Oh Jason, How Naïve is Thee?
We need Dion more than ever! Jason Cherniak sees Harper’s secret plan to re-open the constitution as an attack on Canada. Only Dion can save us now!
Well interestingly enough, what Harper wants to do is put something in which was originally in the Meech Lake Accord, which Dion actually supported. So Jason, you better check with Stephane…THE MAN WHO NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND!
I do not support what was in Meech, I wrote something a while back which I never posted but I feel it is appropriate now. Brian Mulroney fucked up a lot of shit in his day and Meech Lake was one of those fuck-ups. There are some things I agree with, such an attempt to bring Quebec into the fold which was necessary, however, there are 3 fundamental major problems which would preclude me from signing on to what was presented to the provinces.
1) Distinct Society in the body of the text. I have said it over and over again that Quebec is a distinct society and a nation. However, placing such a contentious vague phrase in our constitution would be a mess for our judges who would have to define it themselves. It is a way to make one Canadian unequal to another one because they happen to belong to a distinct society. Sorry guys, I may think Trudeau made some mistakes, but he was right when he said all Canadians are equal. Remillard’s original “demand” was for it to be placed in the preamble, where it would change nothing except symbolically recognizing a historical truth. Stupid Mulroney went and put it in the body of the text.
2) A veto for all provinces. God help us all if we needed unanimity in order to pass a constitutional amendment, especially considering no other federal state has the same kind of provision. The provinces can duck legislation with the not-withstanding clause anyway. If the federal government proposed something which would affect culture that badly that even the not-withstanding clause could not fix, then I would be surprised. I guess I could cave on this one, if it was limited to something specific and exhaustive, depending on what it was limited to.
3) The federal spending power. This is BY FAR the biggest problem with Meech Lake and would be a major stumbling block down the road. This is essentially the elimination of any future national social program by the federal government. Maybe it is because I am a nasty centrist but sometimes I believe the federal government can sit down with the provinces and come up with a great program, like medicare or the CPP. The province always has the power to opt out of the federal model. However, that is the point of national minimum standards. Mulroney had put in something similar in nature. Gilles Remillard said he could spend money for child care on sidewalks. Yeah that doesn’t fly with me either. Meech eliminated the possibility of national minimum standards.
So yeah, the accord was pretty messed up. It made Canadians unequal, promised a deadlock for all future constitutional amendments (meaning Mulroney would be the only one who could get all of them to agree, EVER) and eliminated the possibility of future national Canadian social programs…sounds like a Conservative dream to me too.
par / by Anthony à / at 9:14 a.m.
11 Commentaires:
Antonio, you know I like you, but let's leave out the blogger on blogger pokes.
Jason defends Dion just as much and as loyally as you and I defend Ignatieff.
We are all going to have to start working together after this is done, folks.
So, you support the nation resolution why? Parliament was recognized Quebec as special of whatever in the mid nineties. If thats all you want to do, why do we need to pass a new policy?
Antonio, to say that the notwithstanding clause could be used in a laissez faire manner by provinces is perhaps the most naive comment I have ever read on a blog. You really are young.
ok where do I even say ignatieff in this post. This is me poking fun at Jason. I did not appreciate the whole "DION IS MY SAVIOUR" tone of his post so I had some fun.
Point is Harper pulled this right out of meech...before people rush out to make leadership positions on it, I wanted to remind people meech had many flaws.
I dont know Igantieff's position on this...therefore I do not call him MY SAVIOUR every time an issue comes up
Just out of curiosity, why do you support this nation stuff if you are against distinct society in the constitution? Where do you see "nation" leading to in the long-run?
jason...read it again
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antonio, read Don Macpherson's article in the Saturday Gazette.
Forget that he's against Ignatieff.
This is how you and I and everyone else who is not pur laine fit into the Quebec nation.
"The reality of Quebec nationhood was candidly summed up by a sport commentator on RDS I happened to catch this week."There are only 7.5 million of us in Quebec." he said while discussing Quebecers' need for francophone sports stars, "and only 5 million real Quebecers".
In reality, there are 7.7 million Quebecers, 6.3 million of which are "real Quebecers".
Also, Macpherson states something interesting about Ignatieff. In his 1993 book, Blood and Belonging, he wrote that Quebec nationalism is ETHNIC. Now he's decided its civic.
So which one is it?
The fact of the matter is that you and I can become prime minister of Canada, but because of our last names, we are not "real Quebecers" and could never become premier of Quebec.
I realize that a majority of francophone Quebecers don't think this way, but a big minority do, and that mentality is never shot down and critcized for how bigotted it is. That would be heresy, right?
I restate that Ignatieff is a good guy, but this nation thing has grown into a big mess. He showed a lack of vision and leadership by jumping onto the bandwagen to support something that would alienate those who are not "real Quebecers" and the rest of Canada, like Newfoundland, for example, that has every right to be recogonized as a nation too, with Ignatieff's logic.
Recognizing everyone as distinct nations would tear at the already thin fabric that holds the country together. Its shortsighted, and IS NOT THE MAGIC SOLUTION that will solve the separatism problem. To think so is naive.
Andrew:
The more imminent threat to Canada is not Quebec separation it is allowing Stephen Harper to gut the Federal government and making it an empty shell.
Unfortunately, such an idea resonates well amongst Quebecers.
So Liberals are going to have to come up with an alternative that resonates just as well. If they do not then they have ceded the hearts and minds of Quebecers to the decentalizers in the Conservative Party or the Separatists in the Bloc.
So to you and to all of the other folks who have come down so hard on the Quebec Nation Resolution and the folks who support it I would ask:
What would be your alternative to it?
If recognizing Quebec as a nation is not the answer what do you have to offer that will counter both the Conservative and Separatist solutions?
Andrew:
MacPherson is wrong.
In Blood and Belonging, Ignatieff clearly rejects ethnic nationalism and points to Quebec as an example of civic nationalism, as an example of how ethnic nationalism can be overridden by a civic nationalism.
You really have to stop with these personal attacks.
Post a Comment
<< Home