"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

[Oleg Bach]

Sovereignty will be done in Quebec. It certainly wont be done in NS or in BC. If Quebec separates the fight will be in Quebec. Isn't the problem that Quebec keeps talking about? That they are a group of peoples who want to have a conversation but are always told how it is from Ottawa?

Jack Jack Jack what are you up too? A tacit promise to the now defunct BLOC that has been absorbed under the NDP banner seems to be Jacks new tool to power. Poor old hobbling Jack as he nears the end of his carreer - a desperate move to be a SOMEBODY. Just goes to show you that socialist are and have always been wanna be capitalists and most of all FAMOUS like that Lenin fellow - and I don't mean John..............Between Harper singing Imagine and Jack jacking and stacking the deck..mission control has a problem. That political ambition trumps national interests.

[Evening Star]

As best as I could make them out on one listen, these were his words:

I don't think separatism is dead... Sovereignty will be done in Quebec and Quebecers will decide if they want to be a country. At this moment, why not give us a real government that is good for us? Sovereignty will be done in Quebec and we will respect sovereignty in the NDP.

I am a federalist but I respect souverainistes.

(Emphasis mine.)

I am a staunch federalist but I also don't think separatism is dead because of the BQ's decimation in this election.

The controversy seems to centre around the phrase "Sovereignty will be done in Quebec": Now, English is not this MP's first language and it comes through in his phrasing here. (That is awkwardly phrased, however you feel about the issue.) One way of interpreting it, which seems to be Charles Adler's take, is that Dusseault is making a proclamation that sovereignty WILL be achieved for Quebec one day (and this is a good thing). Another interpretation is that he is saying that the question of sovereignty needs to be DECIDED within Quebec and by Quebecers and that it is not an issue for a federal party to concern itself with. (And exactly how is the NDP supposed to treat Quebecers' desire for sovereignty if e.g. it is expressed with a "Oui" vote in a referendum? With disrespect??) However, at this moment, he is more concerned with building a federal government that works for Quebecers as well as other Canadians. The last sentence, in bold, seems to make it less ambiguous though: He is a federalist but he also respects sovereigntists (who are still common enough in QC) and the right of Quebecers to decide the question for themselves.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Evening Star

[punked]

They also kicked the guy out as soon as they found out so you can't really compare it to the nutty elected MPs for the NDP and CPC.

You asked if the Liberals have "these people" yes they clearly do.

BY the way here are the MPs from Quebec. It is becoming clear most of them are quite qualified.

http://www.canada.com/technology/know+your+edition/4747908/story.html

Edited May 9, 2011 by punked

[Sandy MacNab]

Out of curiosity. It is easy to find lunatic fringe candidates for the NDP or CPC. Are there examples from the Liberals?

The LPC has been a dishonest and two-faced party since PET - falling to even lower standards of decency under Chretch. Anyone who has voted for that nest of vipers has to have similar standards or is an absolute lunatic. If I were the NDP I'd try to become a credible Opposition and work towards being a government-in-waiting by themselves without soiling themselves merging with the Liberals.

[TimG]

BY the way here are the MPs from Quebec. It is becoming clear most of them are quite qualified.

I am not that bothered by the MPs that got elected. I am sure the inexperienced will learn and the total nutcases will be discouraged from running again. I am simply glad to see the media pick on someone other than the CPC for a change. Edited May 9, 2011 by TimG

[Jack Weber]

As best as I could make them out on one listen, these were his words:

(Emphasis mine.)

I am a staunch federalist but I also don't think separatism is dead because of the BQ's decimation in this election.

The controversy seems to centre around the phrase "Sovereignty will be done in Quebec": Now, English is not this MP's first language and it comes through in his phrasing here. (That is awkwardly phrased, however you feel about the issue.) One way of interpreting it, which seems to be Charles Adler's take, is that Dusseault is making a proclamation that sovereignty WILL be achieved for Quebec one day (and this is a good thing). Another interpretation is that he is saying that the question of sovereignty needs to be DECIDED within Quebec and by Quebecers and that it is not an issue for a federal party to concern itself with. (And exactly how is the NDP supposed to treat Quebecers' desire for sovereignty if e.g. it is expressed with a "Oui" vote in a referendum? With disrespect??) However, at this moment, he is more concerned with building a federal government that works for Quebecers as well as other Canadians. The last sentence, in bold, seems to make it less ambiguous though: He is a federalist but he also respects sovereigntists (who are still common enough in QC) and the right of Quebecers to decide the question for themselves.

No question some of the nuance is lost in tanslation between the two languages and Charles"I'm a fly on the wall of your conscience!" Adler is conveniently forgetting this,however,I have a very bad feeling about what Layton may have done here....

I get the impression he may have made a Faustian deal with the Devil to make himself electble in Quebec.He seems to have been soft pedalling secession to potential Bloc supporters in an attempt to gain power.This has the possibility,if not probability,to be a mistake of Mulroneyesque proportions!One need only look at the mistakes Mulroney made in dealing with small c secessionists in the '80's to see the outcome of that.I feel Layton might be playing with fire here and the outcome in 4 years might not be a good one for the Dippers or this country...

[TimG]

One need only look at the mistakes Mulroney made in dealing with small c secessionists in the '80's to see the outcome of that.I feel Layton might be playing with fire here and the outcome in 4 years might not be a good one for the Dippers or this country.

I think the same. The only saving grace is Layton has 4 years to learn some history and rethink his message. I am not certain that will happen because the NDP depends too much on Quebec for its current position in the house.

[pegasus]

No question some of the nuance is lost in tanslation between the two languages and Charles"I'm a fly on the wall of your conscience!" Adler is conveniently forgetting this,however,I have a very bad feeling about what Layton may have done here....

I get the impression he may have made a Faustian deal with the Devil to make himself electble in Quebec.He seems to have been soft pedalling secession to potential Bloc supporters in an attempt to gain power.This has the possibility,if not probability,to be a mistake of Mulroneyesque proportions!One need only look at the mistakes Mulroney made in dealing with small c secessionists in the '80's to see the outcome of that.I feel Layton might be playing with fire here and the outcome in 4 years might not be a good one for the Dippers or this country...

I agree to a certain extent. Some of the things that Mr. Layton promised to the people of Quebec was to make sure all federal institutions in Quebec should operate under Quebec’s Bill 101 rather than under the federal Official Languages Act, and by saying he will seek to “create winning conditions” to seek Quebec’s consent to enter the Confederation. This opens up a whole can of worms, but won him seats in Quebec. I am curious if his majority Quebec caucus will now call him to try to implement his promises.

[Posc Student]

I don't understand this whole Quebec seperatism, why exactly do they want to be their own country?

[CPCFTW]

I don't understand this whole Quebec seperatism, why exactly do they want to be their own country?

Because 19 yr old francophones are upset that the evil English empire won a war for their land 250 years ago. They have obviously earned their right to claim that land by randomly being born in it 250 years later.

50.1% of la belle province will revolt and go to war with the other 49.9%, and when all the killing is over, the remaining 0.2% francophones will get to claim the land as their own. There will be blood!!

Edited May 9, 2011 by CPCFTW

[betsy]

I get the impression he may have made a Faustian deal with the Devil to make himself electble in Quebec.He seems to have been soft pedalling secession to potential Bloc supporters in an attempt to gain power.

I somehow suspect this too. Perhaps not necessarily from Layton himself (maybe yes)....but from those who were recruiting candidates for Quebec. This turf falls under the management of Mulcair?

I feel Layton might be playing with fire here and the outcome in 4 years might not be a good one for the Dippers or this country...

If Conservatives do a good job of governing, showing sensible fairness to all provinces with no blatant pandering, I strongly think - even without any special privileges thrown to Quebec - Harper will gain more seats in Quebec.

Edited May 9, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

I think the same. The only saving grace is Layton has 4 years to learn some history and rethink his message. I am not certain that will happen because the NDP depends too much on Quebec for its current position in the house.

Layton is caught between a rock and a boulder! It will be something watching him try to maneuver himself out of this predicament.

[Oleg Bach]

There is a new bunch of super young fanatics coming up in Quebec as we saw with Laytons 19 year old newly elected twit. Fanatics - all of the seperatists are fanatics - they are like home spun terrorists who seek to dismantle a nation.

[youshouldknowbetter]

As a former Progressive Conservative I used to hate it when Liberals and NDPs would mock the new Conservative party as having been "taken over by the Reformers." It would appear now that the NDP has much more to worry about as they are beginning to see a takeover from within by the Bloc. The Bloc Orange indeed!

[Oleg Bach]

As a former Progressive Conservative I used to hate it when Liberals and NDPs would mock the new Conservative party as having been "taken over by the Reformers." It would appear now that the NDP has much more to worry about as they are beginning to see a takeover from within by the Bloc. The Bloc Orange indeed!

They are not taking over from `within` the Bloc...they are embracing the bloc in a desperate attempt for Layton to fulfill his life long dream of being important - even if it harms Canada as a whole.

[Evening Star]

No question some of the nuance is lost in tanslation between the two languages and Charles"I'm a fly on the wall of your conscience!" Adler is conveniently forgetting this,however,I have a very bad feeling about what Layton may have done here....

OK, if we agree on this, I actually share some of your broader concerns:

I get the impression he may have made a Faustian deal with the Devil to make himself electble in Quebec.He seems to have been soft pedalling secession to potential Bloc supporters in an attempt to gain power.This has the possibility,if not probability,to be a mistake of Mulroneyesque proportions!One need only look at the mistakes Mulroney made in dealing with small c secessionists in the '80's to see the outcome of that.I feel Layton might be playing with fire here and the outcome in 4 years might not be a good one for the Dippers or this country...

I agree to a certain extent. Some of the things that Mr. Layton promised to the people of Quebec was to make sure all federal institutions in Quebec should operate under Quebec’s Bill 101 rather than under the federal Official Languages Act, and by saying he will seek to “create winning conditions” to seek Quebec’s consent to enter the Confederation. This opens up a whole can of worms, but won him seats in Quebec. I am curious if his majority Quebec caucus will now call him to try to implement his promises.

Tbh, "asymmetrical federalism" has been NDP policy since 2005:

www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf

Bill 101 has been softened by court rulings and amendments over the years but I am still not a fan and see no reason why the federal government should embrace it. And that "winning conditions" line does have an ominous Mulroneyesque ring to it. If the NDP actually starts aggressively pursuing some of these ideas, that could be the quickest way to turn me into a Liberal voter. And, basically, this - the defence of federalism - is the one area where I could see an opening/need for a strong LPC to reassert itself, with the CPC supporting 'open federalism' and Quebec's 'nationhood'. However, the LPC hasn't really done much to advocate for this in a while, perhaps since the last thing they did for federalism turned out to be such a fiasco...

For better or worse, though, there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for Trudeauvian centralism anymore so maybe this is just something we need to acknowledge and accept...?

Btw, in terms of how they voted, the BQ practically functioned as the QC wing of the NDP much of the time anyway. (They certainly didn't accomplish anything for the cause of separatism!)

Edited May 9, 2011 by Evening Star

[Oleg Bach]

The just made the cause of serperatism a more covert endevour.

[Evening Star]

Everyone does realize that asymmetrical federalism and/or decentralization aren't the same as separatism, right? I don't support them but they are different things. I've never liked the Meech Lake or Charlottetown accords but I do actually believe that Mulroney was sincerely trying to weaken separatism by 'including' Quebec.

Separatism is not a covert endeavour: It is a presence in QC provincial politics, which is the only context where it makes any sense for it to exist.

[Oleg Bach]

Everyone does realize that asymmetrical federalism and/or decentralization aren't the same as separatism, right? I don't support them but they are different things. I've never liked the Meech Lake or Charlottetown accords but I do actually believe that Mulroney was sincerely trying to weaken separatism by 'including' Quebec.

Separatism is not a covert endeavour: It is a presence in QC provincial politics, which is the only context where it makes any sense for it to exist.

A "nation within a nation" was very clever - the meaning of nation means extended tribal family - so Quebec is told they are a family with in a family. They never said a country within a country. Seeing that country is defined are real estate - land. They dupe the dump French with some smart legalist jargin. The real effect of granting nationhood to Quebec - is granting the culture something it all ready had. In other words it was just an appeasement...a nation within a nation simply means that Quebec is simply a tenant and NOT a land lord.

[Oleg Bach]

Further more - If Quebec was to take it's proper position federally - we would have them pay rent instead of us paying them. Transfer payments to Quebec are extortive and a burden on the rest of Canada - Time to have Quebec which is rich in natural and human resourses, pay tribute to those that removed their title of New France.... I have heard of white guilt in regards to other races - but British guilt seems to have continued since the Plains Of Abraham. We might be wise to use a little oppression at this point and rid ourselves or this curse and thorn in the side of Canada - The fact that Layton has encouraged a new 19 year old parlimentarian to carry on the old cause of seperatism - shows weakness. The new generation of Quebecors....does not want a seperate Country...It's the old guard that desperately attempts to endoctrinate the young French into the old way of thinking.

Time will pass and the hard core seperatists will pass away. In the mean time we must think ahead and programe young Quebecors with the notion that they are not a nation - but a country called Canada.

[noahbody]

Jack did say he was running for Prime Minister. He just failed to mention he meant the PM of Quebec.

[g_bambino]

the CPC supporting 'open federalism' and Quebec's 'nationhood'.

The Conservatives never suggested Quebec was a nation or it deserved any recognition of nationhood beyond that which it already has (and all the other provinces already have). A motion was passed in the House of Commons (while the Conservatives were a minority) recognising the Québécois as a nation; but, the Québécois and Quebec are not the same thing.

[Evening Star]

Fair point.

[August1991]

First there was Mulcair and his Bin Laden photo comment. Next was the Vegas lady MP.

And now....heeeere's young Pierre, the 19 year-old!

Trust Betsy (and I guess in this case, Adler too) to mix this all up and get basic details wrong.

This young NDP MP, Pierre Luc Dusseault, is hardly a good example of a sovereigntist within the new NDP caucus. A much better example would be Alexandre Boulerice who is openly in favour of Quebec sovereignty and can speak articulately too.

However, I think it is probably more accurate to say that these two (and many others in Quebec) simply want to put this sovereignty/federalist debate out of its misery. Other matters matter more.

With that said, the NDP caucus also has a large contingent of anglophone federalists some of whom know more about the McGill campus than the ridings they now represent. I have yet to see the word "carpetbagger" to describe them but for all intents, that is what they are.

In short, the federal NDP caucus is a strange mix of Quebec Solidaire sovereigntists, young left wing Quebec anglos and the re-elected MPs from English Canada. Thomas Mulcair lacks the personality skills to keep this group together.

----

As to the phrase "Sovereignty will be done in Quebec", this refers to the idea that the Bloc should not exist at all because it is tantamount to sending a delegation to a foreign institution. The logic here is that it is up to the PQ (not the Bloc) to make Quebec a country. While I understand this argument, I think that it is weak. The Bloc MPs were expressly sovereigntist and had access to funds to promote this. On the ground, the PQ and the Bloc shared resources.

This neophyte NDP crew is a mixed bag some of whom will work alongside QS, the PQ or even the PLQ in the next provincial election.

The key question to ask the NDP Quebec caucus members would be: "In a Quebec referendum, how would you vote?" And if they were smart, they would answer: "When the referendum is announced, I will tell you."

I always thought so too, until I saw this:

That looks like real hair slicked back to me.

Thanks for that link, Bryan. I have no idea what the show is but the clip is amusing.

----

GIYF Update: Murdoch Mysteries

Edited May 9, 2011 by August1991

[Scotty]

I don't understand this whole Quebec seperatism, why exactly do they want to be their own country?

My thinking is it's because they think they're better than others. There's always been a kind of sneering condescension from the French, be it here or in Europe, an assumption they're more civilized and forward thinking than those money-obsessed Anglos. Actually, to be honest, at least in Europe, they're partially right. For most of Europe's history the French actually were more socially and culturally advanced, more egalitarian than the English. But that doesn't carry through to Quebec. The French there tend to be, no pun intended, provincial in their outlook, very inward looking and self-admiring. They're obsessed with culture and language, and feel a very nationalistic sense of superiority over the rest of us. It's galling (no pun intended) to them that les anglos are the ones in charge, due to our numbers. You saw this last election, when Quebecers reacted with such illogical outrage at the cutting of a few arts grants. "The anglos are cultural barbarians! We can't be ruled by them!"