Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Are we witnessing the death of the Parti Québécois?


Recommended Posts

The independent Quebec within a united Canada cake and eat it too framework.
That is a sound-bite spin that was baked and served for people who can only Speak White.

That stale cake is not very palatable to people who eat pea soup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is a sound-bite spin that was baked and served for people who can only Speak White.

That stale cake is not very palatable to people who eat pea soup.

Unfortunately, that is how autonomy is sold to Quebecers by Quebecers. The PQ and the ADQ are deliberately vague on what sovereignty and autonomy means.

As for your vaguely racist comment trying to conjure up the "White Rhodesians" simile, put a sock in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
????

You know less about Quebec than I thought you did.

You may have thought the Speak White comment was cute. I didn't. I think the racist commentary used by English or French Quebecers should be left out of the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the racist commentary used by English or French Quebecers should be left out of the equation.
It was worse than racist commentary. It was the reality that French Canadians had to live in their own damn country.

Now, rest-o-Canadians (sell-out Quebec federalists included in that bunch) are re-interpreting and re-hashing and re-packaging current affairs under the guise of reporting news.

I will repeat: your stale cake is a spin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was worse than racist commentary. It was the reality that French Canadians had to live in their own damn country.

Now, rest-o-Canadians (sell-out Quebec federalists included in that bunch) are re-interpreting and re-hashing and re-packaging current affairs under the guise of reporting news.

I will repeat: your stale cake is a spin.

It was commentary made in the 1960s. It is 2007.

I know that you believe separation is the answer to the question. Federalism should mean that Quebecers are welcome anywhere in the country because indeed, all of it is their home.

Sovereignty and autonomy are vaguely defined terms used by those parties that know that the majority of Quebec are federalists. It doesn't sound as threatening as separation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that you believe separation is the answer to the question. Federalism should mean that Quebecers are welcome anywhere in the country because indeed, all of it is their home.
Today, I do not believe Quebeckers or anybody who speaks French are as welcome throughout this country as other people.
Sovereignty and autonomy are vaguely defined terms used by those parties that know that the majority of Quebec are federalists. It doesn't sound as threatening as separation.
Granted. However, it all started as spin.

As an aside, this makes me think of French Canadians replying with "Bienvenue!" after you say "Thank you!"

Appalling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Today, I do not believe Quebeckers or anybody who speaks French are as welcome throughout this country as other people.
Outside of the CPC group, I didn't feel all that welcome in Montreal in March 2005. But then again, neither were eleven year old boys seeking to play hockey there (link).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent post. Seconded. But, what, pray tell, is "Les Bleu"?
At the time of Confederation, les bleus were the Conservatives in Quebec and les rouges were the Liberals.

In the newspaper maps of the election results in Quebec even now, the Liberals are still red, the PQ are dark blue and the ADQ is light blue.

....

I found this quote from another thread. Seems appropriate now:

It has always vaguely astonished me that no one in English Canada has ever responded seriously to the PQ. If someone did, and it was done credibly, all Hell would break loose and the PQ would quickly dissolve. Mulroney came the closest.

Canadian history stretching back several centuries and events of the past few decades suggest that we are ripe for a tectonic shift, but it will be peaceful and negotiated.

Clearly, the person who has responded seriously to the PQ is scary Stephen Harper himself. He got the 10 seats in 2006 and he's the one who recognized teh Quebecois nation and "solved" the fiscal imbalance file.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Today, I do not believe Quebeckers or anybody who speaks French are as welcome throughout this country as other people.

As an aside, this makes me think of French Canadians replying with "Bienvenue!" after you say "Thank you!"

Appalling.

I haven't seen too much to indicate that Quebecers are not welcome in even in an anecdotal way in provinces across Canada. Are you saying they can't receive services in French or that they don't feel at home?

Why would they feel more at home in Florida and Vermont? Don't they associate with English speaking Americans yet maintain their language? I'd think it would be harder to get French services down there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying they can't receive services in French or that they don't feel at home?
-- the latter. CAVEAT: My authoritative opinion is based on highly biased yet anecdotal evidence.
Why would they feel more at home in Florida and Vermont?
-- because they are spending money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
-- the latter. CAVEAT: My authoritative opinion is based on highly biased yet anecdotal evidence.

-- because they are spending money.

Spending money in a primarily English region can take place just as easily in Ontario or New Brunswick. Better yet, you can get all the Quebec channels there to as a matter of course.

The thing that Quebec might find increasingly difficult to deflect in the next years might be the loss of cosmopolitan Quebecers to places like Alberta for the money and excitement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sovereignty and autonomy are vaguely defined terms used by those parties that know that the majority of Quebec are federalists. It doesn't sound as threatening as separation.
There are precise meanings to these different words. Autonomy does not mean sovereignty.

The idea of autonomy is at least as old as Duplessis and really just means respect for Quebec's constitutional sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Conrad Black has, as usual, an original and controversial view of how this past Quebec election fits within Quebec and Canadian history. I agree with his basic premise that the ADQ is now the carrier of the baton bleu.

The largely negative reaction to the Quebec election in federalist Canada is astounding. Independentist sentiment in that province has collapsed to barely over a quarter of the vote, where it was 35 years ago. The ADQ leader, who is now the leader of the Opposition, Mario Dumont, represents at least the partial return of the Duplessis formula of getting non-separatist nationalists and conservatives to vote together, a delicate but useful operation. And this election is the beginning of a revival of fiscal and social conservatism in Quebec, after a lapse of 40 years.

...

Of course most French Quebecers aren't much interested in Canada; they never were. They only joined Confederation, in 1867, over the opposition of many of their leaders, including A.A. Dorion, because they were afraid of being swallowed whole by the United States.

Having realized that they can't leave it, and that they are subsidized by approximately $1,000 from Ontario and Alberta for every French Quebecer per year to remain in it, and that Canada is a country to be respected and even proud of, their pan-Canadian instincts will show green shoots any year now. Dumont will bring back Duplessist economics, the Liberals will get a "chef " like Tashereau or Lesage, or at least a local Mackenzie King like Robert Bourassa, and the Bloc and PQ will dissolve. They are anachronisms. What is wrong with all of that?

Canada's and Quebec's political institutions have shown maturity, subtlety, and have endured without recourse to repression. Why is there not unconfined rejoicing at The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, and the CBC? Cabin fever, I guess, after decades of overachieving appeasement, but they will get over it.

National Post

Remarkably, Black doesn't mention the name Harper once in the column.

(BTW, Black's book on Duplessis is one of Canada's best political biographies.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are precise meanings to these different words. Autonomy does not mean sovereignty.

The idea of autonomy is at least as old as Duplessis and really just means respect for Quebec's constitutional sovereignty or jurisdiction.

I know what autonomy is supposed to mean but not what Dumont thinks it means. In other words, he is very vague on if it is limited in Quebec's constitutional authority or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are English-Canadians aware of the serious, ongoing debate in Quebec about the future of the Parti Quebecois?

For example, Louis Bernard (who?) said something radical (what?) recently.

I frankly think that these details don't matter much to ordinary Canadians. Instead, it only matters to know that the Parti Québécois is committing suicide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I frankly think that these details don't matter much to ordinary Canadians. Instead, it only matters to know that the Parti Québécois is committing suicide.
Suicides bother me greatly but not when it's a traitor that should hang. Collectively, the whole premise behind the PQ is treasonous. It is symptomatic of a people that does not know right from wrong that no one calls them out on it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead, it only matters to know that the Parti Québécois is committing suicide.
Whether Louis Bernard's proposal works as a strategy towards independence or not is to be seen. However, it gives an opportunity for the PQ to save face while lingering on.

La souveraineté et rien d'autre

Abandon aspirations of governing: Pequiste

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
The leadership crisis in the Parti Quebecois intensified Friday, as party leader Andre Boisclair warned Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe to back off on any plans he has to make the jump to the PQ.

Clearly signalling he plans to fight for his job despite a growing mutiny, a beleaguered Boisclair went on the offensive, saying he knows there are sovereignists inside his own party angling to dump him in favour of Duceppe even as they pledge allegiance to him in public.

Montreal Gazette

As I have learned, the Montreal Gazette loves stories like this. Yet, in fact, it's a "story". In Quebec, everyone is talking about how long Boisclair will last and who should direct the PQ.

In this thread (I think), a poster asked what the death of the PQ means for the BQ. (Good question.) Well, if Gilles Duceppe becomes PQ leader, then who will replace Duceppe and become BQ leader?

----

There's a backbeat here - an arc - to use modern script terms. Francophones in Canada feel that they don't get it right and that they fail. The PQ's current failure is another example of Quebec's historic failures. Mais on va relever le défi ! (We'll face the challenge and eventually win.)

IOW, the secret is for English Canada to expose honestly its underbelly too. Stephen Harper, I think, is doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francophones in Canada feel that they don't get it right and that they fail. The PQ's current failure is another example of Quebec's historic failures. Mais on va relever le défi ! (We'll face the challenge and eventually win.)
I think that was resolved at the Plains of Abraham.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some are already doing the post-mortem:

Le PQ s’est tué en 2001

Ce que le PQ récolte en ce moment, il l’a semé en 2001, lorsqu’il a laissé partir Lucien Bouchard. Ce fut l’erreur fatale. En 2001, Lucien Bouchard était premier-ministre du Québec. Il avait réussi à vaincre Jean Charest malgré la défaite des souverainistes lors du référendum.

Les Québécois l’aimaient. Même ceux qui n’étaient pas pour l’indépendance. C’était un chef. Un vrai. On peut contester ses politiques, mais on ne peut contester le lien solide qui existait entre lui et la population. Bouchard commandait le respect.

Stephane Laporte

The squabble between Duceppe and Boisclair is turning into a foodfight in a kindergarten.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The squabble between Duceppe and Boisclair is turning into a foodfight in a kindergarten.
Why do you qualify it that way?

It certainly seems childish but it also looks one-sided: Duceppe does not come across as participating in the fight. In fact, it seems like he is making an effort to keep the peace by diplomatically encouraging sovereignists to stick together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who can read French, Alain Dubuc had an excellent column today about Boisclair's resignation:

Mais dans le fond, on sait pourquoi ce parti d’idées est devenu un nid de serpents assez nauséabond. Ce qui déclenche ces sursauts de fureur, c’est l’impasse de l’option. Si le PQ s’est déchaîné avec une telle violence contre André Boisclair, c’est par déni. Le rituel de mise à mort du chef, devenu agneau sacrificiel, sert à conjurer la réalité implacable qui hante le courant souverainiste.

...

Ce sont les défenseurs des deux pôles dogmatiques du mouvement souverainiste qui se sont précipités comme des chacals sur leur chef affaibli, ceux qui ne veulent pas que l’on touche à l’option, et ceux qui veulent garder intacte la conception classique de la social-démocratie.

Les mêmes mécanismes de déni se manifestent dans le rêve qu’un sauveur, vraisemblablement le chef du Bloc québécois, Gilles Duceppe, permette au PQ de faire l’économie de la grande réflexion que ce parti a trop longtemps repoussée.

Less than two years ago, the broad PQ membership voted 54% on the first ballot to have Boisclair as their leader. Now, he's gone. (Bouchard lasted five years, Landry four.)

Can the PQ afford to have another year long leadership race during a minority government? What would be the point? And if it goes for a simple crowning of Duceppe, will that work?

As Dubuc notes, there are two major problems the PQ faces but which too many péquistes want to ignore: the sovereignist option obtains barely 50% of the popular vote (if association with ROC is included in the question) and the PQ cannot drop its social democratic/unionist side.

As Dubuc also notes, there is something rabid about the effect this frustration has on PQ militants. They truly do eat their own, while refusing to face their true problems directly. It's a form of cognitive dissonance.

Something else. By choosing Boisclair and then discarding him in such a cavalier fashion, the PQ has demonstrated a childish incompetence. These people want to build a country?

Federalism should mean that Quebecers are welcome anywhere in the country because indeed, all of it is their home.

Sovereignty and autonomy are vaguely defined terms used by those parties that know that the majority of Quebec are federalists. It doesn't sound as threatening as separation.

Your vaguely defined federalism is even more utopic, or ideological.

Canada will never be country where its citizens feel comfortable everywhere, and I don't think I'd want such a country anyway.

For most Quebecers, Canada will at most be an administrative structure that is useful for government. As Churchill described India, "it is a geographic term like the equator". I frankly see no harm in this and instead see something to our credit. People in northern North America get along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...