November 7, 2006

Nation Resolution Implications

I am still writing my paper so I will just take a few minutes to address the Ekos poll about the Quebec nation. The way it sounds is that this resolution, if Frank Graves did his polling properly, will fail miserably in Montreal.

I will say this again. This resolution was supported by the Quebec delegates of all three major leadership camps in Quebec.

Bob Rae’s “I believe in it but refuse to go back into it” position is a ploy to win votes and is not washing well with the media in Quebec. For a man who supported something far more dangerous in 1990, this is a little rich.

This resolution was brought forward by an Ignatieff supporter and amended by a Dion supporter, with a spirit of co-operation because this resolution is not about leadership, but about reconciling a historical fact.

I remind people of what Bob Rae said today, in his op/ed piece

Bob Rae quotes the Cauchon Report…here is the quote he takes from the report.

"By proceeding in a pragmatic, step-by-step way and showing political goodwill, we can send a strong signal to all citizens of Quebec that they can grow, prosper and realize their aspirations within the Canadian federation."

I agree with Martin Cauchon. We need to send signals of goodwill to Quebecers.

How is it a strong signal to Quebec to continue to deny the "fact of life" (Bob's words, not mine) that they are a nation? If you read that Ekos poll correctly, Liberals are saying to NOT send a signal of goodwill.

We continue to deny that Ottawa has too much money due to the necessary cuts in 1995 that were never fully restored. Denying the fiscal imbalance is sending a negative signal to Quebec. (Give Rae credit, at least he supports this one)

Saying the rejection of the constitution unanimously by Quebec City (including the Quebec Liberals) is “mythology” is creating our own mythology. Need I remind you that after this happened; the Liberals were reduced to their worst result ever in the House Of Commons.

Did Bourassa and Mulroney invent the idea that Quebec needed to be brought in then? If that was the case, why did Bob Rae and Stephane Dion support it if it was not necessary?

Supporting a move to bring Quebec into the constitution in 1990 and 1992, but deny that they need to be brought in to begin with is taking a step backwards, thus sending a bad signal to Quebec.

“I do not have a problem with the fact that many Quebecois feel themselves part of a "nation" in the sense of a community of interest affected by a shared history, language, culture and geography. No Canadian should feel threatened by that, any more than we are by people describing themselves as part of the Welsh nation, the Scottish nation, the Metis nation, the Cree nation or any similar assertions of identity.”

If you don’t have a problem with the concept, then vote to create a task force. Let the task force talk to Quebecers and do its work. Let them hit the ground running and find out why 85% of Quebecers believe Quebec is nation and find out what they believe that concept to be. Let them make recommendations to our leader and let the burden fall on him whether or not to act on it. Do not dismiss this act of goodwill, this olive branch that the Liberals send to Quebecers. Send the right message to Quebec Bob. Vote in favour of this resolution.

11 Commentaires:

Blogger WestmountLiberal a dit...

Assuming EKOS is correct, 1 of every 3 Iggy delegate does NOT think that the LPC should adopt as policy a commitment to recognize Quebec officially as a nation.
I am shocked and am certain Wells will pick up and report on this very soon.
Antonio, I hope you and other Quebec Young Liberals actively pursue these Iggy supporters (I'm presume they must be non Quebec delegates?) and convince them to back your candidate's cause.
Once this is accomplished, Rae's delegates should be a snap.

11/07/2006 12:50 p.m.  
Blogger anybody but iggy a dit...

All of this just re-hashes the same argument that the ROC needs to appease Quebec, etc. The separatists are the authors of this argument, and it is indeed a phoney baloney one. Quebec has more unique powers than any other province, and it's hard to see what more they could be granted while still remaining a part of Canada. A cosmetic recognition of one part of Quebec's population as being a "nation" will do nothing to assuage the seps, it's only going to propel their cuase forward, and push thtem to ask for more.
If rejected, the seps will be thrilled. They will run around saying that they have been humiliated, just like they always have when the constitutional can of worms is open. The facts, Antonio, are that it benefits the seps to not be a part of the constitution, that's the resaon why Rene Levesque would NEVER have signed the constitution, no matter what. That's not mythology, it's simply the facts. There was no "night of long knives" at work, or if there was, the people who got stabbed in the back were the ROC premieres.
Anglos and Allos find this resolution racist and offensive, as do First Nations who have all been unceremoniously lumped together in one homogenous category. The very text of it is nonsense, because it states that Quebec has a single unique cultural and linguistic tradition. This is a mythology in and of itself. Quebec was founded by many different peoples, and is now made up of a multi-lingual, multi-cultural, and multi-religious society. Think about it: could you call Toronto a "nation"?
Under the auspices of your resolution, you could. But you chickened out when answering the Newfoundland question, because you said that while it was possible to say they were a nation, they weren't really, at least not as much as Quebec. So, all "nations" are equal, but some are more equal than others?
On an internal level, the resolution angered a lot of Libs because a) it was brought forward in an undemocratic manner, at the expense of other resolutions, b) it was pushed through by the Iggy supporters, c) it has now ruined our convention by making this non-issue the focus.
You plea for people to support the resolution is (obviously) an attempt to save your candidate from the utter humiliation he will face when it is defeated, but also reflects the same veiled threats that seps always use to make their demands. Namely, that we will touch off a crisis in Quebec if we don't pass it, yada yada yada. The whole "poor Quebec" tone of your argument also reminds me of Jean LaPierre's whininess right before he dumped us and formed the BQ.
If you really care about this party, the best thing to do is put partisanship aside and support the Quebec resolution to nullify all resolutions coming out of the fateful Council, because they were not the ones we were supposed to be bringing to convention, and we will be violating our own party's constitution if we do so.
Ladies and Gents, if you care for the Liberal Party, and for Canada, support THIS resolution.

11/07/2006 1:07 p.m.  
Blogger Ed King a dit...

For a man who supported something far more dangerous in 1990, this is a little rich.

Yes that's right, he supported the Charlottetown Accord, and it failed miserably, plunging Canada into its most severe national unity crisis. Maybe that's why he doesn't want to rush into that kind of adventure again without the "winning conditions" in place.

This resolution was brought forward by an Ignatieff supporter and amended by a Dion supporter, with a spirit of co-operation because this resolution is not about leadership, but about reconciling a historical fact.

No, it's not. As I pointed out in my previous comment, the resolution rewrites Canadian history. Far from being "about reconciling a historical fact", it's increasingly clear that the resolution and Ignatieff's position on the issue have more to do with short-term political gain.

How is it a strong signal to Quebec to continue to deny the "fact of life" (Bob's words, not mine) that they are a nation?

I'll be generous and assume you missed my comment in the previous post. Bob Rae said that Quebec's distinctiveness is a fact of life. Quebec is and always has been distinct, primarily because a majority of its citizens speak French and because the province uses the civil code. This is recognized in our Constititution. In fact, it's been recognized in our constitutional documents since the Quebec Act of 1771.

Distinctiveness and nation are not the same thing. Stop putting words in Rae's mouth.

Saying the rejection of the constitution unanimously by Quebec City (including the Quebec Liberals) is “mythology” is creating our own mythology.

Who says it is mythology, who denies that the NA has rejected the 1982 constitution? What the heck are you talking about?

11/07/2006 1:26 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Fuddle Duddle is rather befuddled on the issue of nationhood enshrinement for Quebec in the constitution.

It is amusing to watch Fuddle's twists and turns on this petard the Ignatieff supporters have hoisted themselves on. Fuddle's contortions almost fival Cerebus' pretzel-arguments.

Facts are facts, as ed king so clearly called Fuddles on.

And the facts show that Ignatieff threw the dice by recommending constitutional change to enshrine a vague, ill-defined notion of "nation" in the constitution for one province, and now does not know how to exit gracefully from the mess he has created.

The Cat has a word of advice for Ignatieff and his supporters: sometimes just doing the same thing over and over again does not lead to different results.

Perhaps Ignatieff should try withdrawing the Quebec motion, in the interests of party unity and the need to win power in the next election.

11/07/2006 2:30 p.m.  
Blogger Manitoba Liberal a dit...

I'll be in Montreal making sure the amendment fails with a misreable number. We need to make it clar as a party that we reject this "nation" nonsense once and for all.

Let the Iggsters join the Bloc if they feel otherwise.

11/07/2006 6:58 p.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

Antonio, do you recognize yourself as part of the Italian nation?

11/07/2006 11:54 p.m.  
Blogger Liberal Pebbles a dit...

Why should liberals whom do not support this be blackmailed into it by the most disfuctional party apparatus in the country? The people that made the nation pronouncements were the same people whom hailed Martin as a shoe-in to take Quebec.

Thanks but no Thanks

11/08/2006 1:51 a.m.  
Blogger Manitoba Liberal a dit...

The key to electoral success seems to be to listen to what Liberal Blocists like Lapierre and Frulla say and than take the total oposite position.

Witness the abilty of Jean. C to win lection, while Martin was an idiot, and it seems Iggy is following the Martin path.

11/08/2006 10:14 a.m.  
Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/08/2006 11:42 a.m.  
Blogger Gavin Neil a dit...

Wow, a resolution on Quebec's totally special awesomeness passed with support from delegates supporting all candidates? Amazing. I think we should hold provincial meetings in Toronto, Calgary, and Iqalit and see if we can't get cross-candidate support for resolutions concerning Toronto's, Alberta's, and Nunavut's totally super-special awesomeness.

which of the painfully obvious facts - that this resolution is incredibly divisive, nationally damaging, and ultimately pointless - do you not understand?

Why on God's green earth would someone NOT from Quebec support it, except for the completely selfish and morally repugnant objective of gaining votes on a promise they have no intention of fulfilling?

11/08/2006 7:25 p.m.  
Blogger Down & Out in L A a dit...

I would respectfully suggest that the resolution should be withdrawn by the authors.

It will be a huge liability for the Liberal party in a federal election and for whoever becomes the leader.

Here is the path to success

1. Withdraw the resolution

2. Elect the leader

3. Win the federal election

4. Work to improve relations with Quebec

The alternative is the path to failure

1. Have the resolution defeated at the national convention

2. Elect a leader for a divided and bitter party

3. Lose the federal election because significant numbers of Liberals sit on the sidelines

4. Remain in opposition, repeating the same mistakes for 5 or 10 years.

11/12/2006 9:32 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home