Brad Davis responds to Dion

from WK October 25 2006

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.”