We’ll do this s l o w l y
For me to accept the Bloc as a member of the Canadian Government (not Parliment) they would have to become a federal proponent of decentralization in stead of a proponent of a single province’s disentanglement. One is within the current structure the other is not.
Your lack of imagination is not my problem. I have no illusion that the Bloc would do what I suggest. That was never the point.
Yes they have, and yes it’s typically taken as offensive.
Well, as I have just said in the other thread, I certainly care about your opinions on the matter since I have the greatest respect for you and your opinions. I was taken aback by the level of your hostility to the Bloc québécois, but I can understand that you think they want to destroy our country. I’m certainly hostile to groups who I think want to “destroy” Quebec as I think it is or should be.
I also value a citizenship based on more than ethnic identity, one that is open to people of various backgrounds and attainable by newcomers. But I think that a shared culture is important and that it is up to these newcomers to learn to share in the culture of their hosts. I enjoy diversity and I think accomodating differences is a good thing, but it shouldn’t be a one-way street. If I ever move to another country, I expect my new fellow countrymen to welcome me, but I will make an effort to become one of them.
Oh, please, Grey. I found your posts confusing, that’s all. No harm done. I’m not angry or irritated at you; if you’re getting irritated at me I suggest we end this discussion because I don’t think any good would come out of this.
Okay, sure. This may very well happen some day. The Bloc won’t “expand” to other provinces, but if other provincialist parties appear in other provinces, it would be possible to see the Bloc ally with them. Of course, for this to happen, we would need to reach the point where no one dares talk about Quebec independence anymore.
I find this odd, because “redneck” isn’t a term I’d expect to see in a serious publication. I know editorials aren’t always cold and analytical, but I personally would never write something like “these Albertan rednecks” in something I intended to be serious. I’d very much like to see an example, actually.
I was listening to the radio on the weekend and thought I’d add somewhat to this discussion based upon what I heard.
Has anyone read the agreement (pdf)
One thing of note now that the NDP and Liberals are whining about Harper appointing Senators is that the agreement only requires consultation between themselves when and if they decide to appoint Senators themselves. Interesting how what is good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
Section 4: “The Prime Minister will consult the Leader of the NDP as appropriate on
appointments.”
But previous to this in Section 3: “Furthermore, upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois.”
Isn’t the point of consulting with someone to allow them to have input?
But just so no one thinks that the agreement is the sole agreement there is this: Policy Framework (PDF).
Please note the first sentence in the preamble:
“The new government is supported by parties that share a commitment to fiscal responsibility, a progressive agenda and a belief in the role of government to act as a partner Canadians and Quebecers.”
Fiscal responsibility? Yet they can’t get their own houses in order without government funds. Which is probably their main reason for attempting to bring down the government.
But the most important statement in this whole thing (and the whole point of this post actually) which should make it clear on who is actually calling the shots in this coalition are the last three words in that Preamble sentence: ‘Canadians and Quebecers’… Since when are Quebecers NOT Canadians? It seems, though, that the NDP and Liberals deem that they aren’t. You think that it was their idea to include that little divisive statement into their agreement?
Of course, Stephen Harper would never use that language, would he? Come on, that’s a pointless distraction to the issue.
Jesus. He was addressing people in Quebec directly because he was in Quebec. It is no different if he was in Calgary addressing ‘Calgarians’. There was no reason to put ‘Quebecers’ in a document addressed to all Canadians.
He was announcing a national program addressed to all Canadians from a location in Quebec. You’re saying if he did the same thing in Calgary he would talk of “Canadians and Calgarians”? I think not. Harper’s just as guilty, he just does a better job of pretending it never happened once he’s back in the ROC.
And my point is that squabbling over boilerplate political language and pretending it means something is part of what’s keeping people from actually resolving this issue. Can we all be adults?
A question from another country where separatist parties have at times been part of government coalitions.
Would a regionalist (but no separatist) party be acceptable to you guys as a government coalition? To me it’s a completely different proposition (the regionalist guys I normally vote for are perfectly happy to work with other regions and with the national government, they have no “us vs them” mentality unless bitten first), but for some of the posters here it seems to be the same problem. My region has some legal peculiarities that many of us see as needing protecting, as the national government insists in periodically trying to bite them off (see above, so long as they don’t we’re happy to collaborate).
Would it be a problem if, say, the Minister for Language (if such a title existed) was a bilingual linguistics professor from the non-separatist Quebecois League?
“It’s a great honour and a special pleasure to be back in Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships.
I’m especially pleased to be back again with Premier Charest, in his riding”
Read the blasted thing, will ya? He is being hosted in Quebec and is addressing them, because they are his hosts, in addition to talking to other Canadians. It is entirely different than creating a document that applies to all Canadians generically.
If the words don’t mean anything then why use them? What is the point of separating Canadians from Quebecers unless they used those terms to throw a bone to the separatists?
Adults expect people to take responsibility for their actions and words. This document looks like it is on official government stationary and signed by three leaders of official political parties from Canada that accept public money to put forward their agenda. It is not childish to discuss that agenda no matter how inconsequential you think their words actually mean. We have spent large amounts of money combating the separatists to keep this country as one country. Surely there are other ways to get what they want without making such a distinction.
In the French version of the linked document, Harper does say “les Québécois et les Canadiens” at a few points, while in English it is “Quebecers and all Canadians” (bolding mine). I wouldn’t be surprised if Harper had addressed people (in Quebec) as “Québécois et Canadiens”, but only in French. He’s politically-savvy enough to know not to do it in the English version, and that English-language media will not care about what he’s said in French if there’s an official translation available. I may try to dig up a video later.
Well, there are many differences between Spain and Canada’s political systems. As I understand, Spain, while being composed of autonomous regions, is a unitary and not a federal state. This means that Spain’s regions, even if they are constitutionally recognized as I believe they are, do not enjoy as much autonomy as Canadian provinces.
I’d wager to say that most of the posters in these threads who oppose the coalition signing an official agreement with the Bloc québécois would say they believe that political parties representing a single province should only run provincially. Many Canadian provinces do in fact have parties unaffiliated with the pan-Canadian parties. These posters would say that federal political parties should run candidates in the whole country and support issues that affect all Canadians, and leave the regional stuff to provincial parties and provincial governments.
The problem is that sometimes issues that are under the responsibility of the federal government affect some provinces disproportionally. Or, it is perceived that none of the pan-Canadian parties recognize the fact, as you say, that one region has particularities that need protecting. It is at this time that federal parties of a regionalist nature rise.
In the case of the Bloc québécois, most Quebecers vote for it because of disgust for the Liberal Party (perceived both as a party of corruption and a centralizing party that seeks to impose national policies without consulting with the provincial governments, even when they are the ones who should be in charge) and fear of the Conservative Party (perceived as much too right-wing, in terms of its cultural policies for example). It’s worth remembering that most Quebecers have a sense of belonging to Canada that’s different from most other Canadians’, and some people see this as “separatist” when it is not necessarily. For example, to Uzi, the coalition document referring to “Canadians and Quebecers” is “throw[ing] a bone to the separatists”. To me it barely registers, because it’s clear that I’m a Quebecer first, while “Canadians” mostly refers to people outside of Quebec, who have a different culture from mine. I still think the coalition partners might have done better not to use this formulation, because if it had only referred to “Canadians” I wouldn’t have noticed the absence of “Quebecers” either.