Parizeau ups the ante

[August1991]

As Trudeau said: If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec!

To my knowledge, Trudeau never said that. I think that the quote comes from Dion.

Trudeau did say that Quebec nationalists would make Montreal a Danzig of the New World.

[Bakunin]

unfortunantley in your overzealousness to make a point you forgot that partitioning would allow people who live in a pro-federalist Area to stay in canada, it is extremly ignorant of yourself to assume that just because those three square blocks in Baconsfield speak french they want to seperate.

Just as it his to think that because some quebecers want to stay in canada, they are ready to split quebec. There is a reason why this has never been discuss... First the quebec population is not interested and 2nd, the politician are not interested. The one interested are outsiders who are frustrated about quebecers.

[Slavik44]

unfortunantley in your overzealousness to make a point you forgot that partitioning would allow people who live in a pro-federalist Area to stay in canada, it is extremly ignorant of yourself to assume that just because those three square blocks in Baconsfield speak french they want to seperate.

Just as it his to think that because some quebecers want to stay in canada, they are ready to split quebec. There is a reason why this has never been discuss... First the quebec population is not interested and 2nd, the politician are not interested. The one interested are outsiders who are frustrated about quebecers.

who are you talkign to, I never even mentioned my opinions on partitioning except to inform someone that his attempt to be funny fell very flat from his lack of understanding of the situation, i never said quebec wanted to be partitioned nor that it should be i said it would allow people in a pro-federalist area to stay in canada, not that it shoudl be enacted, must be enacted, or was a viable alternative, just what it would do, i didn't go beyond that and divulge my own personal opinions or fealings on the matter.

[Bakunin]

who are you talkign to, I never even mentioned my opinions on partitioning except to inform someone that his attempt to be funny fell very flat from his lack of understanding of the situation, i never said quebec wanted to be partitioned nor that it should be i said it would allow people in a pro-federalist area to stay in canada, not that it shoudl be enacted, must be enacted, or was a viable alternative, just what it would do, i didn't go beyond that and divulge my own personal opinions or fealings on the matter.

Im sorry you felt like i attacked you, maybe its because of my poor english. The point i was making is that how you react about seabee post is the samething as how we quebecers see it. I totally agree with your comment.

That the roc doesn't understand the situation. They think about scenario, think about idea and they don't understand why we don't even bother talking about it. Just like the idea of a left federalist provincial party or partition of quebec.

[maplesyrup]

Bakunin.......of course sovereignists don't want to talk about things that give them pain such as a provincial federalist political party and partition. They try to avoid these issues in every way possible. That's very understandable. But avoidance does mean necessarily that it doesn't happen.

A good analogy is a tooth ache. If you don't get it fixed it will get worse.

And yes Trudeau did make that statement about the divisibility of Canada and Quebec.

[maplesyrup]

Le PCC appuierait la partition du Québec

We live in interesting times, eh?

[Guest eureka]

Actually, Trudeau did say that but he was not the first to do so. There were many others saying it before Trudeau wised up. The authors of "Partition" were saying it as was the whole 11th. Province movement and were working for it earlier.

[Bakunin]

The ppc is the only party who is for partition and it is a party that has 0 elected deputy in quebec too... Its not a surprise that the alliance or the new conservative party never understood quebec.

They try to avoid these issues in every way possible. That's very understandable. But avoidance does mean necessarily that it doesn't happen.

who is trying to avoid the issue ? the liberal federal ? the liberal provincial ? the pq ? the french media ? oh, wait a minute, you mean their is no french at all who talk about it whatever their federalist or sovregnist, right ?

[maplesyrup]

Trust me it is discussed both in federalist and separatist circles. Maybe secretly, but you can be sure it is being discussed.

Bakunin....think about it. If Quebec voted to separate, where would leave Paul Martin who is a Quebec MP? Nowheresville. Right? So Mr Harper would immediately take over and partition would immediately follow. Quebec could be left with an area no bigger than PEI!

[maplesyrup]

Alain Gagnon and Raffaele Iacovino

J'espere que les Canadians d'hors du Quebec fait bien attention de ce que ce passe ici.

[Big Blue Machine]

These seperatists need to be deport somewhere far away, so they cause problems for another country.

[seabee]

These seperatists need to be deport somewhere far away, so they cause problems for another country.

Find and replace:

These anglo-supremacists need to be deported somewhere far away, so they cause problems for another country. (they already have; Scotland, Ireland, India, Rhodesia, etc.).

There! All problems are solved. First Nations will finally be able to evolve according to their own wishes and their own rythm.

[Cartman]

Bakunin, are you in favour of Quebec leaving Canada? This is a serious question (not dogmatic). If so, why? It seems to me that culture is constantly being rendered irrational and collectivist in the current neo-liberal, globalized context. Will Quebec culture be able to withstand these forces if it leaves Canada? Does not Canada offer protection for Quebec culture and significant autonomy?

As someone from the West, I do not quite understand the motive for leaving. I do not understand what Quebec cannot accomplish from within Canada. I am eager to hear from someone who does really understand these reasons.

In another post, you claimed to be more comfortable in NYC (I think you said NYC but I might be wrong) than in other Cdn cities. Can you explain further?

[Bakunin]

Bakunin, are you in favour of Quebec leaving Canada? This is a serious question (not dogmatic). If so, why? It seems to me that culture is constantly being rendered irrational and collectivist in the current neo-liberal, globalized context. Will Quebec culture be able to withstand these forces if it leaves Canada? Does not Canada offer protection for Quebec culture and significant autonomy?

Im in favor of a confederation where quebec would have is politic identity and canada is own or evry province their own. Else i would be in favor of an assymetric federalism that the npd is supporting which mean that the province can opt out of any federal program, but since i doubt this will happend, if their is a referendum ill vote yes because its the only way to move forward and if we vote no, then we know what happend, nothing change, it get worse...

As someone from the West, I do not quite understand the motive for leaving. I do not understand what Quebec cannot accomplish from within Canada. I am eager to hear from someone who does really understand these reasons.

Ok, its simple since we have different culture and way of thinking, it often happend that we don't agree with the canadian view. When we don't agree and we are forced by the canadian government it just frustrate us, most of the federalist like charest and its predessesor in quebec would like a change in the way federalism work to give more power to the province, the soft sovreignist are for a change to federalism the hard sovregnist to a complete different country.

In another post, you claimed to be more comfortable in NYC (I think you said NYC but I might be wrong) than in other Cdn cities. Can you explain further?

Sure, i went to other canadian cities and its like going to another country since our culture is so much different. It was a smaller step going to nyc than another canadian city. It doesnt mean i don't like the canadian culture, it mean that its harder for me to adapt or to understand while in nyc, i it was like i was already part of the american culture, like if it was more compatible.

[Bakunin]

Here is an article from the montreal gazette that clarifiy the whole article of Parizeau. I totally agree with it, its exaclty what i have read.

PS, if someone want to reply about this, first read the letter you can find it here: http://www.jacquesparizeau.com/

And im not a parizeau fan, i was as much skeptical as evryone before i had read his letter.

Nothing undemocratic about Parizeau's proposal

Josée Legault

The Montréal Gazette 20.8.2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a truly Pavlovian phenomenon. Every time Jacques Parizeau speaks up, the media and prominent péquistes rally to admonish him with almost equal fervour.

So it went after Monsieur penned a two-page newspaper article suggesting the Parti Québécois take a different road to sovereignty. His plan was called undemocratic, vengeful, desperate, bitter, deceitful, illegitimate, despicable and monstrous. Bernard Landry and Stéphane Dion even united in denouncing Monsieur's plan as illegitimate. To quote Aislin's famed cartoon: "OK, everybody. Take a Valium!"

So why all the mayhem?

On Monday, La Presse's frontpage story about Parizeau's plan had this title: "No need for another referendum. Parizeau supports the idea of a referendum-election." So Monsieur wanted Quebec to become independent without a referendum.

The problem is that Parizeau wrote nothing of the sort. In fact, he suggested the PQ go into an election asking for a clear mandate to trigger a process that would lead to a referendum on a new constitution for a sovereign Quebec. Only a majority vote in that referendum would allow Quebec to become independent.

This idea is based on a short essay by Robert Laplante, director of L'Action Nationale. All Parizeau did was express his support for a position that is increasingly popular inside and outside PQ ranks, but to which most of the media had paid no attention. Parizeau's sortie took care of that.

So much so that the Council on Sovereignty will hold a two-day forum on the subject Oct. 1 and 2, where Parizeau will speak. There will also be a resolution tabled at the PQ's coming national council asking for a special symposium on the Laplante plan and other avenues. It's even winning over some PQ MNAs as more and more younger members start to support it.

So if the Parizeau-Laplante approach is so popular and it does call for a referendum, why did Landry call it illegitimate and undemocratic?

The answer to this question is of paramount importance. It exposes the real stakes that lie behind what some see as just another "chicane" inside the PQ.

The answer is that Laplante's approach goes against everything PQ leaders - other than Parizeau - have defended for years.

First, it says the PQ must be elected on a clear mandate to trigger the preparation of sovereignty with public funds. This is what Parizeau did in 1994, while his successors refused such a commitment, waiting instead for "winning conditions" and the "moral certainty to win."

Second, the Laplante plan entails "gestures of sovereignty" that would, among other things, allow a PQ government to enact a Quebec citizenship while Quebec still remains in Canada. Landry and Bouchard refused to do that when other soverefgnists suggested the same thing in the past.

Third, it advocates the adoption of a voter ID card to reduce voter fraud at the next referendum. Again, Bouchard refused to do just that while Landry, though he had promised to, never did.

More importantly - and this is the biggest stake of all - the Laplante plan means the end of "étapisme," a step-by-step, referendum-based strategy brought into the PQ - in 1974 by Claude Morin, a former RCMP paid informant.

The Laplante plan does that not because it rejects the holding of a referendum. It doesn't. But because a referendum on a constitution would mark the "end" of the process, the founding act of an independent Quebec.

This is radically different from Bouchard and Landry's position: a referendum as the first stage of negotiations with Canada. Many "soft soverefgnists" even view a referendum victory as a way to establish a "rapport de force" to negotiate a new deal with Canada, a sort of confederal union, as is Landry's real preference.

The Laplante plan proposes a clearer path that would ask Quebecers to vote for a constitution marking the creation of an independent Quebec, free thereafter to sign various treaties with various countries, including Canada.

In the months leadin PQ convention of June 2 is what the real debate about. And this is where the leadership issue comes in.

Since Landry seems to remain leader, he must first survive the confidence vote he'll be submitted to next June. This means he must find ways to do that even though he voives strong opposition to the Laplante plan, which is increasingly popular among PQ members.

It will be fascinating to see how Landry will manoeuvre to protect his own vision and his leadership through it all. But one thing is certain: Landry must now explain how his traditional approach would ensure a more ambiguous referendum on sovereignty-partnership would be fought without Ottawa drowning Quebec in expensive propaganda and without its results, should it be won, being contested by Ottawa on the world stage using the Clarity Act.

Parizeau's approach other hand, ensures the process a double legitimacy, both here and abroad. First, the PQ gets elected on a clear mandate to trigger the process. Second, it holds a referendum on a constitution that would surely state Quebec will be an independant country.

If that isn't clarity, I don't know what is.

[maplesyrup]

Just bear in mind that Josee Legault is a sovereignist so everything, and I mean everything, she says must be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least!

[Guest eureka]

The piece also does not change very much. It still calls for a vote that would not produce a legitimate result. The Clarity Act is Canadian law by which Quebec is bound. This referendum would ignore the law. It would also allow the ridiculous 50 + 1. The process would have no legitimacy, domestically or internationally.

[Bakunin]

Just bear in mind that Josee Legault is a sovereignist so everything, and I mean everything, she says must be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least!

yes shes sovreignist but at least she know what she talk about, the other english article are from people who make specialities of bitching the sovreignist movement without knowing it.

[August1991]

Bakunin, I agree with you. The Legault article merely clarifies (as if this is necessary) what Parizeau wrote and Laplante has proposed. But she's also disingenous by skirting around some of the implications. For example, Parizeau is still convinced that he lost the referendum because of money and the non-francophone vote. He cannot accept the fact that a large number of francophone Quebecers do not want a separate country, and this explains ultimately the PQ's difficulty.

And BTW, the Quebec carte soleil is now a de facto "citizenship card". It remains only to make its presentation a vote requirement.