quote:

---

These days, Jacks runs around Quebec with a big smile on his face. He goes all over the place with the ex Charest Minister, Thomas Mulcair, who was also the director of the anti-nationalist lobby of the Anglophone minority, Alliance-Québec, and who was elected in a by election in Outremont last year. He thinks he can zip in Mulcair again and maybe another MP with disaffected Liberal voters like in Westmount where the NPD candidate is a popular radio show host called Dawson-Lagacé. And on the overall he hopes to augment his share of the vote nibbling on the edge of the Bloc Québecois’ vote, because too many people are angry with the Nationalists. I like Jack personally, but I think this is lousy politics.

---

I've expressed concerns about the NPD running an ex-Liberal cabinet minister from a right-wing provincial administration. Having said that, Mulcair's done really well on the important issues from what I can see. What's happening is that there is an NDP beachhead forming in the Montreal area. Once that is established, then it will be possible in the future to expand further into Quebec. Several Quebec ridings, are demographically similar to NDP ridings throughout Canada, with the only major difference being the dominant language spoken. It's also noteworthy that the Quebec wing of the Liberal party was an important ally on the missile defence question.

quote:

---

The popular bases of the NPD in Ontario and the West are not spontaneously sympathetic to Quebec social forces. They are mostly ignorant, believing the rightwing propaganda, (many activists read the National Post and watch CTV!) that Quebec is a nest of quasi Nazis, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant, anti-aboriginal. They also believe that Canada needs a «strong central» (read federal) state and that any idea of «national» or «provincial» autonomy is bad for the working people. There are many exceptions of course, but that is the major trend.

---

I am so sick of this "Quebec good, beaten down by bad English Canada" mythology that the nationalists like to promote. Does Quebec have legitimate grievances regarding how Confederation has (not) worked? Absolutely. So does every other province, several of which have also threatened separation. It's simply a hard sell in the Rest of Canada (another phony nationalist term) that the province of Quebec should be extended what they see as "special privileges," and feeds into the right-wing narrative that Quebeckers are "whiners." This is what causes people to think, "if they want to go, let them go."

In terms of the Aboriginal issue, not like the rest of the country has much to be proud of, but Quebec has also mistreated them. Classic example was ramming the James Bay project down the throat of the First Nations. It's also a point of contention among hard-core nationalists that the second language for many Aboriginal communities, after their native languages, is English, not French. Recall that during the 1995 referendum Aboriginal leaders called for a boycott. It is entirely possible that the sovereigntists have since reached out to First Nations in that time, I don't know. But let's not whitewash this part of Quebec's history.

quote:

---

At the basis, there is a denial that Canada was and still is a colonial construct

---

while Quebec isn't?

quote:

---

Today, the NPD is way out of this debate, thinking, like the Canadian bourgeoisie, that the nationalists are on the run and that the «threat» of separation is out of the picture. It’s a big mistake on two counts. First, it is not going to disappear. Second and more importantly, what is the project of a left party if not to challenge, and eventually to replace the structures of domination?

---

Is Beaudet not aware of la declaration de Sherbrooke? It addresses this exact same question, and passed easily at the last NDP convention. Has he forgotten that former leadership contender and nationalist Pierre Ducasse is running for the NPD across the river from Parliament? As for separation declining in importance? If that's not true, how does he explain the PQ losing seats in 2 consecutive elections while campaigning on that? How does he explain why Marois herself said the issue isn't importance? I always tell people here who say they are tired of hearing about Quebec separation to imagine what it must be like to be bitterly divided among their friends and families over the topic every time it comes up. Quebeckers on both sides of the federalist/soveriegntist spectrum are tired of that.

These issues are also taking a back seat to such things as the economy, the environment, and the war in Afghanistan. What Layton is trying to do is to build common ground among people inside and outside of Quebec on these issues. That's how you win is to find common ground among your differences. Constantly discussing our differences is what keeps us divided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Claiming to seek common ground but on your own terrain and while you are busy chipping away at your vis-à-vis' political base is just propaganda.

---

How am I seeking common ground on my own terrain when much of what I read from Quebec leftists boils down to, "we're a nation and if you don't agree with that narrative it's because you're part of the oppressive Canadian bourgeois?" Has Beaudete or anyone else who thinks like him been to other parts of Canada? If so, why do they insist on this phony Quebec/ROC dichotomy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:If the NDP were serious about the oft-quoted "déclaration de Sherbrooke", it would not run candidates against Bloquistes in Franco ridings.

---

Why not? The Bloc exists primarily to defend Quebec's interests in Parliament, the NDP is a social-democratic party. 2 completely different things. The NDP is under no obligation to stand down and support the interests of another party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Look at a party such as Quebec Solidaire and you will find most of Quebec's progressives, united around independantist, socialist and feminist principles. But I imagine you are terrified at finding yourselves forced to deal with the Alberta dinosaurs without our help.

---

And yet QS, while unflinchingly independantist, is primarily concerned with such things as poverty, the environment, and corporate globalisation. That's why for it's first time out last year, it did relatively well in provincial elections, because they were interested in the practical day-to-day concerns of Quebeckers.

By the way, Western Canadians aren't all "dinosaurs." There are many of them, inside and outside of Alberta, who are working on a number of issues and there are several success stories. The key thing is to focus on areas where you can make a difference, that improves the lives of people on the ground, whether they live in Quebec, Alberta, Inuvik, or anywhere else in between. There's really no appetite anywhere in Canada for endless discussions around these issues which only result in frustration. Remember how badly the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords ended?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Okay, well why do they feel that way then?

---

You know, I have a lot of patience for this kind of discussion with friends, co-workers, one-on-one, etc. It's important to try to explain to people why Quebeckers feel the way they do.

But I don't have that patience right now. It's an old story, and progressives ought to either know it, or else know where to look it up. If you don't like Beaudet's article (and there's much more to be said than he did, because his theme is specifically why the NDP has historically failed in Québec), then read some more stuff.

I personally am not a "sovereignist".

But I fully, wholeheartedly, support the right of the people of Québec to self-determination, including the right to form our own independent state - without interference from outside, and indeed without having first to "explain" to others why we want it. I fully, unreservedly, support our right to demand and win powers within a federal state that will enable us to safeguard and develop our national culture, language, values, and institutions.

That goes for Aboriginal nations as well, by the way - and I have no sympathy whatsoever for Quebeckers or Canadians who consider that Aboriginal rights must be subordinated to some greater "nation".

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
Is it a pur laine kinda thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
I'm confused. Nativism is bad when... but nativism is good when...

---

The NDP was running candidates before the BQ existed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank_:

The NDP was running candidates before the BQ existed.

---

That's right. The CCF/NDP went nowhere in Québec for decades.

quote:

---

In a nutshell the counter-argument is simply the NDP is always wrong about everything.

---

The other stuff is simply not worth debating. I have no interest in debating anything with someone who does not recognise Québec as a nation (like Scotland or Catalonia) or who talks about "myths" (shades of Mordechai Richler and William Johnston).

As for "nativism", that is not a political term relevant to any faction within Québec. It is originally a 19th-century US political term. It is not an adequate description of the inward-turned, protective, "frileux" self-protection of old French Canada as a minority - and conquered - nation in North America, and far less to modern Québécois politics with people such as Amir Khadir of QS or Vivian Barbot of the Bloc (the latter up against Justin Trudeau).

I suppose the reactionary, xenophobic movements around the ADQ and the Hérouxville bigots share some characteristics of nativism, but the latter was an aggressive, assimilationist (within racist and culturalist limits) movement within a US enamoured of power and manifest destiny. It is silly to simply "plaquer" such a term on a retrograde movement within a minority nation.

In general I think Pierre's column is accurate; perhaps he is rather too critical of Mulcair in light of the latter's evolution (the reason he left the Liberal caucus) and his performance as an MP.

quote:

---

That's right. The CCF/NDP went nowhere in Québec for decades.

---

What a revelation. I'm going to call NDP HQ and let them know.

quote:

---

I have no interest in debating anything with someone who does not recognise Québec as a nation

---

Exactly, why bother when you can talk only to those who already agree with you?

That's the whole problem with the internet isn't it, you might hear contrarian views.

Perhaps I will go to Bloc forums and post on how they shouldn't run candidates against the NDP because they don't bring anything new to the table. Then put on a front of being shocked that anyone would say they didn't care what I thought.

Having lived in Alberta I know all about people who don't like hearing "outlandish" views and who say they can't stand to even listen to an NDPer.

Aristotleded24 wrote a decent post which wasn't mean-spirited and was certainly put nicer than the post that inspired him to write (Beaudet's).

The idea that the NDP should not run candidates in BQ held seats is absurd. The BQ is not a leftwing party - they are just pro-sovereignty and many of their MPs are very rightwing ADQ types. Why should the NDP roll over and play dead for a party that supports expanding trade agreements, supports the war in Afghanbistan and opposes raising the federal minimum wage and which propped up Harper for the first year he was in power and voted for two Tory budgets?

When Jacques Brassard "accused" the BQ of being a twin of the NDP - Duceppe retorted that the BQ was totally different from the NDP because the NDP (horror of horrors) supports diversity and multi-culturalism and doesn't want more free trade agreements and wants to pull out of Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Why not? The Bloc exists primarily to defend Quebec's interests in Parliament...

---

Which it frequently does badly or not at all, viz. pesticides, Afghanistan, voting against the 2005 budget, etc. The NDP has defended the interests of Quebecers better than the Bloc on these and other issues.

The idea that the Bloc is somehow entitled to the votes of Quebec progressives is not even worth discussing. Although several of its MPs are progressives, it is not a progressive party and cannot be expected to act like one.

The more that progressive Quebec nationalists learn about the NDP, the more they are coming towards us.

[ 15 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealais ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The NDP has always supported "self-determination" for Quebec and all you have to do is read the Sherbrooke Declaration to see a reiteration of that.

---

The first time the NDP ever supported self-determination for Québec was indeed in the Sherbrooke Declaration of 2006, and I for one praised the convention highly for adopting it.

Like the position on Afghanistan, however, it needs to be practised, perfected, and defended from those false friends of the NDP who agitate non-stop for anti-Québec positions. Like the "old guard" that convinced Layton to abandon his opposition to the Clarity Act. Like some people on this very board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
By the way, I attended the Alternatives-sponsored conference that saw the discussions among Layton, Judy Rebick and other progressive forces. More such discussions are essential if one is to really promote understanding between progressives in Québec and English-speaking Canada. The "Canada-Québec-First Nations Social Forum" has been on the drawing board for a long time; hopefully it will become reality.

---

I certainly don't think BC is the same as Ontario or the Atlantic. But I do think you are insinuating that Québec is "une province comme les autres".... Long knives?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The first time the NDP ever supported self-determination for Québec was indeed in the Sherbrooke Declaration of 2006, and I for one praised the convention highly for adopting it.

---

At its 1967 convention even the Federal Council, faced with the success of the NPD-Québec, accepted the idea of special status for Quebec.

quote:

---

In 1977, resolutions from a number of local and provincial NDP groups in different parts of Canada recommended that Quebec's right to self-determination be recognized, but the resolution was defeated at the convention. Instead, another resolution was passed affirming that the people of Quebec had a right to make their choice without constraint. Ed Broadbent asserted that this did not mean that Quebec could be sole judge of the terms of its independence. The Quebec wing interpreted the vote as a recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination.

---

quote:

---

The referendum of 1980, the Constitution Act, 1982, the economic crisis at the beginning of the decade, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's retirement, labour's dissatisfaction with the second Lévesque administration, and Quebecker's apparent indifference to the constitutional debates gave new hope to the NDP's leaders. They appeared willing to soften the Party's constitutional stance, as they had at the time of the Party's founding in 1961 and again when Robert Cliche gave it momentum in 1968. Once again they believed that circumstances favoured the NDP. A political vacuum appeared to be developing in Quebec, both federally and provincially, and the NDP leadership talked more and more about the right to self-determination, and opting-out with financial compensation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
That is the official name of the social forum, as agreed upon by representatives from Québec, whatever you want to call your nation (I don't see why "Canada" is offensive - it isn't "Rest of Canada", English Canada", or whathaveyou) and at least some of the many Aboriginal nations. I did not make it up, so stop picking on me about that. I did not invent those terms and it is not up to me to invent new terms when terms have been agreed upon by the social movements involved.

I certainly don't think BC is the same as Ontario or the Atlantic. But I do think you are insinuating that Québec is "une province comme les autres".... Long knives?

My only misgiving about my post was that some newer posters might think I was a Bloc supporter, which I most certainly am not and have never been, precisely because it is a "rotten Bloc" between nationalist Tories (Bouchard et al) and trade-unionists and other people from progressive social mouvements (Duceppe, Francine Lalonde, Oswaldo Nuñez etc) who would have been NDP candidates in ... (can I say the rest of Canada here? In BC, in Ontario, in Nova Scotia, in Saskatchewan?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[QB][/QB]

---

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I am very passionate about recognition of the right to self-determination, and overcoming a long history of anti-Québécois bigotry - in order to forge the much vaunted, and rightly so, workers' unity. You can't forge unity without recognising histories of oppression, whether racism, sexism, national oppression or whatever. And certainly not without dialogue.

I have no idea on what Aboriginal peoples (whether FN, Inuit or Métis, would be attending the Social Forum; I am not one of the organisers. There would certainly be no restrictions on any Aboriginal person or people from anywhere within the Canadian state or elsewhere in the world attending it - have you ever attended a Social Forum?

Anyone can attend, unless they are a fascist thug, or a troublemaker. The only restriction is limits on participations by leaders of political parties (and specifically prgressive political parties) as the forums are above all for social movements, not parties and their platforms.

Aboriginal Canadians attended the first World Social Forum in Brazil, and certianly others since. There have been a lot of discussions on pan-continental and international Aboriginal issues at Social Forums, and they have led to more specific meetings on those issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Part of "the club" but in Quebec's case not part of the Constitution. And I leave it to FNs to articulate their gratitude about that "direct relationship to the crown". It doesn't seem to buy them much respect.
I don't see how relationships of relative inclusion keep anyone from recognizing differences and envisioning exchanges and discussions between these three political entities as such.

---

Pierre Beaudet asserts, in his article:

At the basis, there is a denial that Canada was and still is a colonial construct, based on the subjugation of the Quebecois and the Aboriginals.

If one accepts this assertion as being entirely true everything that you have expressed concern about is simply wrong-headed.

If, on the other hand, it is only a partial truth, your concerns are potentially valid.

If one were, for example, to suggest that Central Canada (that famous Windsor-Quebec City corridor) was a colonial construct based upon the exploitation of the outlying regions you might end up with a different narrative. In that narrative you might find right-wing resistance to that colonial construct (think Social Credit) or left wing resistance (think CCF). You might find elements in the outlying regions strongly identifying with the project (and trans-generational voting behaviour in some of the more easterly areas outside of the corridor) or even a turning inward and almost isolationist attitude from some of those inside the corridor (the latter potentially compounded by ethnic and linguistic division within the Central Canadian family itself). Such a situation would not, of course, be constant, revolutions (quiet or otherwise) might occasionally happen, and a populist might have a field day with them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
When I hear easterners refer to Canada and Quebec, in reference to things taking place in central Canada, I always think they really mean Ontario and Quebec you know the old Upper and Lower.

---

From an Ontario point of view, we know that Quebec can't really get away from us, nor we from them. It's a matter of redefining or renegotiating the relationship. Since 1763 we've made about six stabs at it.

Until 1774 Quebec lived under English law.

Then until 1791 Ontario settlers lived under French law.

Then until the 1820s we were quite separate.

Then the canals had to be built, and the Montreal merchants agitated for the provinces to re-unite, or for Montreal to secede from Quebec and join Ontario. Then the railways had to be built, but meanwhile the Quebecois tried to assert the same democratic control over their government that Ontario had generally enjoyed (since the MPs we elected didn't disagree much with the governing elite), were forcibly put down in 1837, and democracy was suspended in Quebec for close to four years.

So then in 1840-41 the two provinces were forcibly amalgamated, with the initial idea of assimilating the French. That idea died within about three years, but the amalgamation took decades to die.

So then in 1867 we got the current arrangement.

quote:

---

The popular bases of the NPD in Ontario and the West are not spontaneously sympathetic to Quebec social forces. They are mostly ignorant, believing the rightwing propaganda, (many activists read the National Post and watch CTV!) that Quebec is a nest of quasi Nazis, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant, anti-aboriginal. They also believe that Canada needs a «strong central» (read federal) state and that any idea of «national» or «provincial» autonomy is bad for the working people. There are many exceptions of course, but that is the major trend.

---

Martin - I'm not sure how one goes automatically from respecting and accommodating Quebec nationalism, to dropping off the map in support of the BQ. The Bloc doesn't have a monopoly on 'speaking for Quebec' or for the Quebec left any more than Jack Layton has a monopoly on the Canadian left. And while I have lots of respect for many activists in QS, to say that it includes "most of Quebec's progressives" would be depressing if it were anywhere approaching accurate.