Stephane Dion aka The Trouble Fixer!
National Newswatch is reporting on an interview given by Stephane Dion to Tom Young, a New Brunswick radio host. In it, Stephane Dion calls himself the "trouble fixer".
Somehow, I doubt Stephane Dion wore a cape and flew into the room to announce in a baritone to the PM and his staff, "Eet is I, zee Trahhble Feexur!"
In fact, based on what people have been telling me, the truth is much more pedestrian. But no less signficant. I just don't see why Stephane Dion feels the need to embellish.
From National Newswatch, Stephane Dion let's us know about his critical role in the recent announcement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to recognize Quebeckers as a nation within a united Canada:
During an interview Thursday afternoon with New Brunswick talk radio show host Tom Young, Liberal Leadership candidate Stephane Dion took partial credit for Prime Minister Harper's stand asking the House of Commons to declare that Quebec is a nation — "within a united Canada." ....
Describing himself as a "trouble fixer," Dion told host Tom Young that the prime minister called him for advice on how to solve the Quebec Nation issue. Dion indicated he advised the PM on how to fix the problem. He also indicated that he will be supporting the government motion because it's very close to the solution he freely gave the prime minister.
Wow! What a guy! I've got a TV that is all blue in tint. Do you think he could fly in and fix that too?! You know, take something blue and make it more red?
Let's assume that the report in National Newswatch is accurate. Frankly, I found it hard to believe that Stephen Harper breathlessly called Stephane Dion to beg for help, and that Stephane Dion essentially wrote the motion himself, so I contacted a friend close to the top:
We consulted with different folks from the other federal parties as it was crucial to get them on side. That was important both for yesterday and the next few days.
Well, duh! We know that Liberal Party leader Bill Graham and NDP leader Jack Layton were consulted too:
Harper first approached Graham Tuesday night and told him he was going to "figure something out" to counter the Bloc motion, Liberal sources say. It was an aide who alerted Harper to the Bloc motion at 6 p.m., Tuesday and immediately the Prime Minister started looking for his own wording, said a senior federal source.
Harper, who cut his political teeth on constitutional issues back in the 1980s and the 1990s, mainly as an opponent of special status for Quebec, also met privately with NDP Leader Jack Layton Tuesday night.
As for consulting with Stephane Dion, his advice was sought out and his opinion was valued as a person who has for years spent a lot of time thinking about the problem of Quebec's role in Confederation. Significantly, the Toronto Star report strongly suggests that the advice was sought on a wording that had already been developed by the PM and his staff:
Dion got a call from a Harper adviser, seeking his advice as a constitutional expert and as a Liberal contender. Dion told the Star last night that "within Canada" was close enough to his proposal to recognize Quebec's nation status as a "sociological," not legal fact. "It's no big deal," he said.
An adviser called him? Not the personal phone call from the PM suggested by the National Newswatch piece? Not the role as the author of the resolution, but a proofreader? To be honest, I would have thought that the role Dion played as described in the Toronto Star piece was worthy enough, and nothing that needed embellishment.
Some people just don't feel special unless they're alone in the spotlight.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Stephane Dion Stephen Harper Quebec Canada Bill Graham Jack Layton Conservative Party Liberal Party New Democratic Party NDP
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Didn't Dion also claim to have written the Clarity Act all by himself, when it has since been revealed that Harper had a big hand in its composition?
What a bozo... Next thing you know, he will be claiming how he advised God to create the Earth.
Too bad liberals don't believe in promoting God in politics (unless his last name was Trudeau), because this guy would certainly be a savior. Toob bad he speaks English like a handicapped robot.
Posted by: Jarrett Bezaire at November 23, 2006 10:53 PM
What's really too bad, is that Harper has just sold the farm. By partisans on the right, this is being spun as a Brilliant Move by Harper, Calling the Bloc on their Bluff, Turning the Tables on the Bloc, etc.
Sadly, as Coyne has detailed excrutiatingly, it is simply feeding the fire.
Dion, by supporting this move, has just killed his credibility as the one guy who (used to) stands for Federalism.
Posted by: bob at November 24, 2006 04:30 AM
Is there any difference between Harper's conception of "nation within a nation" and the "distinct society" of the last decade? Well, except for the fact that "nation" is so much more of a loaded term, and therefore more easily coopted by First Nations and Separatists as a way to continue furthering their blackmail?
Coyne is right -- Harper hasn't defeated the Bloc at their own game, he has just given the game away.
Posted by: roger at November 24, 2006 05:38 AM
Any difference other than one involved constitutional changes and "nation within a united Canada" does not?
The Nationals "at issue" panle on wednesday was interesting. Coyne looked tearful while Gordon Gibson summed up most westerners position pretty well; As long as it does not give any special or increased powers to Quebec, who cares?
No constitutional amendments, boxed the Bloc in, gave a smackdown to the Liberals and once again proved the NDP irrelevant.
I see Iggy as liable for blame for raising the whole issue in the first place. He gets a temporary boost but may ultimately pay the price for starting the mess.
Harper wins on so many fronts. Once more he outfoxed, outflanked and surprised the pundits. All in a days work.
enough
Posted by: enough at November 24, 2006 09:58 AM
No constitutional amendments, boxed the Bloc in, gave a smackdown to the Liberals and once again proved the NDP irrelevant . . . I see Iggy as liable for blame for raising the whole issue in the first place . . . Harper wins on so many fronts.
It is this extraordinarily contradictory attitude that is so confusing. It smacks of pure partisanship.
Iggy advocates recognizing Quebec as a nation (without constitutional ammendment), and most conservatives rip him apart for selling out to separatists, etc.
Harper advocates recognizing Quebec as a nation (without constitutional ammendment), and it is seen as a shrewd move "on so many fronts."
Ignatieff should be blamed. Harper should be lauded.
It is also strangely out of line with the CP's previous policies. As Well's points out, in 2003 Scott Reid objected to the use of the word "nation" to describe Quebec because of the "conflation between whatever nation might exist, whatever people might exist and a state. The attempt here is to create a nation state."
Reid was right then, and it is right now. "Distinct Status" was clear in its bounds. "Nationhood" is so ambiguous that it will be used to attempt to wring "national powers". Charest's comments are just the beginning:
"This will have significance, both in domestic law and on the international stage. It changes the way our laws are interpreted. It changes the way Quebecers will see their future because the recognition of Quebec as a nation is a way for us to occupy the place that is owed us in Canada and elsewhere in the world."
Whether Charest's interpretation has legal merit is irrelevant. It is the impending argument that matters. There are two probable results, and one improbable:
1) The Feds will crack again and grant further special powers on the basis of nationhood.
2) the Quebecois will recognize that this is an entirely empty and meaningless statment, and react against it.
3) Quebecois will be pleased as punch to be recognized as "a nation" without any other concessions, and everything will go only happily ever after.
Somehow, I doubt that the third option will fly -- and the fact that the Bloc intends to vote against it is just the earliest proof.
And this doesn't even touch the queue of other interest groups who will be requesting "nation within a nation" status (First Nations, Acadians, Albertan Ukrainians, etc.).
Posted by: bob at November 24, 2006 10:52 AM
Correction. Iggy did want to put this in the constitution where it would have legal ramifications.
The resolution refers to the Quebecois, not Quebec. Huge difference.
Bob's 3rd option is possible.
There are about 5000-6000 nations in the world. Peoplegroups with distinct cultures, languages/dialects, and societies. 97% do not have their own nation state or are they recognized in their countries' constitution.
I opposed Meech and I voted against Charlottetown because they wrote Quebec a blank cheque and froze any future Constitutional change. (Quebec veto.)
I support this motion as written. The Quebecois are a nation. Anybody who is interested in "people groups" would recognize this. This does not provide them with special powers. Quebec is not a distinct society worth constitutional recognition.
First Nations and Acadians are nations. I would support any similar resoltion recognizing that as well. First Nations have special rights because their nationhood was recognized as a part of treaties. The terms of those treaties were the basis for national rights. Quebec is welcome to try and negotiate a special deal, but the rest of Canada would have to agree.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at November 24, 2006 01:19 PM
The number of nations in the world depends on your definitions and criteria. Some would put it well over 10,000. Factors are language/dialect, race (genetics), geography, religion, caste, music, culture and political boundaries. The last item is the least important.
This is why the "Quebecois are a nation" statement bothers French Canadians outside Quebec. They feel excluded from this nation definition. They belong to the people group of French Canadians.
However, over time political boundaries do help form new national identities. An artificial British drawn boundary divided my wife's tribe in two. Now this is leading some to think that those in the other country are part of a different tribe with a different name yet a common language and culture. East Germans were developing their own nation with its own dialect and culture. Reunification is erasing that difference, but to everyone's dismay in Germany they have found out that they are indeed two nations now.
By the way, my wife's tribe fought a 30 year battle for independence from India. They lost, but they did get their own state. They are a unique nation, not an independent country. Sort of like the Quebecois; lost the war, but not their national identity.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at November 24, 2006 02:17 PM
 
|
|
