"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

[Evening Star]

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 punked showed in post 28, many are also union leaders, academics, activists, teachers, lawyers, artists,... Some have plenty of professional accomplishments and experience.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Evening Star

[Bonam]

For most of Europe's history the French actually were more socially and culturally advanced, more egalitarian than the English.

Er, care to provide some examples? Were they more egalitarian in that the absolute power of the monarchy lasted longer? Or was it the revolution in which they killed the aristocracy which made them so "egalitarian"? Their continued submission to the "egalitarian" Catholic Church? Napoleon's equal opportunity aggression perhaps? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against France, but to claim that it was generally more "socially advanced" throughout most of Europe's history is a very strong claim and needs some backup.

[Evening Star]

In any case, August1991, didn't you once seriously suggest Amir Khadir as a potential future leader for the NDP?

[g_bambino]

Er, care to provide some examples? Were they more egalitarian in that the absolute power of the monarchy lasted longer? Or was it the revolution in which they killed the aristocracy which made them so "egalitarian"? Their continued submission to the "egalitarian" Catholic Church? Napoleon's equal opportunity aggression perhaps? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against France, but to claim that it was generally more "socially advanced" throughout most of Europe's history is a very strong claim and needs some backup.

Indeed.

[Benz]

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.

*tumbs up*

[Benz]

I get the impression he may have made a Faustian deal with the Devil to make himself electble in Quebec.

Because everybody knows Québec is under the control of the devil.

Layton, a known federalist, changed his mind and asked this question. What if there is a legitimated reason and the Québec's opinion isn't that bad after all and he raised the matter in the election and realise something need to change and be done so Québec gets back and constitution issue settled. BANG! 58 seats in Québec!

The message is clear. The interpretation is your's. Either Layton did a pact with the devil as you want to think, or Layton is on the path to solve fight between english and french canadians.

[Benz]

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

Because Québec is a nation and all nations in the world want to be sovereign, with or without the Canadian union. Just as well as Canada wouldn't want to give away its sovereignty to someone else. Québec wants to have a say on the supreme rules of the country, the constitution. It is actually the exclusive property of the anglos because they mathematically outnumber the french. A normal union like the EU would set some rules so all nations can have a say. Canada doesn't have such rules. It's the tyranny of the majority. Such thing would have never work out for the Europeans.

Because the english Canada keeps on refusing to share the constitution, Québec is considering leaving the union. For decades alot of Québécois hoped Canada would change its mind. In 1995, 49,4% of the Québec said we no longer want to wait. The no won by a small margin so the yes side give Canada another chance. A chance Canada screwed big time.

Will Layton save it all? Québec and the ROC have two opposite view of what Canada should be. The task to reconcile both solitudes is huge.

[ninjandrew]

From the Globe and Mail:

When asked about comments by 19-year-old MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault, who last week appeared to tell a Quebec radio station that separation from the rest of Canada was inevitable, Mr. Layton rejected the suggestion that some of his MPs may not be fully committed to federalism, arguing that they chose to run for a federalist party whose "policies are clear."

[Benz]

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.

The canadian nation as you see it do not exist. Neither the french, nor the natives accept it. For them, Canada is rather a union than a nation. In other words, you put your concept of canadian nation down the throath of the french and natives.

The day being canadian citizen will mean you are either from the english nation, french nation or tha native nations, then and only then, we will be on the same page.

Transfer payments to Quebec are extortive and a burden on the rest of Canada

Québec does not agree with your fiction. Even if you were right, Québec does not ask money in first place. We can do fine with our money. We want the supreme rules to be settled by both nations of the country. That's all. Instead of complying, you give money sometimes just like you do with the natives by giving them few individual advantages. We don't want your money. We want a fair system.

Time will pass and the hard core seperatists will pass away

Lord Durham - 1839

You are so used to be wrong, you cannot imagine being otherwise.

[August1991]

In any case, August1991, didn't you once seriously suggest Amir Khadir as a potential future leader for the NDP?

Right now, I would give him a better chance of becoming PM of Quebec.

Because Québec is a nation and all nations in the world want to be sovereign, with or without the Canadian union.

...

In 1995, 49,4% of the Québec said we no longer want to wait. The no won by a small margin so the yes side give Canada another chance.

Benz, what gives you the right to speak in the name of the "Quebec nation"? And what gives you the right to claim that 49.4% voted in 1995 for a country?

But wait...

I know where this conversation is going and many, many people are tired of people like Benz and the federalist equivalent. That's why so many voted for the NDP in Quebec. People like Benz have one song and they play it over and over and over.

The federalist/sovereignty National Question is a seductive debate that eventually comes to infect every aspect of the body politic.

People in Quebec are tired of people like Benz and they are looking for an honourable way out of this impasse.

[g_bambino]

Québec wants to have a say on the supreme rules of the country, the constitution.

It already does.

[Scotty]

Er, care to provide some examples? Were they more egalitarian in that the absolute power of the monarchy lasted longer? Or was it the revolution in which they killed the aristocracy which made them so "egalitarian"? Their continued submission to the "egalitarian" Catholic Church? Napoleon's equal opportunity aggression perhaps? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against France, but to claim that it was generally more "socially advanced" throughout most of Europe's history is a very strong claim and needs some backup.

How far back to you want to go? Even in the Napoleanic days life for the average Frenchman was better than the average Englishman. The Catholic Church had its moments, but was it really that much worse in France than the Church of England? The British people, except those at the top, had little power over life and government, and faced cruel laws and an uncaring government. Dickensonion England was not exactly a paradise on earth. Poverty abounded. Hell, it wasn't until practically the twentieth century that the Royal Navy - which impressed civilians into service - gave up flogging as a disciplinary tool. The British army used it too. And, of course, punishments for civilians for the slightest misstep were cruel. The upper classes didn't much care what happened to the lower classes - witness the Irish potato famine, where Irishmen were literally dying in the streets while landowners shipped food out of Ireland.

[g_bambino]

How far back to you want to go? Even in the Napoleanic days life for the average Frenchman was better than the average Englishman. The Catholic Church had its moments, but was it really that much worse in France than the Church of England? The British people, except those at the top, had little power over life and government, and faced cruel laws and an uncaring government. Dickensonion England was not exactly a paradise on earth. Poverty abounded. Hell, it wasn't until practically the twentieth century that the Royal Navy - which impressed civilians into service - gave up flogging as a disciplinary tool. The British army used it too. And, of course, punishments for civilians for the slightest misstep were cruel. The upper classes didn't much care what happened to the lower classes - witness the Irish potato famine, where Irishmen were literally dying in the streets while landowners shipped food out of Ireland.

This doesn't explain how things were better in France.

[Benz]

Benz, what gives you the right to speak in the name of the "Quebec nation"? And what gives you the right to claim that 49.4% voted in 1995 for a country?

What are you trying to say? I am not saying something else that have been already said. Most of the time, I use the official position of the Assemblée Nationale. When I don't, I specifically say it.

The 49,4% are fedup waiting Canada will choose to change by itself. I dare you to prove otherwise. My personal opinion, among those 49,4%, few want a seperation no matter what. The others, the huge majority, are willing to accept a good partnership with Ottawa. Like a real confederation. Ils réalisent simplement qu'on aura rien en quémandant, qu'il faut imposer le respect.

But wait...

I know where this conversation is going and many, many people are tired of people like Benz and the federalist equivalent.

Poor them. We won't shut up. Le moratoire sur la question a assez duré. Either we work on a solution, or the sovereignty is brought on the frontline.

That's why so many voted for the NDP in Quebec. People like Benz have one song and they play it over and over and over.

It goes both ways. What makes you think you can speak in the name of those who voted NDP.

Several sovereignist voted NDP rather than the Bloc. They beleive the Bloc is rather making the system work as is instead of helping it to change.

The federalist/sovereignty National Question is a seductive debate that eventually comes to infect every aspect of the body politic.

You cannot be more wrong than that. It's the federal politics that infect Québec's politics. An intruder that keep on doing sabotage. Even when a boneless federalist like Charest is in Québec, Ottawa keeps on doing intrusions and start the fight again.

People in Quebec are tired of people like Benz and they are looking for an honourable way out of this impasse.

Big bad Benz the boogey man eh? If it was true, they would have voted Liberals or Conservatives. They did the other way around. They voted NDP for the first time in its lifetime. Just after Layton said Canada cannot get away forever and the constitution issue must be solved. Coincidence?

The election of NDP in Québec is a good thing. There is one thing that bothered me alot with the Bloc. They were not trying to offer a solution to all canadians. I wanted them to change their vocation and offer a real-confederation type, which is compatible with the Québec sovereignty, just like Europe. Even if it wouldn't interest the canadians now, at least the idea would run and maybe prepare Canada for a post winning yes at the next referendum. But the Bloc was also stubborn on the question and has no one else to blame than themselve. The Québécois rejected the Liberals' status quo, the rejected the chiens de garde, they rejected the Haper's "vote on the same side of the power" speach... and they gave a chance to Layton. It's because they expect a solution to happen.

Go ahead autruche. Unlike what you say, the results are clear. Québec is not afraid of being in the opposition, no matter what you think. Quelle navrante attitude de toujours démoniser quelqu'un qui a raison par pure frustration. Shame on you. You won't be of any help.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Benz

[madmax]

I am glad to see the BQ reduced to a carload of seats.

[bloodyminded]

I am glad to see the BQ reduced to a carload of seats.

I think most of the country has reached a point of agreement on this.

[Jack Weber]

Because everybody knows Québec is under the control of the devil.

Layton, a known federalist, changed his mind and asked this question. What if there is a legitimated reason and the Québec's opinion isn't that bad after all and he raised the matter in the election and realise something need to change and be done so Québec gets back and constitution issue settled. BANG! 58 seats in Québec!

The message is clear. The interpretation is your's. Either Layton did a pact with the devil as you want to think, or Layton is on the path to solve fight between english and french canadians.

That all depends on what that"solution" is,does'nt it???

I think Pierre Trudeau said it best,"Quebec needs to be put in it its place!!!And its place is in Confederation!"

My problem is not with Quebec...Or French speaking people...Or Quebec signing on to the Constitution...

It's the conditions for the rest of this country that Quebec gets to make that signature...

What are "the winning conditions" that Layton speaks of?I'd be interested in his thoughts on the matter..

It sounds eerily similar to what Mr.Mulroney tried to to do with disastrous results.The distinct society constitutionality stuff was asked and aswered with a national referendum 20 years ago...It's a non starter anywhere outside of Quebec.

So the question is ,"Is Quebec prepared to sign on to the Constituion as a full province,with no veto power over the issue of culture,or is going to move towards secession because its cultural demands are not met?"

Edited May 10, 2011 by Jack Weber

[WIP]

Out of the mouths of babes, it's usually a yawn. No different here.

But let's take a trip down memory lane shall we?

Bloc Québécois

In other words, if this pup has anything to say, it likely doesn't carry near the weight of that old conservative stalwart, Lucien Bouchard:

Je me souviens. Indeed.

Yes, but those old Tories weren't on the side of Jesus back when Mulroney brought nationalists like Bouchard on board to break the Liberal monopoly in Quebec.

Seriously, I'm inclined to believe that the new Harper Conservative Party is going to calculate that there are more votes to be won by bashing Quebec among the anti-French segment of every other province, than there is in trying to win back seats lost in Quebec.

[g_bambino]

Is Quebec prepared to sign on to the Constituion as a full province...

Quebec is "signed on" to the constitution as a "full province". It has been since 1867.

[+]

Edited May 10, 2011 by g_bambino

[Benz]

My problem is not with Quebec...Or French speaking people...Or Quebec signing on to the Constitution...

Explain me why the english canadians are the only one in the world to be unable to understand the difference between a confederation and a federation, and can't figure which one is what.

[Molly]

Quebec is "signed on" to the constitution as a "full province". It has been since 1867.

[+]

And selected individuals have been denying it ever since.

[Molly]

Yes, but those old Tories weren't on the side of Jesus back when Mulroney brought nationalists like Bouchard on board to break the Liberal monopoly in Quebec.

Seriously, I'm inclined to believe that the new Harper Conservative Party is going to calculate that there are more votes to be won by bashing Quebec among the anti-French segment of every other province, than there is in trying to win back seats lost in Quebec.

That played a heavy role in the utter destruction of the 'old Tory' Progressive Conservative Party. A reprise by the new Tory, non-progressive Conservatives could do the same for them.

[Shwa]

I am curious if his majority Quebec caucus will now call him to try to implement his promises.

So exactly how - as a minority opposition - will NDP implement campaign promises?

[Shwa]

Because Québec is a nation and all nations in the world want to be sovereign, with or without the Canadian union.

Nope. Quebec is - and only is - a province. Nothing more. It exists only at the privledge of Canada and it's articles of governance. It has no land base.

Just as well as Canada wouldn't want to give away its sovereignty to someone else. Québec wants to have a say on the supreme rules of the country, the constitution.

They already do as a constituent part of the country which recognizes them as - and only as - a consituent part.

It is actually the exclusive property of the anglos because they mathematically outnumber the french.

Weak minded assumption that people of different language backgrounds can't compromise.

A normal union like the EU would set some rules so all nations can have a say. Canada doesn't have such rules.

Canada has such rules entrenched in its Constution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Anyone with a high school Canadian history course would know this.

It's the tyranny of the majority. Such thing would have never work out for the Europeans.

Tell than to Luxembourg. Or Norway.

Because the english Canada keeps on refusing to share the constitution, Québec is considering leaving the union.

And yet, here we are. Quebec still no more 'separate' than 1759.

For decades alot of Québécois hoped Canada would change its mind. In 1995, 49,4% of the Québec said we no longer want to wait. The no won by a small margin so the yes side give Canada another chance. A chance Canada screwed big time.

And yet, here we are.

Will Layton save it all? Québec and the ROC have two opposite view of what Canada should be. The task to reconcile both solitudes is huge.

The 'two solitudes' is a separatist victim myth. It doesn't exist.

[g_bambino]

And selected individuals have been denying it ever since.

Well, at least since 1982, yes.