Tuesday, November 28, 2006

We're not so different, you and I

While some are trying to paint sharp contrasts between Kennedy and Dion over this nation thing, the fact is the divisions are smaller than you may think. Indeed, they, and probably nearly all of the other leadership candidates, are pretty much on the same page here. The only difference is a matter of strategy.

I opposed the HoC motion and Dion supported it, yet I still support Dion. Ontario MP Mark Holland supported the motion and Kennedy opposed it, yet Holland still supports Kennedy; in fact he’s Kennedy’s Ontario campaign chair. And indeed, all four of us are pretty much on the same page.

On Peter VanDusen’s show on CPAC tonight Holland explained why he can support this motion and still support Gerard, and how they aren’t really that far apart on the important points of the issue:

“I don’t think Gerard is wrong. Gerard has stated some concerns that I share. Gerard is concerned that this is going to be beyond something symbolic, that this is going to carry towards officialization and move toward constitutional recognition of Quebec as a nation, which is something that is unacceptable. What I share with Gerard is the belief we need to draw a firm line here at this point. That it is unacceptable to undermine federalism any further. That as a symbolic gesture, recognizing Quebec as a nation is a sociological sense, in a symbolic way, in a motion in the house, that is fine by me but Gerard is afraid of what comes after, as am I. That’s one of the things that we’re going to have to work on, and I think it’s going to be a big issue at this convention.”

All four of us agree, I think, that there's some sort of sociological type of nation there. We’re all against any kind of officialization of such a recognition. Stephane and Mark, since the genie has been uncorked (thanks Iggy!), favour giving at least symbolic recognition of the fact we all agree on as a compromise to Quebecers. Gerard and I oppose even that symbolic recognition because it will lead to demands for officialization, something all four of us oppose and will fight against.

So, besides that point of strategy (small sop and fight or stand firm and fight) everyone is on the same page until it comes to officialization, and even then as far as I know there is only one leadership candidate that favours that…although only at some future point in time, when the “winning conditions” are in place, yada yada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


James Curran said...

Amen brother. My thoughts exactly. Dion is the right choice to lead this party.

The What Do I Know Grit.

Anonymous said...

You are kidding, right?
You guys insult Kennedy for doing the right thing when Dion caved and now you want Kennedy votes.

Bye Bye.

Anonymous said...

Kennedy's Ontario campaign chair did not think that he was "doing the right thing"

Anonymous said...

I can't understand why Holland is supporting Kennedy - Holland should be running for leadership. He' smart, on the ball and debates really well.

Kennedy should be support HOLLAND. Sorry, but Kennedy is all about "buzz" words with no vision.

Actually, I think their all wrong and I'm going to get jabbed for this one.

I am a "Canadian" - many, many generations back - among the first settlers.

I am "Canadian" - not an extension of Britain. We have a double-standard here. We are forced to hold British traditions, but don't want the French to hold their traditions.

How about Canadian truly being it's own country and sever ties with Britain. Then, and then, can we be truly Canadian. Right now it's a farce.

Jeff said...

Someone's going to have to point out to me where I insulted Kennedy, I don't recall that.