Modeling Journey

The Quebec as a nation motion is strongly supported by Ignatieff, who raised the question of enshrining Quebec as a nation in the constitution a while back. Now, the Party is faced with a half-baked motion, which promises much to those in Quebec but downplays its significance for those Canadians in other provinces. And we are told that to reject this ill-thought out motion would be to turn the backs of the Liberal Party on all those who live in Quebec.

What nonsense.

Ignatieff and his supporters are trying to stampede the Liberal delegates into supporting the Motion, by arguing (falsely) that:

-- to reject the Motion is to say to Quebeckers that we do not care for their role in Canada. This is a gross distortion of the motives of those who strongly oppose this Motion. The Motion is so flawed that its rejection has very little to do with rejecting Quebeckers. To say this is to resort to political blackmail of the grossest and clumsiest type.


-- all major candidates share the view that Quebec is a "nation". This too is a deliberate falsehood. Not even the Quebeckers supporting this Motion are agreed on what it means. Not even Ignatieff, in his writings, has agreed on what this word means; in fact, he has contradicted himself several times on this aspect. Dion has written a devastating analysis of this and other aspects, and his arguments have not been addressed by Ignatieff.


-- all candidates have agreed that the concept of a "nation" can be enshrined in the constitution, at some time in the future. This also flies in the face of truth.

The arguments used by Ignatieff supporters are dishonest, and dangerous. They are deliberately untruthful, and are not in the interests of Canada or the Liberal Party.

Whether the word "nation" is placed in the preamble of the constitution, or in the body, substantially alters the legal effect of this concept. Ignatieff is a professor of law, and should know better; however, we do not see him stepping forward to explain the differences. One the one hand he says it is of symbolic importance only; on the other, that it is very important to Quebec. Whether or not the word will result in a devolution of power to the province of Quebec, affecting the Charter of Rights amongst other things, is a legal consequence of extraordinary importance, yet we do not hear Ignatieff discussing this.

Ignatieff's adoption of this Motion, with is deceptive words "formalize" and later "officialise" (code words for constitutional enshrinement), and his continued silence on the awful consequences to Canada of such a radical change to our constitution, amount to his hijacking the Liberal Party in his efforts to become leader.

The Constitution belongs to Canada. Not to the Liberal Party. Not to one provincial wing of the Liberal Party. The Charter of Rights belongs to Canada. Delegates to the convention should not expect members of the Party to accept any Motion they pass which might have the consequence of forcing Canada down a path to constitutional conflict. If they adopt this Motion, the Liberal Party will run the risk of many Canadians holding their noses and voting for the Tories.

Very few Canadians will trade their Constitution and Charter of Rights just to allow Michael Ignatieff to become leader of the Liberal Party. That mess of porridge is far, far too insignificant for such a sacrifice.