Face the nation - three views

I. HERE'S the text of the Quebec Liberals' resolution, to be debated at the Liberal Party of Canada's national convention:

WHEREAS history recognizes the three founding peoples of Canada - Aboriginal, French and English; WHEREAS Quebec is a founding member of the Canadian federation and is the principal cradle of the French presence in North America; WHEREAS Quebec defines itself primarily, although not exclusively, by its unique language and culture, its civil law and its inestimable contribution to the political, economic, and cultural evolution of Canada; WHEREAS Quebec covers a specific territory and recognizes the historical linguistic duality and cultural plurality within this territory as enshrined in both the Canadian and Quebec Charters of Rights and Freedoms; WHEREAS the majority of Quebeckers wish to retain their historical partnership with the rest of Canada, respecting their partners' cultural and social aspirations; WHEREAS countries have long recognized nations within their borders without upsetting either domestic or international legal frameworks; and WHEREAS it is duty of the Liberal Party of Canada to take the lead in order to assure that each member of the Canadian federation is accorded the proper respect and recognition necessary to facilitate future discussions regarding the evolution of a Canada that best reflects its modern and advanced society; BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada recognizes the Quebec nation within Canada. BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada will create an expert taskforce with the mandate of reporting to the next Leader of the Party on possible ways and the appropriate timing to officialise this historical and social reality.

Aside from the casual rewriting of history (Quebec, as we know it, was not "a founding member of the Canadian federation" -- it was created by Confederation, out of the old Province of Canada), three things jump out immediately. One, it is abundantly clear that the definition of nation is linguistic-cultural, not civic-political ("its language and culture"). On that basis, it is nonsense to say that "Quebec is a nation," unless you wish out of existence several hundred thousand anglophones and allophones. Two, it is explicitly a "deux nations" vision of the country, with Quebec on the one hand and "rest of Canada" on the other. Binational compacts of this sort -- Czechoslovakia anyone? -- do not have a good track record of stability. Three, though it avoids directly committing the party to constitutional entrenchment, it is hard to attach any other meaning to "officialise." Nor, it is clear, is this the end. Far from it: the offering of "respect and recognition" to Quebec is the starting point to "facilitate future discussions." II. HERE'S Stephane Dion's politically shrewd take on the controversy, as expressed in his letter to La Presse yesterday:

Before entering politics, more than ten years ago, I maintained that we Quebecers could be described as forming a nation, in the civic and sociological sense of the term. Last Saturday, however, I voted against the resolution put forward by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada calling for the party to undertake the necessary steps towards a formal recognition of Quebec as a nation. Before we ask other Canadians to support such a formal recognition (in the constitution no doubt) we should first of all determine what we expect from such a recognition. Hiding behind the apparent consensus in Quebec on this question are at least three disagreements. First question: are Quebecers the only nation to be recognized within Canada, or will we accept that other groups, heartened by our example, be given the same recognition? Will the pressure exercised by an undetermined number of human groups in Canada, including in Quebec, to be recognized as nations lead us to conclude that our own national recognition has been trivialized or diluted? Second question: is this recognition necessary or is it rather only something desirable? Those who say it is necessary must follow their reasoning to its conclusion: if we Quebecers do not obtain this recognition then we must leave Canada. Indeed, one cannot live without something that is necessary. Those who say that, on the contrary, this recognition would only be a good thing to obtain should not place it at the heart of the Canadian unity debate. You do not break up a country on account of something that is good but not necessary. Third question: do we want this recognition to be purely symbolic or, on the contrary, do we want it to lead to concrete consequences on, say, the division of powers or the allocation of public funds. And how does this approach square with the previous question? It is contradictory to affirm that the recognition of Quebec as a nation is necessary but purely symbolic. But that is the untenable position Michael Ignatieff has decided to advocate. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc leader, and Claude Morin, the former PQ minister, have already responded that if the recognition of Quebec as a nation in Canada is important then it must bring about “something” beyond symbolism. We’ve seen this movie three times already. First it was the debate on the constitutional recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society” contained in the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Then came the Calgary Declaration, a 1997 episode which few people remember. The Premiers of the other provinces tried to define, for us Quebeckers, the type of recognition we wanted. They had their legislatures adopt a declaration that recognized “the unique character of Quebec society”. When the Declaration landed in Quebec, the province’s political class rejected it, stating that this recognition “had no teeth.” So, here is my position: I am proud to belong to the Quebec nation within Canada. The constitutional recognition of such a fact, although desirable, is not necessary because nothing prevents us Quebeckers from participating and succeeding in this great endeavor that is Canada, a country we have contributed so much to building. Nothing can justify that we renounce our Canadian identity. Such a rupture would be a tragedy, for ourselves, our children and future generations. We should not be encouraged to make such a mistake on the basis of a recognition that is desirable but not necessary. That is my position and I am more than willing to debate it because I do not underestimate the importance of symbols and recognitions. But I do not believe that we should ask other Canadians for such a recognition until we have clarified what we are hoping to obtain from it. Although it is an important one, I do not believe this debate is the most important thing we can do to improve Quebec and Canada as a whole. For me, the main issue by far is to ensure Canada is part of the solution, not the problem, to the crucial challenge of the 21st century: how to reconcile humanity with the ecological limits of the planet. That is the vision and the plan of action I am proposing to Canadians in order to combine the three pillars of our success: economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability. Quebeckers, we have better things to do than to see this movie for a fourth time. We should mobilize ourselves to make our country a pathfinder in the 21st century. Let’s contribute all our talents, energies and our own culture, as we have always done in the past, when we have had to respond with other Canadians to great challenges.

III. HERE'S the Ignatieff camp's reply, as emailed to Warren Kinsella (!).

On the matter of recognizing Quebec as a nation, let's be clear: all four of the front-running leadership candidates have said that they believe Quebec is a nation. The recognition of Quebec as a nation is about making federalism relevant to Quebeckers once again. The last election produced the second worst result since Confederation for the Liberal Party in Quebec. Eleven seats and a mere approximate 14% of the French vote in Quebec are simply not acceptable. This past weekend’s motion was a grassroots initiative. It was drafted and driven by the Quebec wing of the Party as part of its policy process. The resolution passed with 80% support, from supporters of Ignatieff, Rae and Dion. The LPCQ resolution is identical to the stated position of ALL of the leadership candidates with the exception of Martha Hall Findlay. It is an error to equate the recognition by the LPC of Quebec as a nation as a matter of policy as a commitment by the LPC to seek constitutional reform. Rae and Dion are inaccurately framing the LPCQ resolution as a referendum on whether the LPC should support opening the constitution or not, even though the motion calls only for a Task Force to explore a path forward. The Liberal Party of Canada’s Task Force on Federalism, led by former Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon who is supporting Bob Rae, has also recommended that the Liberal Party of Canada recognize that Quebec is a nation. Michael’s position differs only in that he would leave the door open for constitutional talks in the future if the conditions are right. Michael is a leader who would not let the failures of the past prevent him for seizing an opportunity in the future, when the time is right and the political will and good faith are there. In August of this year, Bob Rae said on this issue: "I always supported the notion that Quebec ... is a nation, it is a distinct society, which we need to recognize in our Constitution and I have fought for that," Mr. Rae said. "The genius behind federalism is that we can be both a Quebecker and a Canadian." (Globe & Mail, August 10, 2006). In sharp contrast to what Dion says today in La Presse, Dion used to say that the recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec outside of constitutional reform was a good thing for the country. The following quote is from Dion in the House of Commons, well after Meech and Charlottetown and also following the last referendum: "Mr. Speaker, today the support for the distinct society clause is about 40 per cent in polls. It is lower in this poll because it was connected with a kind of question that looks like a threat: 'If you don't recognize Quebec, then Quebec may leave'. Instead of increasing support, it decreased it. I urge the hon. member to look at the recognition of Quebec on its own merit, why it is good, why it is bad. I think it is good. It is good for our country. It is good for Canadian values. It would not endanger the charter of rights and freedoms. It would not endanger equality between citizens. It would be a great thing to recognize Quebec distinctiveness as a fundamental characteristic of our country. … Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear. This government has said that we do not want to make a change in the Constitution if it is not supported by Canadians. So we will try to convince Canadians that in order to reconcile Quebecers and other Canadians it would be a fair and good thing to recognize that in this anglophone North America there is a province of Canada that is francophone and this is an asset for Canada. If it were the province of the hon. member that was francophone we would recognize this province without any problem and we would be proud of it.” (November 20, 1996)