Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - Constitution Strain
(This is one in a series of 7:30 AM posts, it is an article by Michel C. Auger, main political columnist at le Journal de Montreal, which I have translated into English. Don MacPherson joined colleague L. Ian MacDonald, calling Ignatieff's plan dangerous...the English-French divide on this issue continues...)
Michael Ignatieff wishes to re-examine the constitutional saga to recognize the Quebec nation. Bob Rae – like just about all others in English Canada and even many in Quebec – say it’s the worst idea anyone could ever have.
We can ask our selves the question: Are Mr. Rae and all others that have lived through the sagas of Meech Lake and Charlottetown – and this includes Jean Charest – perhaps suffering from a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, constitution strain, this disease causing horrible nightmares every time the word constitution is uttered?
We can understand that Mr. Rae still has bad dreams thinking back to those days. However, this was 15 years ago. One generation. At the time, all those like Mr. Rae, considering themselves friends of Quebec, had repeated over and over that the status quo was not acceptable and that the changes they proposed were justified and good for Canada.
Today, the consensus of these elites is that we should not take the risk of re-openining the constitutional file, that it is more important to worry about “real issues” and that the status-quo is worth more than all these squabbles.
At the neart of this notion, there is a fear that another constitutional miss would only benefit the sovereigntists. This is typical of the post traumatic stress disorder, constitutional strain.Except that, in the heart of all Quebec federalists, there is not only a desire for change but the feeling that this change has been so often promised to Quebecers only to have it pushed off to a later point in time, even under the pretext of dealing with “real issues.”
Even those who were convinced of the need to wait for strategic reasons – such as Premier Charest and his government – would like, in the end, that English Canada come to terms with the fact that waiting will cause other risks.
Because an unkept promise of constitutional change is a tool for the sovereigntists. It is even the heart of their argument that Canada is genetically incapable to recognize Quebec’s difference. Michael Ignatieff preaches to be bold but he is right not only on the issue of an important strategic question: if the Liberal Party of Canada wants to be re-born in Queebc, they must attack the sontitutional issue and try to rebuild the pots it has already broken.
Since the unilateral repatriation of the constitution in 1981, the Liberal Party never again received a majority of seats in a what used to be considered a one-party province.
Quebecers have not forgotted that it was Pierre Trudeau who wanted and planned the repatriation, despite the almost unanimous opposition of the National Assembly of Quebec. They also have not forgotten Jean Chretien’s opposition to the Meech Lake Accord.
If the Liberal party seeks to be re-born from the ashes in Quebec, they need to clearly reach out to Quebecers. That means that the party has to somehow accept to re-open constitutional negotiations, even with the risks that it entails.
Between the post-traumatic stress disorder of Bob Rae and the boldness of Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party should choose the latter.
Because I am returning from a long stay in the United States, I permit myself to cite a quote from Thomas Jefferson that is engraved in the marble stone of his monument in Washington. It applies rather well to the current situation. «I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors».
Michael Ignatieff wishes to re-examine the constitutional saga to recognize the Quebec nation. Bob Rae – like just about all others in English Canada and even many in Quebec – say it’s the worst idea anyone could ever have.
We can ask our selves the question: Are Mr. Rae and all others that have lived through the sagas of Meech Lake and Charlottetown – and this includes Jean Charest – perhaps suffering from a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, constitution strain, this disease causing horrible nightmares every time the word constitution is uttered?
We can understand that Mr. Rae still has bad dreams thinking back to those days. However, this was 15 years ago. One generation. At the time, all those like Mr. Rae, considering themselves friends of Quebec, had repeated over and over that the status quo was not acceptable and that the changes they proposed were justified and good for Canada.
Today, the consensus of these elites is that we should not take the risk of re-openining the constitutional file, that it is more important to worry about “real issues” and that the status-quo is worth more than all these squabbles.
At the neart of this notion, there is a fear that another constitutional miss would only benefit the sovereigntists. This is typical of the post traumatic stress disorder, constitutional strain.Except that, in the heart of all Quebec federalists, there is not only a desire for change but the feeling that this change has been so often promised to Quebecers only to have it pushed off to a later point in time, even under the pretext of dealing with “real issues.”
Even those who were convinced of the need to wait for strategic reasons – such as Premier Charest and his government – would like, in the end, that English Canada come to terms with the fact that waiting will cause other risks.
Because an unkept promise of constitutional change is a tool for the sovereigntists. It is even the heart of their argument that Canada is genetically incapable to recognize Quebec’s difference. Michael Ignatieff preaches to be bold but he is right not only on the issue of an important strategic question: if the Liberal Party of Canada wants to be re-born in Queebc, they must attack the sontitutional issue and try to rebuild the pots it has already broken.
Since the unilateral repatriation of the constitution in 1981, the Liberal Party never again received a majority of seats in a what used to be considered a one-party province.
Quebecers have not forgotted that it was Pierre Trudeau who wanted and planned the repatriation, despite the almost unanimous opposition of the National Assembly of Quebec. They also have not forgotten Jean Chretien’s opposition to the Meech Lake Accord.
If the Liberal party seeks to be re-born from the ashes in Quebec, they need to clearly reach out to Quebecers. That means that the party has to somehow accept to re-open constitutional negotiations, even with the risks that it entails.
Between the post-traumatic stress disorder of Bob Rae and the boldness of Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party should choose the latter.
Because I am returning from a long stay in the United States, I permit myself to cite a quote from Thomas Jefferson that is engraved in the marble stone of his monument in Washington. It applies rather well to the current situation. «I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors».
6 Commentaires:
Because an unkept promise of constitutional change is a tool for the sovereigntists. It is even the heart of their argument that Canada is genetically incapable to recognize Quebec’s difference.
This seems like a good argument NOT to re-open the constitution to me.
How about the consensus of people over 22 and those who have lived in the country for the past 30 years. That would be a more accurate description than elites Antonio.
Quebec isn`t a nation even under M. Ignatieff`s description. historically francophone quebecquois may be a nation, but that would also include Acadians, the Franco-Ontarions and the Franco-Manitobans. You are not a member of the Quebecquois Nation Antonio. You are Italian. Neither would any of the African, or Asian immigrants to Quebec be included in this nation. The Jews of Canada are a nation. Should they be recognized in the constitution? So are the Metis, the Ukranian immigrants, particularly on the prairies. All of the first nations are nations. etc. etc.
You see, if being a nation is not about a country, then it can not be about a province either. The logic in this arguement is flawed and unapplyable. It CAN NOT work!. Quebec is not a nation. The historically French Quebequois, Acadian and Franco-Ontarian Franco-Manitoban peoples are. Even according to Mr. Ignatieff`s definition.
These are not my words
but those of Michel C. Auger, a leading columnist here in Quebec, the same calibre as Andre Pratte.
Shoshana you should try READING the articles, it may help you formulate a proper attack against me
Cat mutant, I was referrnig to Mr. Ignatieff's definition of Nation. I also believe your logic is flawed. Quebec is a province, period. If a country is not a nation than a province isn't either. New France included the Acadians and the Franco-Ontarion, Franco-Manitoban peoples. You have proven my point, merci. The province of Quebec includes many peoples who were not a part of new france and therefore Quebec is not a nation.
I do not have even close enough to the amount of time to respond to Paper Dynamite Online`s critique...if I did I would respond.
I am trying to promote debate because I believe the coverage of the issue in the English Press is VERY one sided
and vice versa with the French Press.
I do not blindly agree with the articles I reprinted...but I do agree with enough of them to post them
Post a Comment
<< Home