Tuesday, October 09, 2007

On motivations

William Johnston is worth reading in the Gazette today (h/t Eugene):

But, in the aftermath, the Liberal Party in Quebec remains ideologically at odds with its national leader. Some departing candidates evoke the controversy over the nation resolution; one even refers to the Clarity Act as "a piece of shit."

Reconciliation and unity will not be restored until the Quebec Liberals disarm in the current ideological strife.

By the way, whichever departing candidate said that I don't consider a major loss.

Anyway, I think Johnson is right, the ideological strife needs to be set aside. Compromise, detente. We need to move past this nation business. Put it behind us. We need to find common ground, supported by both the Dion OLO and the nationalists of the LPCQ, and, this is important too, policy that will be supported in the rest of Canada as well. That seems to be often forgotten here.

Hopefully the two sides will put past differences aside and try to find the common ground. If their motivations are to grow the party, and not just to advance personal agendas, I'm sure they will...

UPDATE: Paul Wells weighs-in on the Johnson column:
I've been having more and more fun imagining a post-Dion Liberal party. Not because I want to see it, but because I like to imagine a great national institution like the Liberal party screwing itself utterly, and I think that's the likely outcome if all those failed no-name "would-be star Quebec candidates" get their way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

1 comment:

Loraine Lamontagne said...

When I last visited my home province in January of this year; both in Montreal and in Quebec City I was told by friends and family members that ‘Dion should not have the right to present himself in Quebec”. I’ve read that comment in blogs many times as well. It left me scratching my head for months. Johnson puts brilliantly into words what I have now come to understand :
“But, in Quebec, the theory of the two founding peoples always assumed as corollary that Quebec must have at a minimum extensive powers not exercised by other provinces.

This theory was rejected by Dion who had long argued that important unique jurisdictions for the Quebec government would leave Quebec's representatives in Ottawa as impotent second-class members of Parliament. On matters that came before the Commons implicating the rest of Canada but not Quebec, they would have no legitimacy to cast a vote. Hence they would be ineligible for appointment to cabinet, which acts for the whole country or to become prime minister. That countered Quebec's true interests, he argued.”

Bloc voters and nationalist Quebec Liberals, i.e., Jean Lapierre and his ilk, have come to believe that a French-speaking Québécois cannot legitimately act for the whole country or become prime minister. Voters choose Bloc candidates they know will never become cabinet members.

I think it is high time that we ask of Quebec Liberals their opinion on this subject. Do they, too, now believe that no French-speaking Québécois should ever again become prime minister of Canada? Seems to me that the Conservatives have picked up on this a while ago, e.g., their attack on Dion as not being a legitimate Canadian.