxation without representation?


Quebec thinks it would be better off outside of Canada, I guess. Either that or the rest of us have bad BO.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Duzey]

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:10 PM
It appears Duceppe and the Bloc are going to support Harper's motion to recognize Quebec as a nation, within a united Canada.

In a surprise move, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said his party will support the motion initiated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper earlier this week.

The motion upstaged a similar one by the Bloc, which had initially called for recognition of Quebec as a nation -- but without mention of Canada.

The phrase "within a united Canada" was meant to prevent separatists from using the motion for their own agenda, but Duceppe said recognition of Quebec nationhood actually gave them another weapon.

"It's always better that when we're fighting for a sovereign Quebec that Canada recognize that Quebecers are a nation. That's a plus," Duceppe told reporters outside the House of Commons.

Agreeing to the language about being in a united Canada was simply recognition of the fact.

"It's more important to recognize the fact that the Quebec nation exists from now on," he said.

CTV Article

Dear Santa: All I want for Christmas is for this drama to end! Please!

Now that the Bloc has openly supported the motion, I hope that this will finally silence the separation movement. We have what we want, they have what they want, can we let it be? Something inside me screams that in a few years we are going to see this as a stepping stone, but I hope I am wrong.

The Bloc has been all over the place on this issue in the last few days, but it appears we are going to come to a resolution.

I support this. I have no problem with Quebec being recognized as a nation, as long as this is where it ends.

Why can't Quebec be like Manitoba? When do you ever hear of them?

[edit on 24-11-2006 by chissler]

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:38 PM
Some say we are a country divided, but now it appears the Tories are a party divided.

Tory cabinet minister resigns over Quebec motion

A Conservative cabinet minister has resigned his post over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stance on Quebec. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong (he also holds the sports portfolio) announced his resignation at a news conference late Monday.

"I believe in this great country of ours, and I believe in one nation undivided, called Canada," said Chong.

"This is fundamental principle for me, and not something I can, or will, compromise -- not now, not ever. While I'm loyal to my party and to my leader, my first loyalty is to my country."

Chong opposes the motion that the Quebecois constitute a nation within a united Canada, and will now abstain from voting on that motion in Parliament this evening.

Initially I disagreed, but how can you argue with:

"This is fundamental principle for me, and not something I can, or will, compromise -- not now, not ever. While I'm loyal to my party and to my leader, my first loyalty is to my country."

Enough to shut me up! ...Well almost.

As I do agree with Chong on his strong quote, there is much more at play here. Quebec has indicated for years that this is not something they are prepared to ignore. I believe this motion is a very small compromise on our behalf, and if it is enough to silence this movement, I accept it with open arms.

I would of hoped high ranking officials in our government would view this under the same light.

It shocks me that Harper would allow this to happen, assuming he had a choice. You would expect that this has been mentioned within the party as of late, and Chong would of been well aware of what was about to happen. His resignation should of been sent in before the announcement of the motion. After this, it gives the impression that the Tories are a party in shambles. An overstatement for sure, but the fact we are seeing resignations over a motion that the PC's issued, leaves it open for interpretation.

Gives the sense that the politicians that run our government do not support this.

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 12:57 PM
I believe that the Quebecois are not a nation. They are French-Canadian. They are the same as some one who lives in Manitoba or Newfoundland except that those people might speak English instead of French.

The entire Quebec nationalism issue is based on one ethnic difference, language. This is what the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois claims defines a Quebecois person. They must speak French. The problem with this is that there are French speaking people all over Canada. There are a lot of French speaking people in New Brunswick, Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, ect. They don't live in Quebec and they probably don't consider themselves Quebecois, yet they are French-Canadian.

There are many countries around the globe that have large portions that speak different languages. In Belgium people speak French and Flemish. In Switzerland, people speak German, French and Italian. Despite the fact that these people speak different languages they all still consider themselves as one nation.

If Quebec is considered a nation, then why not consider Newfoundlanders or Acadians, or Albertans nations. They have different ethnic and civic identities than other Canadians.

Canada is a multicultural, pluralist, liberal, democratic country. This is what unites all Canadians despite where we live, what language we speak and what religion we practice. Quebec is apart of this Canada, not a Quebecois nation, that is solely based on language.

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:10 PM
slink, you make a great point and I agree with you 100%.

But if this wording is enough to silence Quebuec, would you not accept it? Wouldn't it be better to consider Quebec a nation under a united Canada rather than a nation standing on itself?

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by chissler
slink, you make a great point and I agree with you 100%.

But if this wording is enough to silence Quebuec, would you not accept it? Wouldn't it be better to consider Quebec a nation under a united Canada rather than a nation standing on itself?

I would be happy to consider Quebec a nation under Canada rather than a nation standing on itself. Quebec is an extremely important part of Canada politically, economically and culturally.

After reading many newspaper and journal articles about a Quebec nation authored by Quebec born, French-Canadian professors, politicians and journalists I have come to the conclusion that Quebec is not a nation.

If the conservative government wanted to confirm that Quebec is a nation they should hold a referendum in Quebec that simply asks, "Are the Quebecois a nation inside a unified Canada?" Let Qubeckers decide if they are a nation or not. Realistically, isn't it the group, not a government that decides if that group are a nation?

The Conservatives could also claim that those that live in Guelph, Ontario like I do, are apart of the Kwigibo nation. I am not apart of any Kwigibo nation, even if the government says I am.

[edit on 30/11/2006 by slink]

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by chissler
You would expect that this has been mentioned within the party as of late, and Chong would of been well aware of what was about to happen.

One would hope that is the case. According to Garth Turner, it isn't.

The maverick Toronto-area MP, who now sits as an independent, says the Conservative environmental plan, the budget, tax cuts, the income trust decision and military policy in Afghanistan were all presented to the caucus as done deals, not as subjects for debate.

"Caucus has not been involved in substantive policy issues at all," Turner said in an interview. "That has been, I guess, one of my greatest surprises and greatest disappointments - that we have not, as members of the caucus, been allowed to discuss any substantive policy issues."


"There has never been a policy debate where people have lined up at the microphone and been asked for input into a pending policy decision in the national caucus, and that has been a huge difference from my experience in the past, where that is the reason that caucus existed."

There have been meetings where cabinet ministers presented policies and took questions about them, but there was no debate.

Turner says caucus members have no say in policy

Several Conservative members abstained from the vote. To vote against the motion would lead to being removed from caucus. This was a whipped vote, which is kind of funny in light of the fact that whipped votes are bad when the Liberals had them.

Quebec as a nation under the Conservatives - whipped votes a good thing
Same-sex marriage under the Liberals - whipped votes a bad thing

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:36 PM
I've found an interview with Michael Chong and he's confirmed that there was no early warning about the motion. It was presented as a fait d'accompli.

Q: Were you consulted by Mr. Harper before he decided to introduce his own motion?

Chong: I was not consulted.

Q: You're the key point guy, intergovernmental affairs. You would think that somebody would have told you what was going on.

Chong: I think you'll understand ---

Q: And what is the consequence of you leaving because you are the person who's supposed to deal with all the provinces?

Chong: Well, I think you'll understand that this motion from the Bloc Québécois came as a surprise to all of us so it's not surprising that the Prime Minister had to take some very rapid decisions as to how he was going to deal with this problem and, you know, I don't envy him for having to take those decisions.

The Hon. Michael Chong: In His Own Words

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 04:04 AM
This would just leave the way open for Alberta to become a nation within Canada, and do their own thing.

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:53 PM
Okay I feel it's time for a little slice of life of Uncle Glasnost

I'm unsure if any of the poster here are Quebecois but anyway

First of all, I am (it's important for the following)

While I was a student at the Cegep (unsure if you have those in the rest of Canada, it's a school between secondary and university)

Well, I have been witness to some stuff I could not conceive in a place like Canada

The cegep where I went was mostly an indoctrination center for Socialist (sometimes communist) separatist. Most of the time, teachers were not neutral and openly Separatist (imagine for a second a course of history on the basics of Canada given by an independantist, that's what I got)

Anyway, the event I'd like to talk about took place about a MONTH ago

The provincial Liberal Party came to school and had a Kiosk (Nothing new, Evangelists even have one and sometimes the military does)

What happened, was that the student syndicate (Left-wing independantist... supposedly Apolitic) Mounted a REAL Gestapo-like operation to bash the Liberal Party. They were relaying themselves to piss them off and stop them from talking to the students and brought Hi-Fi Speakers to spout Loco Locass songs (liberez nous des liberaux, you know?)

They were supposed to be there for the whole day, they quit after 2 hours... One of the girl was about my age and near crying... They never did that stuff to evangelists or even the Military... Only the liberal party. They were spouting bull# like: Free yourself from oppression! Oppression.. what? In Canada?

Im not even a Liberal, im more of a con and still... I was pissed at those guys. They were acting like low Thugs. I can't even openly say that im a Tory, I'd get bashed even more than those liberal guys. I saw people being accused of... High Treason because they werent supporting independance.

It was a pretty sad experience I must admit

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Harassment101
This would just leave the way open for Alberta to become a nation within Canada, and do their own thing.

Please take 4, no 5 seconds of your day to elaborate even the slightest. I'm honestly growing tired of hearing how Alberta is going to be the next province to separate. I'd like to hear 5 good reasons to why they would possibly separate, and not one of them should be Oil.

One resource is not enough for a province to separate. If it was, Nova Scotia would of been gone a long time ago. A looooong time ago. In the mid 1900's, our Fishing and Mining resources were explosive. We were filthy rich and living off of what we pulled from the ground and ocean, but guess what, we didn't go anywhere. And now look. Our resources dried up. Not sure when the Oil will dry up, but at some point in time, it will. Might not be for another hundred, or two hundred years, but it will.

So basing a separatist movement on one single resource is a waste of everyone's time. It's a waste of our own time to sit here and read it.

5 seconds of elaboration or 5 non-Oil facts. I'll settle for either.


In regards to CanadianGlasnost's post, I am shocked to hear that this would go on so openly. I'm not familiar with the school itself, but the fact it would condone any of these actions, well, it speaks volumes of the institute.

I am in agreement with you on this extremist propoganda. I believe it is more of a discredit to themselves. If they took their time and tried to stick with factual evidence, maybe they could make a case. Problem is, there is no factual evidence to support their claims.

I mean Oppression. C'mon now.

The oppression we endure in this country is just... just... I can not bring myself to bare it any longer.

Darfur, Apartheid victims, how many should we name? I mean, those guys got it made right. Not here in Canada where we enjoy free health care above all. We really got the short end of the stick when it game to our demographs.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by chissler]

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:28 PM
They say their oppressed because at some places in Montreal they can't get served in french

I mean, big surprise for a cosmopolitan city like that

I remember one guy tried to convince me we were brothers with the Basque people because they were fighting for freedom

The School's administration doesnt really condone it, it's a bit more complicated

You see, the one that did the Gestapo operation were the student syndicate. If the administration blocks a "social action" (not political, because of course, they are apolitical...) from the syndicate, well the syndicate's president starts treating with Strikes and even legal action for opposing democracy or some stuff like that... The administration can't do jack for that... they'd get creamed
I don't really blame them....

To give you a good idea:
imagine a syndicate managed by students, most of them being 18, playing with a sessional (half of the year) budget of 140 000$ CA, 280 000$ CA per year that means... With NO supervision at all... board members not elected because they are less than 18... (had no elections for 12 years, the president is proud of it, says it is stability in the student support) The syndicate's assembly are rare and nobody goes there, so the board can do whatever they want. The most wonderful is when they pay themselves party or restos or worse! when they allocate budgets to themselves for "Mobilisastion Comitee"

Think the liberal government was corrupted? I have trouble thinking worse right now

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in