November 23, 2006

Today, Canada is Stronger

Was I ever expecting this?

Today Prime Minister Harper demonstrated a massive amount of political courage and took on the separatists head on. He went after their game. He turned the issue on its head, and scored a major coup for Canada.

Next Tuesday, Gilles Duceppe planned on dividing the House of Commons. He planned to put a wedge in the Tories and within the Liberal Party of Canada.

Give Duceppe credit, nobody ever expected Harper to show THIS MUCH leadership on this issue. In Quebec, we no longer have to tell Quebecers why their distinctness is not recognized. We can take on separatist mythology without this fundamental truth thrown in our faces. Today, Stephen Harper affirmed that Canada can admit the diversity of its people and not be afraid to lose the country.

Some may call it a virus. Some may think it’s a big conspiracy. All I know is that…

Today is a great day to be a federalist in Quebec.

37 Commentaires:

Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Well it's a great day to be a Quebec nationalist.

Whether it's a great day for federalism remains to be seen, I'd say.

11/23/2006 3:28 a.m.  
Blogger PhillyC a dit...

Right on Braeden. Looks like Antonio has made an about-face, having been of the opinion that Quebec is "just a piece of land" like "any other province" to this nation nonsense.

11/23/2006 3:43 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

I do have a question for you Antonio, in light of the fact that it looks like the Bloc is prepared to vote against this resolution.

You have said that the 1982 constitution is "politically illegitimate" and "not workable" because the majority of Quebec's provincial legislators voted against it, even though the majority of Quebec's federal legislators did.

By the same line of logic, would you not contend that the same principles of federalism would dictate that this resolution will be "illegitimate" because a majority of Quebec's federal legislators will vote against it?

If not, why not, and if so, what would be legitimate?

11/23/2006 7:15 a.m.  
Blogger Quebec Liberal a dit...

This is a good day.

Quebecers are sociologically a nation, not politically.

It is Quebecers that are a nation, not Quebec.

This hurts Dion. Helps Rae and allows Iggy to save face.

It is now and Iggy-Rae showdown on the last ballot.

The question is where do Dion's delegates go?

11/23/2006 9:36 a.m.  
Blogger Saskboy a dit...

I think we'll know in a year or two if this was a great day. If it was, congrats for calling it one.

11/23/2006 9:36 a.m.  
Blogger propatria a dit...

I think its a slap in the face to french-canadians outside of quebec, and to official billingualism in general.

At the very least harpers motion mentions only quebecois, people, and not quebec, a territory. In this he shows hes smarter then ignatieff on this issue. But the idea that a francophone on the other side of the ontario border is not part of the same "nation" as a francophone on the quebec side is ludicrous.

I have no interest in seeing french-canadian culture being confined to the borders of the province of quebec.

11/23/2006 11:18 a.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...

I don't think it is a big deal. Harper's motion has no bite. Everyone knows this.

Harper's problem is that he's now trapped. He will be blamed if something goes wrong.

On the other hand, the credit he gets will be fleeting. It's a no win situation for him.

11/23/2006 11:19 a.m.  
Blogger WestmountLiberal a dit...

I am Quebec federalist and to be perfectly honest with you, today is NO different than yesterday.

Whether Quebecois are or are not a nation need not be validated by anyone but ourselves, personally or collectively.

We will have to wait to see what other nations, with Canada of course, will now seek similar validation.

As a Quebec Liberal, joining forces with the Conservatives will help to further split the federalist vote further.

Thank you M. Harper & M Ignatieff!

11/23/2006 11:21 a.m.  
Blogger Loraine Lamontagne a dit...

I am a French-Canadian from Ontario. The motion which Harper has tabled says that Québécois form a nation (as opposed to Quebeckers). Does that mean that if you speak French in Canada you are a Québécois even though you never lived there? If not, when will the National Assembly recognize that French-Canadians form a nation?

11/23/2006 12:43 p.m.  
Blogger WestmountLiberal a dit...

Hi Loraine - yes, you too are a nation.
If you would like it to be recognized, you can ring Mr Harper or Mr Ignatieff and they will likely accomodate.
If you are denied, don't feel bad. They can't take this away from you.

11/23/2006 1:29 p.m.  
Blogger Jason Cherniak a dit...

Would you have said the same thing if Dion proposed something similar on the floor of the convention?

11/23/2006 1:40 p.m.  
Blogger Loraine Lamontagne a dit...

WestmountLib: Not so sure that they can’t take that away…. Go check today’s press release issued by the ACFA ( Wasn’t it timely that only last week the Quebec Government rediscovered its vocation as leader of francophones in Canada? It would appear that Harper wants to disengage the federal government from any say or responsibility in minority language rights. That has been, after all, his ideology all along.

11/23/2006 1:57 p.m.  
Blogger propatria a dit...

Would french-canadians living in quebec be insulted by being termed part of the french-canadian nation?

11/23/2006 2:20 p.m.  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

braeden caley: it is indeed a good day to be a quebec nationalist.

it is not a good day to be a trudeau federalist! it is not a good day for people who believe in th e canadian nation. it is not a good day for people who believe in inclusive political arrangements. it is a day that entrenched the two solitutdes.

antonio said:
"In Quebec, we no longer have to tell Quebecers why their distinctness is not recognized. We can take on separatist mythology without this fundamental truth thrown in our faces."

umm??? hasn't quebec's distinctiveness been recognized already??? YES!!!

by not recognizing that FACT, aren't you just playing into separatist mythology??? YES!!!!

i would love no more than to congrtulate harper if this ends the divisive debate started by michael ignatieff. unfortunately, knowing canadian history i can only conclude that this is the beginning, not the end of this acrimony.

to all who belive that this is good news for iggy, don't be so sure. i think most canadians will NEVER forget who got them into this mess...i know i won't.

11/23/2006 3:21 p.m.  
Blogger WestmountLiberal a dit...

Loraine - I totally agree with you. M Harper is far from the protector of minority rights. The gay marriage issue is another example of his love for divisive politics.
What I was trying to convey is that a 3rd party can never take something away from you that you feel, inside, is part of your being.
I'm not a psychologist, but I think this is called "self actualization".
This is why I see irony in the Federalist motion.
It's affirming a fact of life for those who identify as Quebecois.
No harm perhaps, but also no use.

11/23/2006 3:25 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Antonio, I'm sure you're just busy with all the monstrous busy-ness we're all coping with in advance of this convention, but it would be fantastic if you could offer a response to my legitimacy question. If you have one.

11/23/2006 4:05 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

And what do you think of ALEXANDRE Trudeau's perspective, as outlined below from the CP wire?

Alexandre Trudeau issued a written statement saying that anyone who believes his father would have supported Ignatieff's views "couldn't be more wrong." He said it's "more objectionable still" to suggest that his father "would, like Ignatieff, deal in vacuous terms meant to appease emotions."


Alexandre Trudeau was having none of it. He said his father would never have supported Ignatieff's "paternalistic and empty" recognition of Quebec as a nation.

Moreover, he said the term nation cannot be strictly symbolic; it either "signifies a sovereign country, as in the United Nations" or it signifies a "cultural collective."

If it's a cultural collective, Alexandre Trudeau questioned how only Quebec can be recognized as a nation, and not other collectives such as "Mohawks, Jews, Arabs, Sri Lankans, Guatemalans, Crees, Irish, English, German and French descendents."

"One might be able to argue for a French Canadian nation. One might be able to argue for a state of Quebec. But arguing for the Quebec nation to the exclusion of the myriad of other nations of Canada is absurd for someone who aims to lead Canada," he said.

"It takes no son of Trudeau to know how foreign to him is the idea of allowing Canadian nation building to proceed along the path of ill-defined collective recognitions and entitlements as opposed to the clear rights of free individuals, each capable of being many nations or of none."

11/23/2006 4:25 p.m.  
Blogger ecrelin a dit...

''to all who belive that this is good news for iggy, don't be so sure. i think most canadians will NEVER forget who got them into this mess...i know i won't.''

You're right, we will never forget what Trudeau did in 1982. What heppent yesterday is a direct consequence of what your hero did.

11/23/2006 5:04 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

I'm assuming you're a big fan of his then?

11/23/2006 6:08 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


the majority of Quebec legislators believe Quebec is a nation.

That is what is happeneing. It is all the talk we hear on the street today.

I am swamped...until I start blogging only for convention, I'll be pretty busy.

11/23/2006 10:06 p.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

in all honesty, what street are you talking about?

most montrealers couldn't give s hit, cuz whether someone in ottawa recognizes it or not, doesn't change reality

and by the way, i doubt this will make canada stronger. although i agree about our distinctiveness, a pandora's box had been opened. even you must realize that. don't look at the picture in such a rosy colour, because reality is quite different my friend.

11/23/2006 10:13 p.m.  
Blogger [JTF6.0]Undecided a dit...

One word. "Wait"

11/23/2006 10:36 p.m.  
Blogger [JTF6.0]Undecided a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/23/2006 10:38 p.m.  
Blogger anybody but iggy a dit...

Years from now, Iggy will be remembered as a total bumbler who opened a possible national unity and constitutional crisis for no good reason - yes, a great day to be Canadian indeed!
It seems like Iggy agrees with Harper on everything else anyways, so I guess I should not be surprised - although at least Harper had the sense to point out that it was the Quebecois, not Quebec, that were a nation, and that they were a part of Canada - something Iggy was too moronic to do.

11/24/2006 1:41 a.m.  
Blogger Wah Fist a dit...

Quebec is not a nation. It is a province.

There is a (sociological) nation of Quebecers--most of whom live in the province of Quebec.

I think we should also call a spade a spade and admit that when we say sociological what we are really talking about is ethnic nationalism.

Ethnic nationalism concerns me.

11/24/2006 5:36 a.m.  
Blogger Loraine Lamontagne a dit...

"Over the summer, the Prime Minister discussed the concept with Quebec Premier Jean Charest" reports Gloria Galloway in today's Globe and Mail. Again, how timely that Quebec last week discovered it now has a leadership mission towards francophones in Canada. In your vision of the Québécois within a united Canada,Liberals, am I (a French-Canadian from Ontario) a Québécoise or not? Are Liberals at all concerned about minority rights?

11/24/2006 6:58 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


before i answer that, I want to emphasize that the beauty of this country is we get to choose our own identity, not have to choose between two.

I am of the leaning that the people of Quebec constitute the Quebec nation, that the civic nation that has developed here since the 1960s is unique and should be recognized as such.

Now, do not feel excluded. There is no reason to, because you get to choose your identity, not be told which one you belong to. Many quebecers are furious when told they only belong to one nation, the canadian nation. Can you understand why they might be upset?

It is just as bad as separatists who say "we are Quebecois before we are Canadian"

once again, why force the issue. Nothing I have said on this blog or ANY candidate has said during this race has said anyone should belong to one particular identity.

It is what Michael calls "la liberté de choisir notre identité" that has inspired many Liberals in Quebec, and is causing so many Dion and Rae delegates to come on board.

11/24/2006 8:50 a.m.  
Blogger WestmountLiberal a dit...

"...and is causing so many Dion and Rae delegates to come on board."

You realize Antonio that PM Harper consulted DION before advising his own caucus on the matter.

What has been proposed closely mirrors Stephane compromise motion for next week's Convention.

I'm happy you're finally supporting Dion's position on the nation question.

11/24/2006 9:16 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


As Chantal Hebert pointed out, he likely consulted Dion because of the leadership candidates, he was most likely to resist. Harper wanted a united front. With even Dion supporting it, he got himself one.

11/24/2006 9:19 a.m.  
Blogger Loraine Lamontagne a dit...

Antonio, I don't feel like I have been excluded - I feel like I have been sold! Reading those letters written by French Canadians in today's Le Devoir only reinforces this feeling. Choosing an identify is meaningless to me. My rights as a French speaker in Canada is my concern. Now, as a Liberal, you may want to have a look at Harper's views on minority language rights before adopting this motion outright.

11/24/2006 9:20 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

Also to stop the spread of this mythology that Harper's resolution was Dion's idea.

The Globe reproted that Harper, Layton and Graham had come up with something and that the Tories ran it past Dion at 6PM after it had already been tabled.

Stephane said he would have liked "in the sociological sense of the word" put in there. It wasn't. The Tories got their word Dion would be supporting the one Harper was proposing. That is all they really wanted. I can email you a copy of the Globe's story if you like.

11/24/2006 9:23 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

oops *tabled is not the word i should have used...more like written it down.

11/24/2006 9:24 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

I know Harper's views on minority rights in terms of language and I can assure you that NO Liberal would ever remove the rights from any minority...this motion does not do that

11/24/2006 9:25 a.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

Antonio, would you support italo-canadians being recognized as a nation? Would you then consider yourself part of 3 nations?

11/24/2006 11:29 a.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...

I don't understand why pundits are impressed by Harper's motion. See

Fact is that hardcore Quebec nationalists are emboldened. Swing voters will become more cynical.

The battle for Quebec nationalist voters will be fought on issues of substance.

Hopefully, the Liberal memebers in Quebec won't use this issue in the elections. It's likely to backfire in the long run.

11/24/2006 11:39 a.m.  
Blogger propatria a dit...

the only mythology that this is dions motion exists in your head. Harper asked dion what his view on the motion was, and dion said it was close to the one he proposed, that is quebecois form a sociological nation. So please stop lying.

And yes i believe harpers motion is a slap in the face to french-canadians outside of the province of quebec. Is it so damn hard to recognize BOTH french-canadians inside and outside of quebec as forming part of the same sociological nation? Fack that pisses me off.

11/24/2006 11:56 a.m.  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

antonio said:
"I want to emphasize that the beauty of this country is we get to choose our own identity, not have to choose between two."

umm, in any free nation you get to choose your identity. this is an individual decision. why then, do quebec nationalists feel the need to have the house of commons recognize, let alone the constitution, their identity??? quite illogical. i don't get it. how do you go from supporting an individual's right to choose their identity to the necessity of the canadian constitution recognizing this identity? with logic like that, its no wonder you support iggy.

11/24/2006 2:46 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home