A week ago, two thirds of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada endorsed a resolution calling on its next leader to promote the formal recognition of Quebec as a “nation” within Canada.

This was an idea unveiled earlier by leadership candidate and front-runner Michael Ignatieff. Strong support for the proposition at last week’s convention in Montreal was taken by many as an indication of Ignatieff’s leadership support in Quebec.

Webster defines a nation as “a body of people associated with a particular territory and possessing its own government”. Others define “nation” as a relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country, a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language.

The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group. Although ethnicity may be an important aspect of cultural or social identity, it does not by itself define a nation. People with the same ethnic origin can live in diverse parts of the world and be citizens of a nation states with no ethnic connection to their past.

The term nation is often a component of land claims. Where territory is disputed, evidential judgments are sometimes based on the determination of which nation of people lived on the land first, thus the term "First Nations". Aboriginal communities rely on this determination in land claim negotiations, entitlement negotiations and discussions of self-government.

To be fair to Mr. Ignatieff, the extension of an “olive branch” to Quebec does not have to embrace land or territory. An early use of the term nation occurred at mediaeval universities, to describe students, specifically at the University of Paris, who were born within the same community, spoke the same language and expected to be ruled by their own law.

In 1383 and 1384, while studying theology in Paris, Jean Gerson was twice elected procurator for the French nation (i.e. the French-born Francophone students at the University). If Mr. Ignatieff intends nation recognition of Quebec’s Francophone population, without change to their legal status, that might be acceptable to Canadians but only if it is sanctioned by Francophone Quebecers as a form of recognition rather than an authorizing step towards independence.

Nations are defined by shared characteristics that give the population a degree of homogeny or sameness but some of the characteristics of nations are exclusive so as to distinguish them from neighbors. A shared language and heritage could be used as the defining feature of a nation.

In some cases language is the exclusive characteristic of a nation and central to its national identity. The majority language in Quebec is French. The dominant religion in Quebec is Catholicism. Civil law in Quebec is informed by the Napoleonic Code. While all of the above make Quebec distinct from the rest of Canada, none are unique to Quebec.

The Basque Country is a linguistic area of more than 2 million people straddling the Pyrenees Mountains and the border between Spain and France. The Basque language is prominent in the self-definition of the Basque people, although not all Basques speak it.

Since 1979 the Basque region in Spain has been one of seventeen autonomous regions in the Spanish Republic that enjoys administrative power over such things as taxes, education, police, agriculture and the calling of elections while the Basque region in France has no such autonomous rights.

Nationalism and separatism played an important role in the Spanish transfer of powers from nation state to autonomous communities. Fearing that separatism would lead to instability and a dictatorial backlash, compromise was struck among moderate political parties drafting the Spanish Constitution of 1978. A highly decentralized state was established.

55 provinces were banded together in 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities. They were given wide legislative and executive authority with their own parliaments and regional governments. Not all communities were recognized as equal. Some were designated as "historic" (including the Basque community) and were given more power than the others.

Spanish recognition of the right of "regions and nationalities" to self govern has been posed as a model for power-sharing in Canada.

In my view, Canadian application of the Spanish model would lead to (former Prime Minister) Joe Clark’s vision of Canada as a “community of communities”. Logic might project that model to a Quebec subdivided by language and First Nation demands for self-government. The same could happen to other provinces and regions of the country.

Years ago, Conservative leader Bob Stanfield advocated the recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society” within Canada. The intent was to convey special status to the province but without the legal definition of nation. It was strongly opposed by then Prime Minister Trudeau.

In the 1980 Quebec referendum, the late Premier, Rene Levesque offered “sovereignty association” as a convoluted alternative to separation. Quebec would function as an autonomous community but stand together with the rest of Canada in matters of currency and defense. The proposition was defeated.

I suppose one could brand a community as a nation without giving it the power to self-govern.

The problem is that people or communities so branded might use the designation to support a case for independence and/or unrestricted self-government. At the very least, the nation designation would or could imply a distinct status that would make the community an equal with other nations of the world, including Canada.

Mr. Ignatieff’s “nation” postulation appears to walk dangerously close to special status and perhaps even sovereignty association. The man is a brilliant academic, potential leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and future prime minister.

His notion of Quebec as a nation may be subtle in its intent but appears naive in its apparent acquiescence to those who might see it as an incremental step towards independence.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

When I was a kid growing up in Toronto, I greatly admired the United States.

In my early twenties, I fantasized about moving to that country. My fantasy was shattered by the reality of draft to the U.S. military and the prospect of a Vietnam tour of duty.

Although never living in the United States, I have spent considerable time in that country since the early seventies. There is much about the U.S. and its people that mirrors Canada and the people of Canada.

For the most part, American people are friendly and not much different from you and me.

However, there are differences. Some are historic, some cultural and some experiential. There are differences in life circumstance and pace. There are differences in colour intensity. There are differences in degrees of poverty. There are differences in health care access but perhaps most significantly there are fundamental differences in attitude.

Hard-line, religious, right wing conservative attitudes are found in the south and south west. They’re also found in the rural north. Most Americans know little about the world and less about Canada. To them, Canada is a cold place north of the United States that pushes Arctic air into their wintertime homesteads.

9/11 changed Americans.

In the post 9/11 era, Americans have become obsessed with national security. Undefended borders are no longer considered important or sacred.

As we speak, the United States is building a fence along the Mexican border to keep out “illegal immigrants” and suspected terrorists. The Americans are patrolling Western-Canadian/U.S. borders with helicopter gunships and jet aircraft. They’re beefing up border patrols and check points across their northern border with Canada. They’re testing the Great Lakes for its potential as a terrorist battlefield.

On Tuesday, the U.S. President signed into law the "Military Commissions Act," which allows him to arbitrarily declare anyone, including an American citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant."

The Act permits him to imprison designated enemy combatants without charge or trial, for the duration of the "War on Terror"." He can subject captives to "strenuous interrogation techniques" that by any rationale constitute torture. The Act allows George W. Bush to determine what is legal in terms of torture and what is not, except in the most extreme cases, such as rape and deliberate murder. The Act provides amnesty for U.S. officials, including Bush and others who might have authorized torture, murder or other violations of human rights.

People tell me that I am obsessed with Bush. Not true!

I’m obsessed with the fact that our neighbor, our ally, our best friend is being subverted by a man and his supporters who share a view of the world that I cannot and do not share.

Corruption, war, lies and indifference to human misery are the hallmarks of this Administration. Just look at the number of Republican Congressmen, aides and lobbyists who are or have been the subject of legal proceedings or criminal investigations. All that on top of an illegal war sold to the American people with a cluster of bold-faced lies.

Is it not reasonable that one might be concerned for that country and our relationship with it?

Our own Frank McKenna is urging Canadians to ensure that our border with the United States becomes safer. He says we must be prepared to adopt the highest possible standards of technology, identification documents and immigration systems that withstand (U.S.) scrutiny.

He suggests that Canadians should re-open debate on the issue of a North American ballistic missile defense-shield. Now who in their right mind would want to partner with George Bush in anything military?

Military issues aside, did you know that the United States Government is spending millions of dollars to track down critics of George W. Bush in the press?

As with so many of the Bush initiatives that have stripped away American liberties, this one started quietly with a $2.4 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security to develop "sentiment analysis" software that will allow the government's "security folks" to scan millions of media and/or e-mail articles for "negative opinions” of the United States or its leaders.

Three major American universities, Cornell, Pittsburgh and Utah have agreed to help develop this technology. Cornell is already well advanced in its developmental research.

The U.S. “critic identification” program is based on "information extraction," a process by which "computers scan text to find meaning in natural language" rather than the rigid literalism demanded by current language software. Under the guidance of Homeland Security, the participating universities "will use machine-learning algorithms to give computers examples of text expressing both fact and opinion and teach them to tell the difference".

Some suggest this is a logical extension to Bush’s domestic spying program that monitors telephone and e-mail communications of suspected terrorists and everyday Americans suspected of having ties to terrorist groups.

New York Times columnist, James Risen, author of the book State of War and credited with breaking the story about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) 'domestic spying operations, says Bush personally authorized the illegal surveillance of Americans shortly after he was sworn in, in 2001 and before 9/11. How scary is that?

I know there are a growing number of people in the United States who speak out against Bush and his torture laws.

I know U.S. polls are showing that Democrats have a chance to take control of Congress and possibly the Senate in mid-term elections next month but you have to wonder how it is that citizens of the United States, a so-called democracy and the most powerful nation in the world could have permitted their House of Representatives and their Senate to authorize their President to sign into law a bill that legalizes torture and the indefinite imprisonment of people without trial.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Harper announced that he will introduce a “Clean Air Act” next week.

This is a copy-cat handle grafted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In a Vancouver speech on Tuesday, Mr. Harper boasted of his environmental initiatives to date including: action to reduce the release of mercury into our surroundings; reductions in the release of toxic substances from base-metal smelters; tax incentives to encourage the banking of environmentally sensitive lands, investments in the development of renewable fuels, new infrastructure funding and tax credits to encourage greater use of public transit.

Ironically, Harper’s announcement of a pending announcement follows the declaration by British business tycoon, Richard Branson in late September that all future profits of his Virgin Group's transportation businesses, mainly airlines and trains, will be invested in renewable energy initiatives both within his own transportation companies and in new biofuel research and development projects.

The 10-year, $3 billion commitment follows the launch of his newest company earlier in September Virgin Fuels, which pledged to invest up to $400 million dollars in renewable energy initiatives over the next three years, starting with the California-based ethanol company, Cilion, Inc. Canada could take a page out of Branson’s book.

At the September Global Initiative Conference in New York City, former President Bill Clinton told his audience there is a staggering set of economic opportunities in the fight against global warming that will yield good return on investment, reduce the threat of climate change, create new jobs, start new businesses and promote a sustainable environment.

Here we have two global figures (Clinton and Branson) talking about climate change, global warming and economic opportunity putting their money and reputations on the line to make something happen.

Contrast that with Harper’s tentative approach to cleaner air and smog reductions. No where in Mr. Harper’s speech is there mention of global warming? Only once did he allude to a connection between air pollutants and climate change. Clearly, he speaks from the same environmental textbook as George W. Bush.

While Branson proposed changes to aircraft movements at busy airports and the way planes land that would cut the world's aviation emissions by up to 25 percent, Harper talks about smog and boasts his Clean Air Act as Canada’s first comprehensive and integrated approach to air pollution and greenhouse gases.

While Branson talks about research and development, Harper talks about enhanced regulation and enforcement. He promises to consult with industry, the provinces and territories for the next year, harvest new technologies and lay out a regulatory framework. He promises nothing by way of fundamental behavioral change or forward looking research and development of cleaner alternative fuels.

Following his Vancouver speech, Harper said he would introduce “intensity-based targets” over the short and long-term. The significance of “intensity-based” targets is that industry would only be called on to reduce emissions per unit of production.

Lowering emissions per unit of production will not reduce the total output of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, an electric power utility could lower its unit production emissions but build a second coal-fired plant that would increase overall emissions. Alberta could lower its emissions per barrel of oil from its tar sands production but expand its production and increase overall emission levels.

The Harper approach runs contrary to Canada’s commitments under the Kyoto Accord which calls for the total output of greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced. A report from Canada’s Environment Commissioner, Johanne Gélinas warns that if we fail to reduce our total output of greenhouse gases, emissions from Alberta’s tar sands alone could double by the year 2015. Mr. Harper’s response is that technology improvements will ultimately reduce emissions.

That’s not good enough.

We need absolute emission reduction targets. Intensity-based targets are the stuff of George Bush and the Republican Party. Intensity based targets are the brainchild of the oil industry, not the rationale of environmental protection advocates.

Mr. Harper’s preoccupation with smog suggests further that he is trying to create a smokescreen (no pun intended) with his planned announcement. Most Canadians are likely confused about the implications of global warming and don’t make the link between climate change and the emissions of C0² or greenhouse gases.

Smog on the other hand is visible and hangs dangerously over our big cities on hot summer days. A smog attack in Toronto can foment asthma attacks and bring death to the frail and elderly.

The Harper strategy is to shift the focus from greenhouse gases to smog. I suspect his next step will be to demand a reduction in automobile emissions and a cutback in pollution from coal-fired electricity generating plants in Ontario, all the while protecting his oil sands constituency in Alberta.

Contrast again with Richard Branson proposed changes to aircraft movements at busy airports and the way planes land under a plan he says would cut the world's aviation emissions by up to 25 percent. The Virgin Group chairman is proposing "starting grids" be set up at major airports which would allow a plane to be towed from its passenger boarding gate by a small, low emission tug and moved closer to runways before takeoff, reducing the time an aircraft’s engines are running.

Apparently this would reduce fuel consumption and on-the-ground carbon emissions for Virgin Atlantic aircraft by more than 50 percent ahead of take-off at London's Heathrow Airport and almost 90 percent at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.

Branson also proposed changes to the way air traffic is controlled and a more efficient way for planes to descend and save fuel. Branson’s proposals are designed to address global warming, not smog.

Oh that our Prime Minister could see his way clear to do the same.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

According to the New York Times, in June 2005, two senior national security officials in the Bush administration proposed a new approach to the growing problems the United States were facing with the detention, interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects.

They called for a return to the minimum standards of treatment specified in the Geneva Conventions Article III.

A bill passed last week by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate abandons this recommendation and grants the President of the United States extraordinary powers for detaining and punishing terror suspects, this from a country that has boasted the rule of law for the last 217 years.

British author Robert Harris equates the U.S. bill to an ancient Roman surrender of power to Pompey the Great. The Roman surrender was in response to the panic that followed a daring terrorist attack on the Roman Port of Ostia.

“Pompey was given supreme naval command and what amounted to uncontrolled power over everyone. He eventually took control of almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury - 144 million sesterces - to pay for his "war on terror," which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry”.

Those of us not American can only wonder at the ease with which the rights and liberties of individuals have been surrendered in the United States since 9/11.

The vote by the U.S. Senate to suspend “habeas corpus” for terrorism detainees,

• denies them the right to challenge their detention in court;
• the careful wording in the bill about torture, which forbids only the inducement of "serious" physical and mental suffering to obtain information;
• the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant;
• the licensing of the President to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant

- all this represents a major shift in the balance of power between citizens and their government.

In the lead up to passage of this “Detainee” bill, there was resistance from the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia. There was resistance from Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, a presidential hopeful who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and there was resistance from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an Air Force Colonel who spent some 20 years as a military lawyer and judge.

Their resistance was bolstered by former Secretary of State Colin Powell who wrote that he feared American treatment of detainees threatened to undermine America's position of moral leadership in the world.

They all caved in the face of pressure from the Bush Administration. Colin Powell went silent. The three Republican Senators crafted an alternative bill that gave the President virtually everything he asked for.

How could John McCain, a victim of torture, sacrifice his principles for the Bush torture legislation?

He wasn’t alone, a majority of House and Senate members, including some Democrats, caved in lockstep as they looked with fear at the upcoming mid-term elections and the threat of being labeled "soft on terror."

The “Detainee” bill goes way beyond law as we know it in civilized society.

Consider that a U.S. President, an individual human being has been given the legal right to permanently remove a person from society. All he has to do is declare him or her “an enemy combatant”.

Could there be any greater loss of liberty or freedom than the threat of permanent incarceration?

Have the Americans traded their democracy for a war-mongering dictatorship? Surely a society that authorizes its leader to inflict torture and unlawful imprisonment has surrendered its democracy and freedom.

How absurd that a U.S. President boasts of spreading democracy in the Middle East, while removing the pillars of democracy in his own country.

What kind of a democracy would turn its back on a lawful and entrenched constitution to eliminate “habeas corpus” i.e. the right to defend against illegal imprisonment?

What kind of a democracy would allow its president to lock someone up for the rest of his life without a trial?

What kind of a democracy would allow evidence obtained by torture to be used in court or to be used to justify the lockup of another individual?

The United States of America has embarked on a course of action that could easily be ascribed to the Nazis of World War II. The Geneva Convention’s Article III (to which the United States is a signatory) on the treatment of captured prisoners is quite clear and specific: no country is permitted to use "cruel" treatment or "outrages” upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" on prisoners in its care.

Where is the United Nations on this subject?

Where are the British and the French?

Where is the Government of Canada?

Does anybody care that the world’s most powerful country has formally dispensed with the rule of law?

Are there no leaders in the United States with the backbone to take on the Bush Administration?

Where is the spine in the American people?

Surely they will use the November 7th mid-term elections to do what their legislators could not - stop Bush in his tracks.

In ancient Rome, “panic” dismissed dissenting voices as "soft" or "traitorous". Power was ceded by the people of Rome to Pompey the Great. It would be lost for more than 1,800 years. Let us hope reaction to the terrorism of 9/11 does not lead to the same result.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Republicans should lose control of Congress and the Senate, not because of their torture legislation but because of an investigation into the unfolding ‘Page’ sex scandal involving former Republican Representative Mark Foley?

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com