"We recognize the distinct identity of the nation of Quebec" Says Jagmeet Singh

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
"We recognize the distinct identity of the nation of Quebec" Says Jagmeet Singh

"We recognize the distinct identity of the nation of Quebec and to address that unique identity we are putting forward a plan that is specific for Quebec," said Jagmeet Singh

https://twitter.com/PnPCBC/status/1105232248708698112

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Good.  It's what had to happen.  It has never been tenable to treat Quebec as just another province.    The next step will be to recognize FN/Inuit/Metis communities as distinct societies as well.

pietro_bcc

This could be a good thing or a bad thing, it all depends on what this Quebec specific plan is. We have no idea as of today, so I'll reserve judgement.

Unionist

What is this? Mulcair pushed the party to adopt the Sherbrooke Declaration. If the NDP retreats from that historic step, they can proceed to FOAD. It's bad enough that they never denounced the Clarity Act.

bekayne

Ken Burch wrote:

Good.  It's what had to happen.  It has never been tenable to treat Quebec as just another province.    The next step will be to recognize FN/Inuit/Metis communities as distinct societies as well.

Would that apply to those in Quebec as well, or would that be the Quebec government's call?

quizzical

oh gawd good thing i wasn't voting NDP already 

brookmere

Ken Burch wrote:
The next step will be to recognize FN/Inuit/Metis communities as distinct societies as well.

Since the Constitution and the courts have de facto recognized them as nations,  as they view themselves of course, recognizing them as "distinct societies" would not only be pointless but patronizing. Commitment to do something concrete might get a better reception.

brookmere

Mighty Middle wrote:
"We recognize the distinct identity of the nation of Quebec and to address that unique identity we are putting forward a plan that is specific for Quebec," said Jagmeet Singh

The Conservatives and BQ are already competing for the nationalist vote and adding another party to the competition will likely gain more seats for the Liberals than for the NDP. I do understand that the party wants to be seen to be doing something to stave off a debacle in Quebec.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

brookmere wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
The next step will be to recognize FN/Inuit/Metis communities as distinct societies as well.

Since the Constitution and the courts have de facto recognized them as nations,  as they view themselves of course, recognizing them as "distinct societies" would not only be pointless but patronizing. Commitment to do something concrete might get a better reception.

I take that as a fair critique of what I said.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

oh gawd good thing i wasn't voting NDP already 

Why?  What harm is done in the NDP accepting reality on this?  

quizzical

whose reality? 

talk to some FN's about this....

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

whose reality? 

talk to some FN's about this....

Why do you assume there has to be a conflict between recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and standing for FN self-determination?  

Also, how does the NDP re-elect any of its Quebec caucus if it doesn't recognize Quebec as a distinct society? The only reason the 2011 breakthrough happened there was that Layton more or less did the same thing.  Without, at most it would have held Outremont.

It can't help the FN cause for the NDP to electorally obliterate itself in Quebec by treating that jurisdiction as simply one province out of ten.  If Quebec goes back to being a place where only the Libs, the Cons and the Bloc hold seats, which is what has to happen if the NDP does that, what chance is there for victory for FN self-determination in that scenario?  Nobody in any of those parties is going to fight for FNs on anything.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There shouldn't be any inherent contradiction in recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and supporting FN self-determination.

Unionist

"Distinct society"? Québec is a nation with the right to self-determination.

Aristotleded24

Once again, Singh demonstrates how out of his depth he is. This looks to me like an attempt to grab headlines because, well, Quebec is a nation, and so we have to recognize the Quebec nation. I doubt he actually understands what that means. The danger here is that he is seen to buy into the idea of "Quebec" versus "English Canada" without acknowledging the needs of the other regions. It also doesn't recognize the variations within regions. He is completely tone deaf to what is going on in Western Canada. Even "Western Canada" is not a monolith, as the 2 most western provinces are at odds over pipelines. This will fuel sentiment in the rest of the country that the NDP is "pandering to Quebec" and that can backfire on them big time.

We need a leader who understands the implications of recognizing Quebec as a nation, while at the same time listening to the diverse concenrs in the rest of the country and assembling a coherent platform to address these challenges. Niki Ashton and Guy Caron are 2 people I can think of off the top of my head who would be up to such a task.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

So, he should recognize it as a nation.  Agreed.  I was mainly addressing the need for him to do something to begin to address this.  

swallow swallow's picture

Isn’t recognizing Quebec as a nation already NDP policy and the opinion of all political parties in Ottawa? 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Isn’t recognizing Quebec as a nation already NDP policy and the opinion of all political parties in Ottawa? 

Yeah, that was my point, and my belief. Until I learned upthread that it might piss off some other regions. Holy f***.

Unionist

I posted this 7 years ago roughly. Please note that thanks to Tom Mulcair, the NDP recognized Québec's right to self-determination. It just needed to demand the repeal of the Clarity Act. If Jagmeet Singh is not capable of doing that, then he should go join the Liberal or Conservative Party where he richly belongs. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt while he painfully tries to dream up some vote-getting strategy for Québec.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

I predict that the NDP will get zero seats in Quebec and in the next election and in the election after that. A big fat zilch!!!

Misfit Misfit's picture

I predict that the NDP will get zero seats in Quebec and in the next election and in the election after that. A big fat zilch!!!

lagatta4

Ken Burch wrote:

Good.  It's what had to happen.  It has never been tenable to treat Quebec as just another province.    The next step will be to recognize FN/Inuit/Metis communities as distinct societies as well.

lagatta4

Yes, I agree, both in terms of Québec and Indigenous nations.

NDPP

"I think Jagmeet Singh will most definitely need to be schooled that most of Quebec, like BC, is located on stolen lands, territories and resources of Indigenous Nations!"

https://twitter.com/RussDiabo/status/1105365520352608257

"There is nothing *progressive* about colonization. The NDP's recognition of the 'nation of Quebec' signals further erasure of Indigenous nations - like my own, the Algonquin nation - and legitimation of colonization on our unceded territory. It is anti-Indigenous."

https://twitter.com/VeldonCoburn/status/1105284683552747520

NDPP

"I think the leader of the NDP, a lawyer no less, should educate himself on The Royal Proclamation of 1763".

"Simply put, there is no 'nation of Quebec' on Algonquin land. French colonizers that showed up - uninvited and unwelcomed - a few hundred years ago have no claim to the thousands of years old Algonquin nation."

https://twitter.com/VeldonCoburn/status/1105262572012535814

quizzical

exactly NDPP.

voice of the damned

The fact of the matter is, however, that we pretty much all accept the existence of a Canadian nation for purposes of everyday government. If someone from the USA tries to bring, say, illegal guns into Canada, we want the customs officials to stop him immediately, on the basis of Canadian law as passed by parliament in Ottawa. Regardless of whatever anti-colonialist arguments someone may wish to make about the non-existence of the Canadian nation.

The question then becomes, whether or not there exists a Quebec nation having similar(if not entirely identical) perogatives over certain pieces of territory that the Canadian nation has over its territory.  

 

lagatta4

I disagree that the fact that nations may have been forged in colonisation or conquest means they simply don't exist. Many have such murky origins, and not only in the so-called New World.

It does certainly call for a more just relationship. This also requires action and mobilisation BY the Indigenous nations. The first version of the James Bay agreement was a horror, viewing the Cree, Inuit and other people of Northern Québec as nothing but an obstacle in the way. These peoples mobilised for a fairer agreement.

If not, the US would have no reason NOT to move in to Venezuela or any other Latin-speaking society in the Americas - something they did in spades against Mexico and Puerto Rico.

lagatta4

I disagree that the fact that nations may have been forged in colonisation or conquest means they simply don't exist. Many have such murky origins, and not only in the so-called New World.

It does certainly call for a more just relationship. This also requires action and mobilisation BY the Indigenous nations. The first version of the James Bay agreement was a horror, viewing the Cree, Inuit and other people of Northern Québec as nothing but an obstacle in the way. These peoples mobilised for a fairer agreement.

If not, the US would have no reason NOT to move in to Venezuela or any other Latin-speaking society in the Americas - something they did in spades against Mexico and Puerto Rico.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

First of all he said a distinct identity of the nation not society. If he means that his Quebec caucus and riding associations are going to draft and run on a platform unique to those peoples ideals I'm all in. Especially if the people of the Salish Sea get the same political rights within the party.

Sean in Ottawa

I disagree with the idea that more than one nation cannot exist in the same place.

There are many definitions of nation - here is just one:

"a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory."

You will notice that there is a reference to a geographical place, however, it is not exclusive. If it were exclusive then you would deny any nation with overlapping geography. You could start with Canada itself. The argument made here to suggest that Algonquin land means no Quebec nation exists applies to Canada itself.

I would say that a nation is defined in part by its geography but that does not mean that the geography it is defined by is a legitimate claim - just that it is central to the identity. As such you can have two people in the same house defining themselves in terms of nationhood by their geography and mean two different nations.

Once a nation forms an independent state, then the territorial claims it makes demand exclusivity of other states -- although not other nations. There is actually no requirement that a state actually have a single or dominant nation. It is a political entity of control in a place. One nation can exist across multiple states and a state could be seen as home to no nation. These are different concepts.

It is not just a question of shared identity and difference. I see no point debating if other geographic parts of Canada rise to the level of nationhood or see themselves that way. The existence of one nation does not deny another. However, that Quebec identifies itself as a nation and does so legitimately and correctly based on the definition of that word to me is self evident.

I grew up in Quebec. Both my parents did not come from there and my first language was Englis. IT was always evident that I lived within soemthing distinct. When a people and their history are distinct -- it means they are a nation. This raising one or other definition is a zero-sum proposition as a distinct society is a nation by the definitions of those terms.

Unionist

The Sherbrooke Declaration has been official NDP policy since it was adopted by convention in 2006. The NDP doesn't talk about it much or make it easy to find. I urge babblers to re-read it (it's only 8 pages long) and continue the discussion with that as a starting point. Because whether Jagmeet Singh likes it or not, that's the policy.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

exactly NDPP.

Recognizing Quebec in that way isn't a defense of colonization.  I think language can be found on this that acknowledges both the historic injustices done to FN people by white settlers AND the historic injustices done to Quebec francophones by Anglo-Protestants.   

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

The Sherbrooke Declaration has been official NDP policy since it was adopted by convention in 2006. The NDP doesn't talk about it much or make it easy to find. I urge babblers to re-read it (it's only 8 pages long) and continue the discussion with that as a starting point. Because whether Jagmeet Singh likes it or not, that's the policy.

I don't understand what it is about his statement that goes against the Sherbrooke Declaration. I reread it and I listened to the whole clip of Singh introducing his reorganized Quebec team.  The Declaration talks about the national character of Quebec with its unique and specific culture expressed by a sense of identity with and belonging to Quebec. What did he say that goes against that?  I was hoping that he was in fact going to push asymmetrical federalism. Those that read my posts will know that I have often wanted a regionally based "party" because one size fits all for country as large and as diverse as Canada is impossible. I thought he was announcing a move to promoting asymmetrical federalism so I was pleased actually.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I think I used some out of date wording up thread, and for that, I apologize.

Shane Dyson

Thank-you Kropotkin for renminding us of Singh's quote.  I was wondering about this.  Singh mentioned "distinct identity" and several on this conversation are refering to "distinct society".  Just so I know, are these two phrases interchangeable? 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

First of all he said a distinct identity of the nation not society. If he means that his Quebec caucus and riding associations are going to draft and run on a platform unique to those peoples ideals I'm all in. Especially if the people of the Salish Sea get the same political rights within the party.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Shane Dyson wrote:

Thank-you Kropotkin for renminding us of Singh's quote.  I was wondering about this.  Singh mentioned "distinct identity" and several on this conversation are refering to "distinct society".  Just so I know, are these two phrases interchangeable? 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

First of all he said a distinct identity of the nation not society. If he means that his Quebec caucus and riding associations are going to draft and run on a platform unique to those peoples ideals I'm all in. Especially if the people of the Salish Sea get the same political rights within the party.

The answer would be a definitive NO and I think the similarity is what caused the initial horrified reaction but I am still hoping Unionist will clarify for me what he thought was so bad about the announcement. The NDP like most Canadians believe that Quebec is a distinct nation not just a distinct society. 

pietro_bcc

Just listened to an interview Alexandre Boulerice gave for CJAD.

http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad/can-the-ndp-pull-out-of-4th-place-in-queb...

The main focus of the Quebec campaign will be (in the order he listed them) :  Language, culture, environment, agriculture and telecommunications.

Also the NDP have no chance in the anglophone community and it seems they aren't even going to try to get our votes. He goes on an anglo radio station knowing that he's going to have to discuss what he has to offer the anglophone community (in fact the host didn't even ask what the NDP will offer anglos its Boulerice who brought it up.) And all he can muster up to answer this perfectly legitimate question of what the party has to offer the listeners is. "My wife is English so I know about what the community thinks" and "we'll lower drug prices and everyone including anglos take medication"... Wow, if I were to say that he had 10 minutes of thought about how he will attract anglo voters that would be too generous, he spent not even a moment on it, it didn't cross his mind.

Imagine if Trudeau were in an interview with a french radio station and he was asked what he has to offer francophone Quebecois people and his answer was "My wife is french" and "we'll lower drug prices and french people also take medicine" he would be laughed out of the province and he'd deserve it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So is Alexandre Boulerice the one responsible for this Quebec specific case of foot and mouth disease and the contagion went from him to Singh?

Of the reasons to vote for or against the NDP, in my region this is close to the very bottom of the priority list. That to me highlights why we need more regionalism in our federation.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

pietro_bcc wrote:

Just listened to an interview Alexandre Boulerice gave for CJAD.

http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad/can-the-ndp-pull-out-of-4th-place-in-queb...

The main focus of the Quebec campaign will be (in the order he listed them) :  Language, culture, environment, agriculture and telecommunications.

Also the NDP have no chance in the anglophone community and it seems they aren't even going to try to get our votes. He goes on an anglo radio station knowing that he's going to have to discuss what he has to offer the anglophone community (in fact the host didn't even ask what the NDP will offer anglos its Boulerice who brought it up.) And all he can muster up to answer this perfectly legitimate question of what the party has to offer the listeners is. "My wife is English so I know about what the community thinks" and "we'll lower drug prices and everyone including anglos take medication"... Wow, if I were to say that he had 10 minutes of thought about how he will attract anglo voters that would be too generous, he spent not even a moment on it, it didn't cross his mind.

Imagine if Trudeau were in an interview with a french radio station and he was asked what he has to offer francophone Quebecois people and his answer was "My wife is french" and "we'll lower drug prices and french people also take medicine" he would be laughed out of the province and he'd deserve it.

What would you have him do?  And, given that the vast majority of Quebec anglophones(there are a few who don't but I think this applies to the vast majority of them)aren't even open to voting for any party other than the Liberals or the Conservatives, how much time should he spend going after votes the NDP probably couldn't get under any leader?  Most of them didn't vote NDP even in 2011, with the party led by an anglophone who'd spent most of his live in Toronto.

 

pietro_bcc

What would you have him do?  And, given that the vast majority of Quebec anglophones(there are a few who don't but I think this applies to the vast majority of them)aren't even open to voting for any party other than the Liberals or the Conservatives, how much time should he spend going after votes the NDP probably couldn't get under any leader?  Most of them didn't vote NDP even in 2011, with the party led by an anglophone who'd spent most of his live in Toronto.

I realize that some of the proposals I would have, would be nonstarters in federal politics (and in fact wouldn't make sense for a federal politician to adopt because it isn't in their jurisdiction.) But here are a couple of realistic positions that Boulerice could've taken that would be appreciated by the anglo community. Guraranteeing that he would fight to the fullest extent of the law the CAQ's proposal to violate the rights of minority linguistic communities to control their own school boards including seeking intervener status in the eventual court case to show their government's steadfast support for our rights. Condemn the closure of Riverdale high school that was done unilaterally by the Legault government without consulting anyone. Voice support of anglo (and some francophone) WW2 veterans who are suing the Quebec government because they are failing to provide the quality of care (including bilingual care) they were promised when the Quebec government took over control of the Ste-Anne's hospital from the federal government and seek intervener status in that class action lawsuit.

These aren't obscure issues, these are just a few well known issues Boulerice could've voiced an opinion on had he took the time to actually consume anglo media and inform himself on what's happening with us.

As for the complaint that Anglos always vote for the Liberals anyway? Well if you don't try to win our votes you'll never get them. Even in 2011, there was no attempt to reach out. I voted NDP in 2011 and 2915 because I hate the Liberals, perhaps next election I'll vote Green, don't know.

lagatta4

Odd, I thought you were an allophone from RDP. That is how you presented yourself here at first.

While I agree that minority rights in terms of vulnerable people must be recognised and protected, I strongly doubt that you are a unilingual angryphone (a reactionary rump-group, there are plenty of terms for the corresponding nationaleux, or blue-shirts on the francophone side). Marco Micone had some choice words about that rightwing outlook...

I'll repeat that angryphone doesn't mean anglophone, it refers to the kind of shitheads who write for the Suburban. The enemies of all working people.

pietro_bcc

By government statistics I would be an allophone because my first language is Italian. But I went to english elementary school, high school and university, mostly consume english media (other than news which I usually watch and read in both French and english because I want to be knowledgeable about what's happening outside of the english community as well) speak english and Italian at home. So not technically an anglophone, but if I were to put it on a continuum I would be closer to being an anglophone than a francophone.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad/can-the-ndp-pull-out-of-4th-place-in-queb...

..txs pietro. i also listened to this. what caught my attention was boulerice's emphasis on trudeau's broken promises and in particular around environment. there is a demo coming up and he said the ndp will be there. those demos are linked to all the work que activists have been doing and were a factor in stopping the energy east pipeline. they are also supporting indigenous folk in their struggle to stop trans mountain. this is very good news. 

pietro_bcc

I was actually very encouraged by his emphasis on environment, having it second after language and culture as his top issue and how he spoke about it at length. Probably the most positive aspect of the interview was that emphasis, as I think it could potentially be a winning issue in Quebec. We all hate the pipelines and lack of action on climate change.

lagatta4

Boulerice is extraordinary, and I'm very proud that he is my MP (I campaigned for him 3 times). He was in charge of communications for SCFP/CUPE and is very much on the side of working people, immigrants (such as his wife) and progressive causes in general. His staff helped me a lot with pension and pre-pension issues

I'm toddling off to bed. Ciao, tutti!

Mighty Middle

NDP welcomes new candidate in Quebec who is ‘not that much’ of a sovereigntist

Nima Machouf, a member of the sovereigntist Quebec solidaire provincial party, acknowledged that the NDP has a steep climb ahead of it to recapture the success it enjoyed under the late Jack Layton in 2011.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/03/13/ndp-welcomes-new-candidat...

robbie_dee

Mighty Middle wrote:

NDP welcomes new candidate in Quebec who is ‘not that much’ of a sovereigntist

Nima Machouf, a member of the sovereigntist Quebec solidaire provincial party, acknowledged that the NDP has a steep climb ahead of it to recapture the success it enjoyed under the late Jack Layton in 2011.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/03/13/ndp-welcomes-new-candidat...

reposting this from another thread:

i don’t have much time for The Star’s gotcha game of trying to out ‘sovereigntists’ in the NDP, but I thought this quote was interesting:

Quote:

In Ottawa, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said he is very happy to have recruited a candidate of the calibre of Machouf, an epidemiologist who works in the field of public health.

He said her continued membership in Quebec solidaire proves his party is open to people like her who have nationalist beliefs.

i thought the whole kerfuffle about restarting the provincial NDP in Quebec was that it rendered it impossible to remain a member of QS while joining the federal NDP because it was constitutionally required for members to belong to both the federal and provincial parties in any province that had both. Has this changed or is the Party under Jagmeet no longer enforcing this?

cco

The NPDQ isn't recognized by the federal party in the way all the other provincial wings are. By Quebec law and federal party policy, it's a completely separate entity.

Unionist

robbie_dee wrote:

i thought the whole kerfuffle about restarting the provincial NDP in Quebec was that it rendered it impossible to remain a member of QS while joining the federal NDP because it was constitutionally required for members to belong to both the federal and provincial parties in any province that had both. Has this changed or is the Party under Jagmeet no longer enforcing this?

Excellent question. As I may have noted here at the time, I seriously considered joining the federal NDP during the leadership race in 2012. The form they gave me at the desk (it was a leadership candidates' debate in downtown Montréal) said that I couldn't belong to (or support I think?) any rival provincial party where a provincial NDP existed. Though I don't think Pierre Ducasse had re-registered the QC NPD yet at that point, it occurred to me that out of my control, I could be placed in a position where I'd have to quit QS. So I passed.

Today, of course, there's no doubt that a provincial party exists, at least in name.

Have the rules changed? No idea. I'll go check the constitution. Not that they follow it...

pietro_bcc

The provincial NDP of Quebec isn't officially connected to the federal NDP. Therefore QS members can be members of the federal NDP.

Though honestly that is a dumb rule and as far as I know the NDP is the only party with this ridiculous rule, it just pushes people away.

Pages