News   Apr 20, 2026
One Thirty Eight Rises Above Grade as Podium Takes Shape in Yorkville
 643     0 
News   Apr 20, 2026
April UTPro Data Confirms Early 2026 Upward Development Trends
 440     0 
News   Apr 20, 2026
OLT Settlement Backs Trio of Towers Near St Clair-Old Weston Station
 1.1K     3 

Who will be the next Liberal leader?

Re: question...

"Distinct society" deja vu. Wasn't that supposed to put these issues to rest?

Here's my challenge to the forum! If somehow, whether it be 1 or 10 years from now, "nation" status gets recgonised in the House of Commons, what terminology will separatist-types be demanding next?
 
Re: question...

If somehow, whether it be 1 or 10 years from now, "nation" status gets recgonised in the House of Commons, what terminology will separatist-types be demanding next?
Click to expand...

Having nation status recognized in the House of Commons is really no more than political pagentry. It would be a nice gesture, but hold little weight in the end.

So I would say that if that did take place then very little would change and the "seperatist-types" would continue to use the same terminology and keep pushing towards having Canada recognized as a Multinational country in the constitution.
 
Re: question...

The whole "nation" debate within Canada is idiotic. It offers up a word and a vague concept for people to argue about as there is no actual conclusion to this debate. In my opinion Canada is a nation that should be defined by its diverse population. We all "wear different hats" in our lives, and we are not just one specific culture or defined by the place in which we live within the country.
 
Re: question...

The fight isn't for the word nation, it's for the word nation so that they can leverage greater autonomy and influence domestically and internationally.

I was trying to keep an open mind for Ignatief. Once I heard a little about this nation business, he lost any and all support I had for him. If he's elected leader I'll probably be voting Green next time around. I think he'd actually be a more dangerous PM than Harper.
 
Re: question...

Quebecers form a nation within Canada: PM

Last Updated: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 | 3:25 PM ET
CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has waded into the controversial issue of Quebec nationhood, saying he would introduce a motion recognizing that Quebecers form a nation "within a united Canada."

Harper, who announced his intention in the House on Wednesday afternoon, was prompted by a Bloc Québécois motion to be debated Thursday. It calls for Quebec to be recognized as a nation.

While the Tories have already said they will oppose that motion, some Liberals say they'll support it because they believe it merely states the obvious.

But others say it's too vague and open to interpretation.

The long-simmering issue first hit the headlines again in October, when the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party voted to recognize Quebec as a nation. The Liberal motion differs from the Bloc motion in that it includes the words "in Canada."

The issue immediately caused controversy within the federal Liberal party, as various leadership contenders either weighed in the issue or urged party members not to let it dominate the race.

In his platform, Liberal leadership contender Michael Ignatieff contends that Quebecers' language, history, culture and territory mark "them out as a separate people" who should be recognized as a nation.

He also said that recognition, as well as the recognition of aboriginal first nations, should eventually be enshrined in the Constitution.

But leadership candidates Bob Rae and Stéphane Dion have argued against the position.

Rae said the party shouldn't reopen constitutional questions and Dion has said the province's status is a "symbolic" question and shouldn't divert attention from real issues.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So it appears Cdl's theoretical question will actually now be tested. I wont even make predictions as to what this will to do in the short term in regards to the federal elections and domestic politics in general. At the very least it should should make Canadian politics very interesting to follow for the next little while.
 
Re: question...

Don't these idiots go to Quebec? The population is quite diverse - like the rest of Canada. It is hardly a cultural hegemony.

Is nationhood supposed to be recognizing the french-speaking majority? Then what about the none-francophone minority? Who are they within Quebec? Outsiders? What about the Cree, the Innu, the Inuit? If it is about "founding peoples," what about them? What about the people of English origin, or Scottish, or Irish for that matter? They don't seem to cut it with respect to recognizing Quebec's supposed special status? What about francophones outside of Quebec, like in New Brunswick or Ontario?

Is it about language? If not, then what the hell is this "nationhood" supposed to be recognizing?

What about the future? The demography of Canada will continue to change, and so will Quebec's demographic make-up. With this "recognition" in place the constitution will be fitted with a pointless reference to the past. Is Quebec then to be "constructed" on the basis of this special recognition?

This has got to be one of the dumbest vote-buying efforts ever. And largely re-ignited by a Harvard moron who has spent considerable time Questioning the excesses of nationalism. Way to go, Iggy pop.
 
Re: question...

^ I agree, I don't understand why Iggy raised this in the first place, and I don't know why Harper is now apparently signing on to it, other than the weak excuse that the BQ were preparing to bring forward a motion in Parliament which none of the other three parties would have been able to support.

Some commentator on the radio was saying a couple of hours ago that this latest motion is pretty much the best idea since sliced bread, since the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP are apparently all supporting it. Big deal, it would have been better for them to all support the idea of leaving this alone.
 
Re: question...

The latest Harper motion is designed to hit the Liberals, who are very much split on the Quebec nation question.

Dubya went to Yale. Iggy went to Harvard. Great schools a great mind do not necessarily make.
 
Re: question...

Okay, if no one else will I'll make my own prediction. When this whole nation thing blows over, I wager that we will hear rumblings of the need for "recgonition of Quebec's inalienable right to determine its own character and/or destiny".

Maybe one day we'll discover that what matters is the reality of the situation, not the terminology used. Newspapers and the public will write off such arguments as being reminiscent of "20th century semantic debates". Oh, to dream...
 
Re: question...

I might as well toss in my own prediction. In the short term, English Canada will congratulate itself on being so progressive for its new recognition of Quebec. Some drinks will be had and most in English Canada will assume that the problem has been solved and Harper has dealt a severe blow to the Bloc and seperatist cause.

With the problem now sovled Quebec nationalists continue to work over the next 5 or 10 years on new strategies, economic plans, and develop a new grassroots independence movement, in relative silence and out of sight of the english media (which isn't hard since most English journalists never bother to read French media). Somewhere around 2015 people one day wake up to find that they have awakened in a country that is very similair to 1995 and scratch their heads wondering what happened to that solution that was so celebrated just 10 years earlier.
 
Re: question...

For those of you who watched Iggy pop last Sunday with Evan Solomon on CBC, our man from Harvard suggested that not only should Quebec as a nation be implanted into the constitution, but he alluded to the notion that he wanted to redo the entire document. Apparently he believes that the present constitution we have is "divisive."

Iggs does not appear to be short on ego.

Save Canada. Don't vote Iggy pop.
 
Re: question...

anti,

By 2015, won't a lot of the current and past rationales for separation be weakened by time? But then, I guess I really don't understand what separatists are after. Independence of foreign policy? I don't see much anything else that they don't already have, directly or indirectly. As it is, Quebec drives the national agenda most of the time. The tail definitely wags the dog...
 
Re: question...

SES/Sun Media Poll: What Canadians like/dislike about the Liberal Party of Canada

Source: “SES/Sun Media Survey.â€
web: www.sesresearch.com

SES asked Canadians to describe in their own words what they liked and disliked about the Liberal Party of Canada. The most popular ‘like’ was ‘like nothing’ followed by ‘policies’, 'they are about as good as any other party’ and that ‘they are an alternative’.
Although the media focus has been on the Liberal leadership, polling shows that there are clearly some bigger issues with the Liberal ‘brand’. The fact that one of every three Canadians, unprompted, used words like ‘corrupt’ and ‘scandal’ to describe the Liberals shows that the Liberal image has not recovered from the sponsorship scandal. The Liberals have a steep mountain to climb to get over this challenge. Although the Liberals will have a new leader, a key question Canadians will likely ask is – how will this new leader be a break with the past?

It’s interesting to note that even with this image problem we have a statistical tie between the Conservatives and the Liberals. On the one hand we have the Liberals who still have baggage...on the other we have the Conservatives who are mired in foreign policy which has mixed traction among voters.

You can comment on these results and continue the discussion at www.nikonthenumbers.com.

Methodology
Polling between November 5th and 9th, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of 1,002 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). The aggregate survey results are accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. The margin of accuracy will be wider for sub samples. Readers should note that the data was weighted for gender and age to match the latest Canadian census results. Results should be considered representative of the Canadian population. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.


Canadian (N=1,002, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
What words would you use to describe what you like, if anything, about the Liberal Party of Canada? [Open-ended]

Top Likes
Like nothing – 22%
Policies/moderate/flexible – 16%
They are ok/as good as any other party – 8%
A good alternative – 5%
Getting better/trying to change – 5%
Reflect society/pan Canadian – 3%

What words would you use to describe what you dislike, if anything about the Liberal Party of Canada? [Open-ended]

Top Dislikes
Corrupt/scandal – 33%
Dislike nothing – 10%
Arrogant/haven’t changed – 9%
Leadership divisions/disorganized – 5%
Bad policies – 3%
Never fulfill promises/say anything - 3%
Not accountable/weak-bad government – 3%
 
Re: question...

Kinsella makes a good point on his blog today...

One thing is for sure about these self-destructive constitutional wars: they certainly remind you of how old you are.

Last night, watching the élites - that is, every politician in Canada - clapping each other on the back for their statesmanship, their lack of partisanship, and so on, I could have sworn I had been flung back in time to nearly 20 years ago, when another batch of politicians gathered at picturesque Meech Lake and praised each other for statesmanship and lack of partisanship and whatnot. Thereafter, as all of us old guys will remember, the country was flung into a downward spiral of misunderstandings, division and brinkmanship. The economy took a shit-kicking too, as I recall.

The sameness of the arguments - the familiarity of last night's scene - left me marvelling. Deju vu does not begin to describe it. As the adage goes, I've seen this bloody movie before, and I know how it ends.

Now, of course, I have been and will continue to be bombarded by emails by idealistic young Tories and Grits imploring me to remember that "it's just words, Warren! No one is proposing constitutional change! Don't worry, be happy!"

Apologies for pulling age rank on you, youngsters, but I've heard that one before, too. We are now at the IT'S JUST A RECOGNITION OF A HISTORICAL FACT stage. The next stage, as the virus progresses through the patient (ie., Canada) is the THE WORDS HAVE NO MEANING IF WE AREN'T PREPARED TO GIVE THEM EFFECT stage. Thereafter, the WE ARE IN DEEP SHIT, WE HAVE STIRRED THE NATIONALISTS AND WE'D BETTER KEEP GOING OR THEY'LL WIN stage. Then, rigor mortis: REFERENDUM. Happens every time.

As an old guy, I'm encouraged that the Star, Globe and Post have all editorialized this morning against what the politicians have done. If nothing else, getting old is made better by the realization that one is not alone.
 
Re: question...

I wonder if the irony is lost on him that while he talks about having seen this all before, his words and comments fall into that exact same category. An English Canadian espousing "if you give just a little they will walk all over us", stirring the fear of referendums and eventual collapse of Canada. He is correct in a sense that the cycle has started. But so too has he started the cycle of typical reaction among English Canada. First comes the tough talk of Federalists who do not to give Quebec even a single scrap to chew on. Then comes the stage of ideological clashing where each side stands their ground and any sense of civility is lost. Then comes bargaining and compromise as the final day approaches and the scramble to play nice and speak kindly increase with each hour that ticks away.

I want to add one more point that I have yet to see raised in any English media I have read or listened to (not that the point hasn't been raised somewhere but it seems to be lost under a somewhat holier than thou attitude that the Federal government is the final word on the subject). What the Federal government does or says, outside of any changes with real legal weight and meaning (such as constitutional changes), amounts to nothing. It was once said (and by who I cannot remember since the name temporarily escapes me) that the future of Quebec will be decided in Quebec, not Ottawa. Ultimately, whether the Conservative wording, or the Bloc wording are accepted or rejected, whether politicians agree or disagree with this resolution does not matter. The issue will be decided by the citizens of Quebec, in a provincial forum, regardless of what the prevailing attitudes and desires of the rest of Canada are (be it a decision to remain as is or become a nation-state, or whatever else might be discusses).

This whole affair can probably best be compared to the silly busing in of Ontario federalists to Quebec just before the referendum vote and creating a "feel good" scene of unity. That "made in Ottawa" event was as meaningless and useless to the debate as this event will ultimately be. At the very least it is wonderfully entertaining political theatre.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top