NORMAN'S SPECTATOR

Rev. Francis Xavier is the father figure of Toronto's vibrant Tamil community. His question to Bob Rae at a meeting with Canadian Tamils a few days before the Liberal Party convention was typical of the role played by the leaders of some minority racial and religious groups in blatant efforts to wield political muscle.

The diminutive Father Xavier did not mince his words in laying out the price for the support of the 45 Tamil Canadian delegates to the Liberal convention: "Mr. Rae, I am great fan of yours and you have done a lot for the Tamil community as premier of Ontario, but will you promise to delist the Tamil Tigers from Canada's list of terrorist organizations, if you become leader of the Liberal Party and prime minister of Canada?"

Mr. Rae replied that if Tamil Canadians wanted the Tigers to be delisted, they should pressure the LTTE to do what Yasser Arafat did with the PLO and Nelson Mandela did with the ANC. "Firstly, there can be no military solution to the war in Sri Lanka and, second, if any politician promises you that he will help delist the LTTE as a terrorist organization, he is not telling the truth," he said. His response did not go down well -- and nary a Bob Rae button was to be found on the 45 Tamil Canadian delegates at the convention….

during the convention, the president of the Canadian Arab Federation, Khaled Mouammar forwarded a mass e-mail to Muslim delegates. The e-mail, with the subject line, "Don't elect a Leader who supports Apartheid," had a picture of Bob Rae with the following text plastered over his face: "Rae's wife is a Vice President of the CJC, a lobby group which supports Israeli apartheid and Israel's illegal Apartheid Wall. . . . Bob Rae supports Israeli Apartheid. Don't elect a leader who supports Apartheid."

It became a popular refrain. On Friday, a group of delegates coming from a breakfast arranged by the Canadian Islamic Congress taunted me: "Is Bob Rae going to be the prime minister of Israel or the prime minister of Canada?"

Two rookie MPs, Omar Alghabra, a Muslim, and, Navdeep Bains, a Sikh, held the strings of as many as 400 delegates in the Kennedy camp. When the time came, these delegates moved as a bloc to Mr. Dion.

Stéphane Dion may not know this, but his victory came in part through a political process that feeds on racial and religious exploitation. I respect the diversity of Canada, but I want to celebrate what unites us, not what divides us into tiny tribes that can be manipulated by leaders who sell us to the highest bidder.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006

Get ready to run (Weston)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006

For Harper, a double-edged sword (Hébert)

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2006

Harper holds advantage as he eyes election (Travers)

Voter vert et élire Dion (Auger)

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2006

A career politician, dedicated to his craft (Walkom)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2006

Odd way to start a convention (Gazette ed)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006

Don't obsess over numbers (Travers)

The Canada Health Act's sixth principle (Monahan)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2006

1992 McLeod win a glimpse at strategy (Reid)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2006

The Globe and Mail is onto nationhoood

The legal weight of a feather attaches to yesterday's hopelessly ambiguous resolution. No court could possibly make sense of it. The resolution refers to a people, not a province, and in the English version to the Québécois, not Quebeckers. Any separatists who tried to use this as a wedge would be disappointed. The law on separation is the federal Clarity Act of 2000, which requires a clear majority on a clear question in a referendum. The legal par-ameters around separation have also been set out in some detail by the Supreme Court in the 1998 secession case. Canada, the court said, is defined by federalism, democracy, the rule of law and protection of minorities; none of these principles trumps any other. The resolution changes all that not a whit.

Any legal attempts by Quebec to differentiate itself from the rest of Canada are circumscribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, not to mention the Constitution Act, 1867, setting out which level of government does what. The resolution does not change that, either.

It is regrettable that, as a symbol, it may be grist to the separatists; but so would its rejection have been grist, which is why Prime Minister Harper used finesse to steer the Commons to a motion that included the words "within a united Canada." What is important now is that Canada not try to "officialize" the recognition, to use -- for what we hope is the last time -- that horrible crowbar of a word with which the Liberal Party's Quebec wing, supported by Mr. Ignatieff, seeks to pry open this country's very own Pandora's box. No one should think that because of the political gamesmanship in Ottawa culminating in yesterday's exercise, the government of Canada should take concrete measures to appease Quebec, or for that matter any party that might be offended by the resolution. This particular game is done. Canada woke up this morning still one nation, undivided.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006

My Life as a Dog (Foer)

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2006

Could Harper be Canada's Richard Nixon? (Webster)

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2006

Ignatieff isolated from main rivals (Hamilton)

Dems in control? We're still staying in Canada (Drucker)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2006

Bottom line of Flaherty's pitch is next election (Travers)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2006

New dog, old trick: Democrat bark will be as fierce as Republican bite (Maddox)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2006

The Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson is onto Stéphane Dion

Stéphane Dion yesterday released a modest but intriguing policy on modifying pensions for those who work past 65, an intelligent bit of thinking about the future shape of the Canadian work force.

Will any delegates at next week's Liberal convention read it, and be swayed to join him? Probably not, because the leadership contest is not, by now, about policies, but character, judgment and who can win the country.

Mr. Dion has presented the most policy-oriented campaign. He's focused on three critical issues: making Canada much greener, improving its competitiveness and, of course, maintaining national unity. He's also run a very smart strategic campaign on a limited budget, impressing a lot of Liberals who gave him little or no chance to win.

A string of cards, however, must fall his way for him to become leader. It's unlikely they all will fall, but an outside chance exists that they could. In which case, Mr. Dion would have pulled off an astonishing political upset and defied most of the party establishment who favour either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae….

No other candidate has so many imponderables to resolve en route to victory. Yet, it is surprising how many people no longer discount Mr. Dion's admittedly outside chance.

Mr. Dion's strongest asset, and biggest liability, is himself.

He's a man of integrity, courage and intelligence. He demonstrated those characteristics for nine years as a cabinet minister. He survived the grossest abuse in Quebec for his fierce defence of federalism.

Civil servants who worked for him admired his masterly briefs and penetrating questions. He did a fine job on climate change at home and presiding over the United Nations conference on the subject in Montreal.

But, as former cabinet colleagues will attest, Mr. Dion can be dogmatic. He neither suffers fools gladly nor compromises easily. It is significant how few former ministers and MPs he has attracted. He tends to lecture, even hector, those with whom he disagrees. He does not let people down lightly.

He is also from Quebec. His English is good, and getting better, but is not perfect. A lot of Liberals, some of whom would never say so publicly, believe the party has been too long led by Quebeckers.

The movers and shakers of the Quebec Liberal Party, emaciated as it is, don't want Mr. Dion. They think he would be poison in his home province. They are quite likely wrong, but they spread this message outside the province to Mr. Dion's detriment.

With his policy ideas and his ironic positioning as a long-time minister running almost as an outsider against the establishment, Mr. Dion is the most intriguing candidate in the race.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006

Harper's hatred of messenger hurts strategy (Martin)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2006

The Globe and Mail’s Lysiane Gagnon is onto sovereignty, or not

Let's say you're a Quebec sovereigntist. You know that since Quebec is a democracy, there is only one way the province could become a sovereign country: through a referendum. So wouldn't you want a referendum to be held as soon as possible? This is certainly what elementary logic dictates. Yet, a vast majority of Quebeckers -- even those who say they are sovereigntists -- recoil from the idea.

These days, surveys show about 45 per cent of Quebeckers are in favour of sovereignty. But when polled on whether they want a referendum on the issue, most Quebeckers say they don't want one. (This trend has been consistent for decades: If it had been left to the people, there would have been no referendums in Quebec.)

This is why Jean Charest's Liberals systematically use the word "referendum" in their attacks against the Parti Québécois. This is the real bogeyman, while the vague concept of sovereignty has a relatively positive aura.

So, in the next election, the main theme of the provincial Liberals will be to paint the PQ as the party that wants to drive Quebeckers into another divisive referendum campaign….

if 45 per cent of Quebeckers really wanted sovereignty, there would be as high a proportion of people in favour of a referendum.

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2006

Liberal Holland hits the cultural panic button (Buruma)

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2006

Pity me, I'm famous (Fulford)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2006

A Ho-weird choice (Harris)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006

The Globe and Mail’s Lawrence Martin is onto the Grit also-rans

Though she has not yet made any public commitment, Ms. Hall Findlay sounds like she is leaning toward Bob Rae. He and Quebec's Stéphane Dion are her two favourites. In an interview yesterday, she said that, four months ago, she considered Mr. Rae's problems in Ontario to be a major hurdle. But “he's done really well in overcoming a lot of that.” She loves Mr. Dion's passion and integrity, “but a francophone leader at this time would present a big challenge for us in the rest of the country.”..

Mr. Volpe's plan is to quietly let his choice know of his decision just before the convention begins, so it can be factored into that candidate's planning. His camp is currently of the view that Mr. Rae is the likely winner. Mr. Volpe probably will want to be with that winner, doing anything along the way to stop Mr. Ignatieff.

Bob Rae has made very few mistakes. The former Ontario premier appears to have caught a wave on the way to the convention and seems positioned to ride it once he gets there. In the early manoeuvring, many eyes will be on the high-minded Mr. Dryden. In a recent interview, Mr. Dion described the hockey legend as “the most respected man in the Liberal Party.”

For the moment, the big guy is playing his cards close to his vest. But Mr. Ignatieff does not rank as his favourite. Mr. Dryden prides himself on his knowledge of the country, on how he feels it in his bones. He regards this as a key asset for the new leader, and when he looks at the Ignatieff experience — three decades spent mostly out of Canada — he can't be overly impressed. He is an admirer of Mr. Dion and Mr. Rae, and if he goes to any contestant — he may not make his choice known — it probably will be to one of those two….

While his candidacy has emphasized the economy, Mr. Brison noted that the leading contenders have all but ignored it. So he sees no natural ally there, and he is concerned, as he said, about Mr. Ignatieff's stumbles.

Many of Mr. Brison's delegates come from the socially progressive left of the party. And as Ms. Hall Findlay noted yesterday, there are doubts about Mr. Ignatieff's centre-left credentials.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2006

Latin America is preparing to settle accounts with white settler elite (Gott)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006

Dion? Don't bet on it (Travers)

Le Devoir’s Michel David is onto the nations debate

Quand le tandem Mulroney-Bourassa a tenté de réparer tant bien que mal les dégâts causés par les libéraux, Trudeau et ses émules se sont aussitôt mis à l'oeuvre pour saboter leur travail. Même Stéphane Dion a déjà déclaré qu'ils avaient commis une grave erreur, même s'il croit maintenant que ce serait encore plus grave de la réparer.

Le texte qu'un groupe d'éminents admirateurs de l'ancien premier ministre a signé hier dans Le Devoir montre à quel point sa pensée demeure vivante. C'est même à se demander si ces gens-là ne sont pas encore plus trudeauistes que Trudeau lui-même.

À leurs yeux, toute cette polémique à propos de la reconnaissance de la nation québécoise semble tellement minable et nombriliste à côté de cette réalisation admirable qu'est le Canada. Ce pays «que nous idéalisons et que le monde admire» n'est tout de même pas un «ramassis» de nations! Les Québécois doivent apprendre à surmonter leur «égoïsme historique» et cesser d'«idolâtrer leurs particularismes» afin de «vivre une expérience humaine de plus grande valeur». Bob Rae a peut-être de nombreux défauts, mais il nous épargne au moins les considérations sirupeuses sur la nécessité d'insister sur nos valeurs communes afin de «magnifier davantage notre potentiel de société humaniste». Ou encore celle d'éviter «l'isolement culturel qui rendrait caduque et vide de sens toute adhésion à la construction des idéaux qui ont fait ce pays». Il va sans dire que les idéaux qui ont présidé à la construction du Québec sont infiniment moins nobles.

Soit, les Québécois forment une nation, concède M. Rae, mais il est moins risqué pour l'unité du pays -- et du PLC -- de gérer leur frustration légitime de ne pas être reconnus comme tel que de faire une nouvelle tentative vouée à un échec certain. Ce n'est sans doute pas très agréable à entendre, mais dire les choses comme elles sont témoigne d'un minimum de respect, qui tranche avec le mépris qui suinte de chaque ligne du texte des trudeaumanes.

On peut difficilement reprocher à un aspirant au poste de chef du PLC et de premier ministre du Canada de vouloir éviter une crise majeure à son parti et au pays. Si besoin était, les sondages de Léger Marketing et de SES Research, dont les résultats ont été publiés en fin de semaine dernière, montrent clairement que le Canada anglais est encore plus allergique à la reconnaissance de la nation québécoise qu'il pouvait l'être à celle de la société distincte.

Quelle que soit la façon dont le PLC tentera de se tirer de se guêpier au congrès de la fin du mois, il restera d'importantes séquelles. Pour le moment, le seul avantage semble être de permettre à Jean Lapierre de quitter encore une fois le PLC sous prétexte d'outrage à la nation.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006

Hall Findlay keeps on running (Goar)

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2006

La voix du Québec (Pratte)

The Ottawa Citizen’s Charles Gordon is onto democracy

Knowing that the voters can kick them in the pants at any time has a beneficial effect on governments. It keeps them on their toes, keeps them listening to public opinion, keeps them from getting up their own pants….

The Bushites ruled on the assumption that the true believers would support them, the non-believers wouldn’t vote and right would triumph again. All they had to do was stay with the doctrine and get their vote out. For such people the kick in the pants comes as quite a shock.

But it should make them better people, more humble, more attentive. Because they don’t want it to happen again and the people get another chance to kick in two years.

We know all about this in Canada, because the same thing happened, deservedly, to a governing party. Obviously there are differences between the Martin Liberals and the Bush Republicans: the Liberals were not blinded by ideology because the Liberals do not have, have never had, an ideology to be blinded by. If they were blinded by anything, it was success.

Blinded by success, they couldn’t see the kick in the pants coming. They had forgotten, perhaps, that there was such a thing. They had forgotten 1984, when 20 or so years of Liberal rule came to a sudden and humiliating end.

One of the great rewards, however occasional, of being a voter is a chance to kick the government in the pants. Sometimes we do it for the wrong reasons — for example, if we crave novelty or, through no fault of its own, we just get a bit bored with the government (or the mayor).

But for the most part, our use of the kick in the pants is valuable and necessary for the survival of democracy.

Even for people who were not supporters of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, it was satisfying to see the Liberals get kicked in the pants in January. That election, like last week’s pants-kicking in the U.S., was an encouraging reminder that government can’t get away with everything forever, although it may be able to get away with anything for a while.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2006

The Gazette’s DON MACPHERSON is onto Iggy

One thing Michael Ignatieff has learned to his chagrin during his rediscovery of Canada is that the country has bilingual reporters. This means a politician can’t get away with accusing Israel of a “war crime” on a French-language talk show without fear of its getting back to his Jewish supporters in Toronto.

So when Ignatieff this week published the latest “clarification” of his campaign for the federal Liberal leadership, this time on the subject of recognizing Quebec as a nation, he scrupulously said exactly the same thing in both Canadian official languages….

In his 1993 book Blood and Belonging, Ignatieff wrote Quebec nationalism was ethnic. The only evidence he turned up that it was civic is that Quebec nationalists said it was.

Since becoming a candidate for the federal Liberal leadership, however, he has decided the Quebec nation is civic, although historian Ramsay Cook wrote to the Globe and Mail this week that Ignatieff’s description of it is still that of an “ethnic nation.”

I’d love to know why Ignatieff changed his mind. Maybe he’ll explain it in his next clarification.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2006

Understanding Gates (Mann)

The National Post’s G R A E M E H A M I LT O N is onto Iggy:

Michael Ignatieff says his promise to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada would give no “special constitutional status” to the province.

In an article published in a Quebec newspaper yesterday, the front-runner for the federal Liberal leadership attempted to douse the controversy generated by his proposal for constitutional reform and his support of a party resolution recognizing the “nation” of Quebec….

The eight leadership candidates have been trying to find a reworded resolution that all camps could support, but Mr. Dion did not hold out much hope for a compromise yesterday. He said he doubts he can support a resolution containing the word “nation.”

“This word is so loaded, so full of different meanings, that I don’t think people are prepared for that,” he said. He said everyone should stop behaving as if the resolution’s defeat would be a disaster for the party.

“We need to de-dramatize,” he said. “It’s not the end of the world to have a difference of view about the resolution.”…

Elements of Mr. Ignatieff’s latest article are contained in a campaign manifesto published in September. The earlier document included “Aboriginal peoples” in the same breath as Quebec when discussing “nations” to be recognized. Yesterday’s article dropped the mention of Aboriginals.

The earlier manifesto said eventual constitutional reform would acknowledge the “national status of Quebec.” In a leadership debate, he implied there was some urgency to the constitutional change. “Other candidates said, ‘Yes, we have to recognize [Quebec], but the constitutional recognition of Quebec is too difficult.’ Yes it’s difficult, but we have to do it,” he told Quebec City Liberals in September.

In his article yesterday he wrote: “Creating the conditions to embark on another round of constitutional reform will no doubt take time. When the good faith is there, when the common understanding is there, when the political will is there, we must bring this unfinished business to a successful conclusion.”

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2006

The Thumpees Try Their Luck at the Blame Game (Milbank)

The Gazette’s DON MACPHERSON is onto Stephen Harper

If I were one of the 10 Quebec Conservative MPs, or if I were Premier Jean Charest, then I’d be a little concerned about something that happened on Parliament Hill the other day.

It would have me wondering whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn’t writing off Quebec in the next federal election, and cutting me loose in the process.

After the daily question period in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Speaker Peter Milliken mentioned the presence in the visiting dignitaries’ gallery of hockey commentator Don Cherry.

MPs applauded and cheered. Some Bloc Québécois and Liberal members booed, however, and Liberals Marcel Proulx and Jean Lapierre protested against the speaker honouring the country’s most notorious francophobe.

The MPs who applauded might have done so because Cherry is popular with their constituents, or because he is an outspoken Canadian patriot and supporter of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

But some of them, at least, must have been aware that Cherry is known in Quebec mainly for his anti-francophone comments. Complaints about those comments on his Coach’s Corner segment of the CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada have been well publicized across the country. And yet MPs applauded him just the same.

Liberal and New Democrat MPs might have joined in the applause for Cherry, and their parties’ representatives declined to condemn him to reporters afterward.

Nevertheless, it was mainly the Conservatives who were responsible for Cherry’s being honoured in Parliament.

It was Conservative whip Jay Hill of British Columbia who had the speaker formally recognize Cherry’s presence in the gallery; Hill called Cherry “a distinguished Canadian.” And Harper received Cherry at his office on Parliament Hill and posed with him for a photographer.

Now, it’s possible that some MPs who applauded Cherry weren’t aware of his reputation in Quebec. But Harper certainly is.

Two years ago, in an interview with The Gazette during his campaign for the Conservative leadership, Harper was asked about Cherry’s recent attack on “French guys” as cowards for hiding behind visors while attacking opponents with their sticks.

Even in Quebec, Harper wouldn’t criticize Cherry, although he said that didn’t mean he agreed with everything Cherry said. So Harper knows what Quebecers think of Cherry. Yet Harper, who only recently sent a letter of protest to the Globe and Mail for insulting Quebec in an article, made no attempt to duck Cherry when the latter visited Parliament Hill.

The Ottawa Citizen’s BRIGITTE PELLERIN is onto religion and politics

Some political questions utterly baffle me. For instance, why is it OK for a Catholic priest to run for federal office as a Bloc Québécois candidate but not OK for an evangelical Christian to run the office of the environment minister?

Remember the hoopla a little over a month ago when it was announced that Darrel Reid was going to be Rona Ambrose’s chief of staff? I do. Mr. Reid, former president of the socially conservative Focus on the Family Canada and unsuccessful Tory candidate in Richmond, B.C., was criticized for being too conservative and especially too religious to occupy an important policy position such as chief of staff to a minister whose portfolio includes such religious issues as, um, well, that is to say …

Seriously, the Liberal party website quotes interim leader Bill Graham calling his appointment an “affront to our democracy,” and Mr. Reid was called all sorts of names because, hey, in nice and tolerant Canada there’s no room for those who don’t agree with Liberal mores. We’re entitled to call such people bigots and declare that they’ve got no right to earn a living within the country’s government.

I do not know Mr. Reid, although my husband once briefly worked for him. I might not find him a fun person to be around. Perhaps he’s abrasive and unpleasant. What do we care? Since when are we so involved in political appointments anyway? Who could tell me the name of, say, Health Minister Tony Clement’s chief of staff, and what that person thinks of abortion on demand?

Yeah, but dare to show yourself publicly as a religious individual, and watch out. Ask Stockwell Day if you don’t believe me. Or New Democratic MP Bill Blaikie.

Er, no. Not Mr. Blaikie, even though he is an ordained minister. A — gasp! — Christian minister. Aren’t we supposed to be afraid of him? Or are we afraid of religious folks only on the right side of the political spectrum?

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2006

Jackie Parker inspired a city with his talent (Edmonton Journal ed)

In The Globe and Mail, Franklyn Griffiths is onto the Northwest Passage:

With the election of Mr. Harper, Canada now has a Prime Minister committed to the creation of a credible military defence of Arctic sovereignty against all comers. Effective control of the Passage is to be had with the acquisition and deployment of three heavy naval icebreakers, anti-submarine detection devices, an armed-forces training centre at some point on the Passage, and still other measures.

Given how touchy we are when the U.S. ambassador merely restates the U.S. legal position on the Passage, we might expect Washington to question Ottawa about Canada's new Arctic sovereignty stance. But no, the State Department has not inquired of Foreign Affairs. Nor did it take Foreign Affairs up on a proposal earlier this year to meet for a day's discussion of Arctic developments.

Evidently, Washington has little or no objection to the Prime Minister's Arctic undertakings.

Indeed, there are signs of support for Canada's new determination to close the Passage to unauthorized navigation. …

Mr. Harper has hit upon an ingenious political stratagem. In the name of a sovereignty that is not actively threatened, he promotes Arctic military commitments that respond at once to the anti-American inclinations of Canadian nationalists and to the national security requirements of the United States. Having it both ways like this is an opportunity he is unlikely to forgo as the leader of a minority government. But it's not good for Canada.

Some say we must now engage the U.S. in a negotiation to secure the outright recognition of our Arctic sovereignty claim. I say the best way to endanger a sovereignty that's well in hand is to pick a fight with the U.S. Navy and stick to it. This we would do in seeking to make the United States bow on the law when we are secure in the benefits of de facto control of the Northwest Passage.

The Prime Minister should instead begin to offer leadership in helping us Canadians lay our Arctic sovereignty obsession to rest. He should engage not the United States in the name of Arctic sovereignty, but the people and government of Nunavut in the name of Arctic stewardship.

Stewardship is the enactment of sovereignty. We have the sovereignty we need. Let's use it to bring northerners and southerners together as keepers of the Northwest Passage -- keepers not in the sense of opposed to losers, but keepers who secure, watch over, and look after their Arctic lands, waters, and fellow nationals in an era of unprecedented climate and geopolitical change.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006

Le Devoir’s Michel David is onto Iggy and Jean Charest

Le problème est que M. Ignatieff ne s'est pas contenté d'allumer un incendie au Canada anglais. Il a également haussé la barre de plusieurs crans pour le gouvernement Charest. Peu importe comment les délégués au congrès du PLC tenteront de noyer le poisson, comment un gouvernement québécois digne de ce nom, tout fédéraliste qu'il soit, peut-il désormais exiger moins que la reconnaissance constitutionnelle de la nation québécoise?

Vendredi, Jonathan Valois a bien essayé d'amener M. Pelletier à prendre cet engagement, mais il s'en est bien gardé. Le professeur est devenu un parlementaire aguerri, qui sait très bien embrouiller les choses. En deux heures de débat, il a abondamment parlé de nation et de reconnaissance, mais jamais dans la même phrase. La seule reconnaissance qu'il envisage explicitement est celle de la «spécificité québécoise».

Le ministre savait que chacun de ses mots serait scruté à la loupe. Pas question d'improviser sur une question aussi délicate. Son texte avait été soigneusement préparé. La phrase clé était la suivante: «Il importe davantage de se pencher sur les conséquences juridiques de la reconnaissance de la spécificité québécoise que sur la nature des termes employés.»

Il dit souhaiter «le même type de reconnaissance que l'on trouvait dans Meech, c'est-à-dire une disposition qui servirait éventuellement de clause d'interprétation de la constitution canadienne»….

À l'époque de Meech, Robert Bourassa avait pu compter sur l'appui de la grande majorité des Québécois, mais Jean Charest serait coincé. À moins de réclamer officiellement la reconnaissance de la nation québécoise, ses demandes seraient jugées insuffisantes. Et s'il l'exigeait, le refus du Canada anglais serait immédiat.

Heureusement, il n'y aura pas de reprise des négociations, mais l'incroyable bourde de M. Ignatieff a déjà eu pour effet de mettre en lumière la fragilité de la position constitutionnelle du gouvernement Charest. M. Pelletier a peut-être fait de grands progrès en politique, mais le miroir ne trompe pas. Lui-même devrait peut-être s'y regarder.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2006

How funny foreigners are (Preston)

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2006

An impossible mission? (Goldstein)

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2006

Rising Stock: The amazing comeback of Stockwell Day (L Martin)

Tories, Liberals equal threats to public's trust (Travers)

Selling a calling for a mess of pottage (De Souza)

He’ll take his lumps (Brodbeck)

The Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente is onto violence

On Thursday evening in Surrey, B.C., there was a remarkable scene. A string of South Asian women stood up at a public meeting to speak out. Their stories weren't pretty. One woman, speaking in Punjabi and English, recounted 20 years of punches, slaps and taunts from the husband with whom she still lives. “If I can improve one girl's life, it is worth my husband's anger,” she said. …

It's not clear how widely the views of the misogynous imam are shared by Australia's growing Muslim population. Few would publicly use the extreme language he did. But the belief that women are responsible for inciting the ungovernable lust of men is embedded in Muslim culture. A few days later, another Australian imam echoed the sheik's view, saying that women are sexually attacked only because men are provoked.

Here in Canada, M.D. Khalid, a director of the Islamic Society of North America (Canada), told the Toronto Star this week that a woman should cover her face to avoid the unwanted attention of men. When pressed if he meant only beautiful women, he said, “Very attractive women. It's essentially trying to avoid any bad feelings from men.”

Many observant Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and other immigrants from highly patriarchal societies have no problem living quite happily within a liberal democratic state. But many others do. Some moderate Muslims here in Canada say that Canadian imams generally share the views of the red-meat mufti. “The entire onus of responsibility for male behaviour is on the women,” says Farzana Hassan, who is president of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “This is what young women are being taught all the time.”

Western feminists have long denounced the evils of patriarchy. Yet they also excuse and even endorse patriarchal behaviour — so long as it's imported from somewhere else. Feminists (along with folks like Mr. Khalid) were among the leading proponents of introducing sharia law in Ontario.

In theory, feminism and multiculturalism go hand in hand. They are the mark of a liberal enlightened society. The multicultural credo holds that everyone is equal, that all cultures are equally good, that multicultural values and mainstream values do not conflict, and that the greatest moral virtues are tolerance and respect.

What happens, then, when multicultural and mainstream values do conflict? What happens when certain subcultures tolerate the abuse of women? What happens is that those practices are either blamed on the defects of the West or wished away. No subculture must be judged or criticized. That explains why you don't hear very many Western feminists standing up to argue for the right of South Asian and Muslim women to not be slapped around by their husbands. “Where two pieties — feminism and multiculturalism — come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence,” wrote British social critic Theodore Dalrymple.

Many multiculturalists and feminists also feel bound to stand in solidarity with critics of the West. These days, that means Muslims, especially those who have explicitly rejected identity with the West. That's how we've arrived at a most peculiar moment in the history of women's liberation — a moment when Western feminists endorse the veil as an instrument of female empowerment.

Personally, I'm with the South Asian women who were courageous enough to speak out the other night. It's time to ditch the pieties and end the silence — for the sake of this generation, and the next.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2006

A million fingers are tapping out a challenge to the tyranny of spelling (Jenkins)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2006

Aloha, General Rick (Weston)

The Globe and Mail’s Gary Mason is onto the RCMP

The RCMP has a lot riding on a sensational case arising, in part, from the force's bold raid on the British Columbia Legislature almost three years ago. If you're going to pull off a move like that — and instantly ruin careers and reputations in the process — you'd better have the goods.

So far, at least, the actions of the Mounties in this high-profile case have not been cast in the best light.

This week in pretrial hearings at B.C. Supreme Court, for instance, it was revealed that the force was twice refused permission by the courts to wiretap a provincial government cellphone, but got the go-ahead on a third attempt by not telling the judge the phone was registered at the legislature.

After getting approval, the Mounties then inadvertently eavesdropped on a conversation between Premier Gordon Campbell and his finance minister, who was using the phone of the ministerial aide the RCMP was targeting….

Although Mr. Basi has yet to be found guilty of anything, he was fired a day after the raid was conducted on Dec. 28, 2003. The Premier's office was apparently informed by the RCMP that charges against Mr. Basi were imminent.

As it turned out, he wouldn't be charged until a year later.

In September of 2004, the RCMP announced that after a two-year investigation it was laying drug charges against Mr. Basi and seven others. In Mr. Basi's case, the charges involved a grow-op the Mounties found in a house owned by the former political aide but rented out to another individual.

Charges against Mr. Basi would later be withdrawn.

When the case against Mr. Basi gets to court, more information is likely to surface regarding some of the RCMP's actions that are at least highly questionable.

For instance, the lead investigator for the Mounties in the massive drug and money-laundering case was Corporal Andrew Cowan. It is Cpl. Cowan who swore the search-warrant information leading to the raid on the legislature.

Mr. Basi's defence team plans to raise the fact Cpl. Cowan purchased a home from the Basi family in June of 1999. He dealt specifically with Dave Basi leading up to and after the sale. However, in the months after the sale, according to Mr. Basi, Cpl. Cowan took issue with problems at the home.

Discussions between Cpl. Cowan and Mr. Basi over this became quite acrimonious, again according to Mr. Basi. In the end, however, the Basis refused to financially remedy Cpl. Cowan to fix the problems.

(Contacted Wednesday, Cpl. Cowan said that was not his recollection of events, but if someone “can present evidence to the contrary I'd be prepared to look at it.”)

The Gazette’s DON MACPHERSON is onto Iggy

Four signs you’re not going to win the leadership of the federal Liberal Party:

1) Pierre Trudeau’s son is against you, and Bernard Landry is for you.

2) The only plank of your platform that now matters has been widely rejected in English Canada, even by some of your own supporters.

3) The opinion is crystallizing that your party needs to be saved from you, your opponents are scrambling to limit the damage you’ve caused already, and the country’s most influential pundit has called you an idiot.

4) The other candidates, whose supporters you need to win over, are lined up against you on what has become the single issue of the campaign.

All this has happened since the Quebec wing of the party, led by Michael Ignatieff ’s supporters, polarized the leadership campaign on whether or not to recognize Quebec as a nation.

After Justin Trudeau said the idea of Quebec nationhood “stands against everything my father ever believed,” Landry rushed to congratulate Ignatieff and the Quebec Liberals.

He did so in an open letter written in French and addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but maybe really intended for English Canada.

Landry might have hoped that the endorsement of a wellknown sovereignist would sabotage the nationhood proposal, causing Quebec to feel rejected once again.

He might have been inspired by Jacques Parizeau’s mischievous advice to viewers of CBC’s The Journal during the Meech Lake debate to “just watch” how he would use the clause recognizing Quebec as a “distinct society.”

Landry warned that recognition of Quebec nationhood would lead to sovereignty. “Why should the Quebec nation be satisfied with the status of the province of another nation and give up equality with your nation and all others?”

Le Devoir’s Bernard Descôteaux is onto the Dippers and Cons

Jack Layton présente comme une victoire le fait que le gouvernement ait retenu l'idée de soumettre à un comité parlementaire l'examen de ce projet, ce qui permettra aux partis d'opposition de présenter des amendements au projet de loi. Il est vrai que celui-ci pourra même être récrit d'un bout à l'autre au cours de cet exercice, mais à la fin, ces amendements resteront lettre morte. Jamais le gouvernement ne soumettra au vote -- et c'est sa prérogative de le déclencher -- un projet qui ne correspond pas à ses intentions.

En envoyant son projet de loi à ce comité, Stephen Harper n'a fait aucune concession. Conscient que le projet de loi C-30 n'aurait jamais l'appui de l'opposition, il a tout intérêt à le laisser s'enliser dans des débats de procédure. Chacun défendra son point de vue et fera entendre ses experts. De part et d'autre, on s'accusera de ne pas avoir de véritable plan pour s'attaquer à la réduction des émissions de gaz à effets de serre, domaine en lequel le Canada est littéralement à la queue de la classe mondiale.

De cette façon, le premier ministre se trouve à encadrer un débat dont il sait qu'il se poursuivra jusqu'aux prochaines élections. En campagne électorale, il pourra par contre rendre l'opposition responsable du fait que rien n'a été fait alors qu'elle clame l'urgence d'agir. Et qui sait, en cours de débat, Jack Layton pourra à nouveau être tenté de faire bande à part. Tout est possible maintenant qu'on sait que le chef du NPD est ouvert aux compromis... pour peu qu'on y mette le prix.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2006

The Ottawa Citizen’s SUSAN RILEY is onto the Grits: (J Simpson below)

Only one Liberal leadership candidate is likely to emerge from a race that is turning into a bruising marathon with an enhanced reputation — and, unfortunately, she is expected to place last.

She, of course, is Martha Hall Findlay, the only woman left in the eightperson contest. She has been busy this week trying to resolve a problem not of her making — the divisive battle that has erupted over recognizing Quebec as a nation — displaying the sensible, sleeves-up, results-oriented style that has become her trademark. …

The same cannot be said of frontrunner Michael Ignatieff, who keeps dropping matches in the dry grass, then indignantly denying there is a fire, and, when that doesn’t work, accusing someone else of starting it. His latest maladroit move has plunged his party into a crisis to the delight of sovereigntists and of Stephen Harper….

only Ignatieff is pushing the national unity file — some 80 per cent of the party’s Quebec delegates, including supporters of Bob Rae and arch-federalist Stéphane Dion, supported a recent resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation, and calling on the new leader to “formalize” that recognition. That, of course, opens the way for another round of complex, distracting, divisive and potentially futile constitutional negotiations. Little wonder that Rae and Dion, both survivors of past constitutional wars, want no part of it.

Indeed, the condemnation of the Ignatieff-supported resolution has been so widespread — every pundit and editorial board outside Quebec, premiers, former prime ministers and constitutional bigwigs — that it gives pause. Maybe Ignatieff is right when he says “we can’t let the failures of the past determine our future as a country forever.” Maybe this gesture will make Quebecers forget Liberal corruption, Chrétien’s thuggishness and Pierre Trudeau’s austere contempt for nationalism in all its guises and lead to a resurgence of federalism and of Liberal fortunes in Quebec.

Except that at the first whiff of controversy, Ignatieff started qualifying. He isn’t about to reopen the Constitution tomorrow, he said, and recognizing Quebec as a nation doesn’t mean giving it more power — much less sovereignty. He is proposing a symbolic gesture, a statement of the obvious — although it isn’t clear who belongs to the Quebec “nation” — with legal ramifications to be discussed later. An essay question, in effect.

As for the contretemps, that is Bob Rae’s fault. “Bob,” says his old friend, “is trying to imply that I want to pitch the country into constitutional talks tomorrow morning. This is false, and he knows it’s false.” So recognizing Quebec as a nation is an urgent bit of unfinished business, or a vaguely desirable future prospect? With Ignatieff, it depends on the audience.

Like Ignatieff, Hall Findlay is a relative newcomer to federal politics. While he was building a reputation as a journalist and public intellectual abroad, she was raising a family and building a law firm in Ontario. She has run a low-budget, high-impact campaign; she appears confident, reasonable, well-versed and politically savvy. She is running last and he is running first. There is something wrong with this picture, but it won’t likely occur to Liberals until too late.

The Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson is onto Iggy’s nation

This commission, whose report is available on the party website, did not endorse recognizing Quebec as a "nation" in the Constitution. It said only that "some people have begun to adopt the term 'nation' when they speak of Quebec in the federation." It concluded that, "in our view, Quebec is a nation in the sociological sense."

Which, of course, is not quite true. French-speaking Quebeckers might constitute a "nation in the sociological sense," but Quebec as a political entity does not because of the presence there of many non-francophones.

Leave that important quibble aside. The committee's report repeatedly and emphatically rejected constitutional amendments. It said, correctly, that the Liberal Party should "always consider and respect the fact that Quebec has a special character in the Canadian federation."

As for constitutional change, the report argued: "We strongly believe that Canada is not ready for another constitutional round. We also believe that the country has been well served so far by other types of solutions, such as administrative agreements." It concluded: "The best way to proceed is with a non-constitutional approach."…

But the party's Quebec wing became dominated in the leadership campaign by Michael Ignatieff supporters who discarded the "renewal commission's" recommendations in favour of something that has already split the party and, if adopted, would divide the country.

The Quebec wing's insistence of eventual recognition of Quebec as a "nation" in the Constitution has many sides in the leadership campaign scrambling for a face-saving compromise. No candidate agrees with Mr. Ignatieff, so the others are trying to find a common position they can then negotiate with him and his people.

What's happened reflects the reflexes of a party once it tumbles into opposition -- it casts around for trendy but not well-considered ideas -- and how the Liberals are ironically, but predictably, showing the old symptoms of the Conservative Party in Quebec.

BIO	UPDATE	RADIO	EMAIL ME

		VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA