Lucien Bouchard : “sovereignty is not achievable”
February 17, 2010 - 4:48pm
Bouchard is saying what many people have known for the past few years, the chance of soverignty for Quebec is over, at least for the next generation. Quebec is not going anywhere, and will now be focusing on economic issues that matter to the population, instead of pursuing the ideology of independence.
Le Devoir article:
"La souveraineté n'est pas réalisable, dit Bouchard
L'ancien premier ministre reproche au PQ son radicalisme laïque"
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/283286/la-souverainete-n-est-pa...
Pretty extraordinary! In that case then, what's the BQ for?
OK, never mind Augustus, but I am interested in what our Quebec friends on this board think about how Mulcair and Ignatieff have chosen to respond to this. The Liberals think they've stumbled on to a way back in Quebec, and Robert Silver in particular is trying to paint Mulcair as a cheerleader for the PQ.
My Quebec antennae are invariably wrong, but I thought what Mulcair was saying was that Bouchard's comments about how the PQ is becoming too radical, like the ADQ, over the immigration issue were off-base and that there weren't many of those kinds of radicals in the PQ. This seemed fairly reasonable to me as the PQ and BQ have always been democrats first.
Now Ignatieff has written a letter praising Bouchard for proclaiming the death of separatism. Why do I have a funny feeling this is going to become an issue whose development I can't possibly envision correctly? Especially coming as it does on the heels of the not-enough-french-in-the-Olympics leading to hateful-anti-french-comments-on-online-bulletin-boards which then became a big-story-in-Quebec story.
Does this all have the potential to be a turning point in Quebec? What's the reaction there shaping up like?
Well, just to complete the reading list, Norman Spector has now weighed in ("What's Mr. Ignatieff been smoking?"), to which Robert Silver has already responded.
Typically, Silver deliberately ignores what Mulcair actually said, and decides to distort and mis-characterize the comments for his own purposes.
All I know is that they can't both be reading the situation right, but as I said earlier, I'd really appreciate some Quebec perspective on it all.
Any politician lacking a complete understanding of Quebec politics had best sidestep this issue unscathed if possible. It is rife with unintended consequences. They won't of course and that will make for great suppertime viewing on the newschannels
My impression is that the LAST thing anyone in Quebec is interested in hearing are smug, gloating comments from anglo-Canadian politicians crowing about the death of separatism.
The Liberals already own the hard-core federalist vote in Quebec (which is about 20% of the population and is mostly non-francophone). The segment that is up for grabs is made up of people who may have voted yes in the last referendum and who may still have a soft spot in their hearts for the idea of sovereignty. I think that Ignatief would have been better off saying nothing and that by adding his unhelpful two cents worth he may have committed a bit of a blunder.
Mulcair's retort to Bouchard's over-the-top attack on the PQ as being "radical" (in the sense of xenophobic) was valiant and accurate. Even more impressive and cogent, in my view, was this:
... Which brings us to Iggy! I don't know which Torontonian or Washingtonian is advising Ignatieff these days, but his comments were plain idiotic. Is it too late for them to get Dion back at the helm? Or Chrétien? I have no clue what he hopes to accomplish by this, but if he dreams of riding a wave of renewed federalist enthusiasm in Québec, he is politically as tone deaf as he has appeared to be this past year.
Back to Mulcair - he's gutsy, for a former Liberal. If the NDP learns to speak in this principled, firm, and diplomatic way, and stick to their guns on social and economic policy, they may yet cause angst for the Liberals and BQ in a few ridings.
What effect will Bouchard's comments have? Search me, I'll wait and see. Duceppe answered quite skillfully I thought, though he couldn't have been too thrilled. He sounded a lot like Mulcair, in fact (see same link), combined with N. Spector's apt reminder that Bouchard said he's a sovereignist. I'm waiting to hear from QS and - yes - Jacques Parizeau, who will be unable to keep his mouth shut for long.
In one of Trudeau's early works (pre-68) he said that separatism would give way to economics, and specifically employment, in the long run. He was damned near proven wrong, of course. But it is that thinking that is re-ignited with Bouchard's new-found social/economic position. But while he can afford to take that tack, Iggy and his stalwart band cannot. Bob Rae must be on sedatives by this time.
OK, thanks for that interesting perspective. I sort of thought so, but don't trust my instincts. Honestly if there's one thing that ruins a politician for me (including some of ours), it's a sloppy bungling of these issues that can be so costly and so hurtful. The last thing we need on top of a recession is to ratchet up feelings of isolation and resentment all over again. Been there, done that, nearly lost the country. I wish I'd seen the tape of Mulcair answering the question, so I must see if there's video footage on CTV or CPAC. He's impressed me with his skill at communicating on strategically important but complex issues, anyways.
Uh, just re-reading Ignatieff's letter now, and realize I missed this on the first go-around:
I sincerely believe that the new dream Quebecers should be a part of is a dream shared with their fellow citizens in other parts of Canada. This dream is about building a more just society, where everyone has the chance to succeed.
Yeah, that'll work. That language is gold in Quebec, isn't it.
I wish I'd seen the tape of Mulcair answering the question, so I must see if there's video footage on CTV or CPAC.
Go here and jump forward to 53:25, where the question is asked, followed by Layton and then Mulcair's reply.
Thank you. Glad I checked the thread one last time before heading off to bed. Night-night, Unionist.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Bouchard is a former CON.
Some of the Quebec columnists seem to see this as having as much to do with Bouchard's neo-con vision for the future of Quebec... which is what he has most consistently popped up to say on his rare occassions.
And it would make sense- brushing aside the search for sovereignty to clear the decks for 'getting down to business'.
I think what mysifies more is what Bouchard has in mind- and there I think people know they are just guessing as to whether he is planning to make himself part of the political landscape again. If so, and thats a very big if, at the head of something other than the PQ.
My personal guess is that Bouchard himself does not know how far he intends to take this. He may well just be stirring the pot, and if something drops into his lap, maybe he'll run with it.
But whether he has a plan or not- I think his popping up now is more deliberate than in the past. He's not talking warnings to the PQ anymore- this is the knife in the back, and one meant to continue turning.
Bouchard is a former CON.
Former party membership doesn't mean a lot.
More to the point: Bouchard used to be a neo-con AND something of a Quebec version of Red Tory. He shed the latter some time ago; becoming increasingly impatient for Quebec to get with the global capitalist program, and to jettison the civil society romantic attachement to social democratic values.
Unlike the latter, it appears that he sees nothing wrong per se with sovereignty. But he sees the search for sovereignty also as in the way right now, and requiring a more explicit attack to get it out of the way.
To Ken's point, folks may wish to recall Bouchard's last outing into the public eye, with his neoliberal (maybe neocon? who knows, they're both bad) manifesto "Pour un Québec lucide" - which they clumsily translate as "For a clear-eyed vision of Quebec" - still availabe here. Thankfully, it was too right-wing to have much traction, other than the thaw on tuition fees which I think Charest was already planning anyway.
Here were the highlights:
The openness to private investment, from anywhere, is the new kid on the right that is being made "legitimate" by growing debt and difficulties in funding public services, one that could not have been workable in a sovereignist (controlled public investment) atmosphere. Bouchard is now speaking out of newfound confidence in neo-Liberal economic thought and action that that is the only way forward (the expression that has replaced concern for history) for Quebec. We all bailed out the market for fear of losing our individual investments...the sort of thing that gives the business community of Bouchard confidence that they are in the catbird seat.
The Quebec sovereignty debate is not over. It can't be over because the people of Quebec realize they have a choice to be a nation within Canada or one outside Canada. In spite of all the propaganda, it is clear that Quebec would be a viable state-- I think both Quebec and Canada are each better off within the same state but that is a question of argument and preference. As a choice it may be unpopular but this could change. Anyone with a significant other in her/his life also has a choice to be on their own and may never take it and may feel grateful and better off being together but divorce is always an option- a partnership is not jail. From a philosophical point of view one can argue that a union of choice is a stronger one than a union that lacks choice.
Secondly, the opinion of a retired politician may be persuasive but it means little beyond that. People change their minds. Bouchard's opinion only represented the PQ/BQ while he was leader -- not anymore.
The people of Quebec may feel presently satisfied that they have made the case that Quebec could become independent if it so chose and they have insisted on being recognized as a nation. The success in convincing English Canada that the option was real and viable is an important part of either outcome-- but perhaps more important for Quebec to find its place in Canada than even to leave.
As for whether there are radicals in the PQ, I think there is a misunderstanding here that has not translated well. Many in English Canada consider a PQ radical as someone wanting to take Quebec out of Canada. That was not what Bouchard meant-- he was referring instead I think to intolerance of minorities. When Mulcair answered he was on the same page but disagreed claiming that the PQ does not have that many with this point of view. People in English Canada have at moments misinterpreted radical as separatist. I believe that the separatist movement in Quebec in many respects is both more confident and less radical in their views of who they share Quebec with. This, in itself, does not make them at all less separatist. (Certainly the separatists I have known as ardent in their nationalism as they were, wanted to build a quite inclusive Quebec).
For most what I am saying I think is just a given but perhaps this might explain something for a few who seem confused.
I understand what you are saying, but I really do think its Bouchard with his unclear agenda. But only unclear in so far as what exactly he wants to do..... while clear that he thinks that sovereignty as a political agenda needs to get out of the way.
I read his focus on the intolerance thing as just something that is easy for him and his intended audience to get outraged about. That the target really is sovereigntists.
Hes not interested in parsing how alive soveriegnty is or is right now. Not alive enough for the purposes of Lucien Bouchard, who has other fish he wants to fry.
Ken-- I agree with you-- and think people should not read any wider implications in to his words than his own interest at this point.
So, then, the question is how Ignatieff's attempt to turn the intervention into something it wasn't (helped along by Chantal Hébert's column, or am I reading her wrong) is going to land. Or is it just being ignored?
OK, never mind Augustus, but I am interested in what our Quebec friends on this board think about how Mulcair and Ignatieff have chosen to respond to this. The Liberals think they've stumbled on to a way back in Quebec, and Robert Silver in particular is trying to paint Mulcair as a cheerleader for the PQ.
My Quebec antennae are invariably wrong, but I thought what Mulcair was saying was that Bouchard's comments about how the PQ is becoming too radical, like the ADQ, over the immigration issue were off-base and that there weren't many of those kinds of radicals in the PQ. This seemed fairly reasonable to me as the PQ and BQ have always been democrats first.
Now Ignatieff has written a letter praising Bouchard for proclaiming the death of separatism. Why do I have a funny feeling this is going to become an issue whose development I can't possibly envision correctly? Especially coming as it does on the heels of the not-enough-french-in-the-Olympics leading to hateful-anti-french-comments-on-online-bulletin-boards which then became a big-story-in-Quebec story.
Does this all have the potential to be a turning point in Quebec? What's the reaction there shaping up like?
Never mind, what? I'm not sure what you are referring to. I wasn't aware you and I were having a discussion. The only post I made on this thread was the original one in which I posted the article and a summary of what it said. I have noticed though that since I first posted it, you have decided to take the dicussion in a couple directions.
One, you seem to be defending Mulcair's bizarre statements. Why does Mulcair feel the need to inject himself into this discussion anyway? It is not about him. It is between the big guns in Quebec, of which he is not one. It is about Bouchard, Marois, Charest, Parizeau etc. I'm not sure why he felt the need to interject himself. The PQ has plenty of people who can speak for it. Mulcair often sounds more like a separatist than a federalist. I guess this is to appeal to the BQ voters he needs to stay elected?
Mulcair is a loose canon - something L. Ian MacDonald and other members of Quebec's press have pointed out in the past. He was also criticised by The Montreal Gazette last year for voting in favour of more powers for Bill 101. I suggest Jack Layton reign him in and tell him to stop talking like a member of the PQ or he will lose his seat in the next election.
Second, you seem to be trying to speak for Bouchard and are claiming that his intervention didn't really mean what it sounds like. It's actually pretty clear what he said, and he was right on both counts. He said independence is not acheivable for Quebec any time in the near future, which most people know anyway, and he also said there is too much predjudice in the PQ towards non-Francophones, anglophones and racial minorities, which is also pretty obvious to those of us who have lived in Quebec.
That's "rein" him in, if you don't mind. We here in Québec value the Anglophone minority and the purity of the English language. If you think you're going to get away with egregious errors like that, just because you present yourself as an enemy of Bill 101, think again. I happen to be a volunteer vigilante representative of the ELPO (Office de la protection de la langue anglaise), and I take very seriously each opportunity I find for collecting a bounty.
The only prejudice I've detected in this thread is yours. Mind you, that's not surprising. You have shown tendencies on this board to generalize about other "racial minorities" - haven't you,
AugusteAugustineAugustus?How novel. Metaphors from religion, card games and farm animals. Who said the redneck is to be found only from the Appalachians southwards? The rednecked peckerhead is here seen in stunning ignorance. Notice when in full flight, the mouth working like the whipoorwill's asshole.
Well then. It seems i was too generous in the warning I just gave. Bye webbie.
Ah - this probably has something to do with it:
Quebec among most highly indebted industrial economies in the world
An independent Quebec starts off looking like Italy or Greece - financially speaking.
OK, never mind Augustus, but I am interested in what our Quebec friends on this board think about how Mulcair and Ignatieff have chosen to respond to this. The Liberals think they've stumbled on to a way back in Quebec, and Robert Silver in particular is trying to paint Mulcair as a cheerleader for the PQ.
My Quebec antennae are invariably wrong, but I thought what Mulcair was saying was that Bouchard's comments about how the PQ is becoming too radical, like the ADQ, over the immigration issue were off-base and that there weren't many of those kinds of radicals in the PQ. This seemed fairly reasonable to me as the PQ and BQ have always been democrats first.
Now Ignatieff has written a letter praising Bouchard for proclaiming the death of separatism. Why do I have a funny feeling this is going to become an issue whose development I can't possibly envision correctly? Especially coming as it does on the heels of the not-enough-french-in-the-Olympics leading to hateful-anti-french-comments-on-online-bulletin-boards which then became a big-story-in-Quebec story.
Does this all have the potential to be a turning point in Quebec? What's the reaction there shaping up like?
Never mind, what? I'm not sure what you are referring to. I wasn't aware you and I were having a discussion. The only post I made on this thread was the original one in which I posted the article and a summary of what it said. I have noticed though that since I first posted it, you have decided to take the dicussion in a couple directions.
One, you seem to be defending Mulcair's bizarre statements. Why does Mulcair feel the need to inject himself into this discussion anyway? It is not about him. It is between the big guns in Quebec, of which he is not one. It is about Bouchard, Marois, Charest, Parizeau etc. I'm not sure why he felt the need to interject himself. The PQ has plenty of people who can speak for it. Mulcair often sounds more like a separatist than a federalist. I guess this is to appeal to the BQ voters he needs to stay elected?
Mulcair is a loose canon - something L. Ian MacDonald and other members of Quebec's press have pointed out in the past. He was also criticised by The Montreal Gazette last year for voting in favour of more powers for Bill 101. I suggest Jack Layton reign him in and tell him to stop talking like a member of the PQ or he will lose his seat in the next election.
Second, you seem to be trying to speak for Bouchard and are claiming that his intervention didn't really mean what it sounds like. It's actually pretty clear what he said, and he was right on both counts. He said independence is not acheivable for Quebec any time in the near future, which most people know anyway, and he also said there is too much predjudice in the PQ towards non-Francophones, anglophones and racial minorities, which is also pretty obvious to those of us who have lived in Quebec.
Hopefully Quebecers who are separatists will realize that Quebec has "lost a lot of precious time" trying to separate and now we are way way behind other provinces and in tons of trouble.
I point the finger to all other separatist leaders Parizeau, Landry, Marois, Johnson who dragged Quebec into such a mess, a severely damaged and dangerous economic situation. Quebec did not attend to what was really important, health, education, public finances. Super urgent actions are now required and it will hurt a lot. Shame on you separatists! We must now rebuild what has been nearly destroyed. LET US HOPE WE HAVE NOT AWAKEN TOO LATE! For that we may thank Mr. Bouchard for coming out of the closet!