By the way……

It seems to me that I took a little heat for my support of Iggy’s ‘nation’ within a united Canada status for Quebec.

Now that Stephen Harper has brought forth the exact same concept, am I vindicated?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to By the way……

  1. scott says:

    No, it’s a false claim and does much to jeopardize the very social fabric that makes up not only New Brunswick but Quebec and Canada as well.

    Moreover, the province of Quebec is much too diverse to be simply classified as a “nation” as it is made up of many ethnic groups and languages. Plus, not all francophones can be lumped into the same boat as many townships [Beauce, Riviere du Loup, Rouyn-Noranda] in Quebec are of their own distinct identity as opposed to say Quebec City or Montreal.

    Something Harper and Iggy failed to address.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Who cares? Just politicians blowing wind.

  3. Anonymous says:

    NO. This opens the whole can of worms once again. ARRGGHH!

    If you’ll remember, the last time we got into serious trouble, Mulroney was trying to make changes to the constitution.

    When we just hum along and don’t make waves, all seems to go smoothly in Canada. I know I may be criticized for ignoring the facts, but that’s just the way it is.

  4. Cooker Boy says:

    How does this differ from the Chretien govt proclaiming Quebec as a distinct society? It will change nothing, expect maybe take some wind out of the seperatist sails.

  5. scott says:

    Good point, cooker boy.

    It probably doesn’t, but if you don’t mind me getting into the speculation game for a moment, I believe Harper will proceed with some sort of constitutional change much like Mulroney did with Meech and Charlottetown.

    However, the same can’t be said about Chretien who proceeded to move forward with the Clarity Act a few years after his initial motion. Which, btw, wasn’t a bloody affair like we witnessed with Charlottetown.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The name says it all, Charlottetown was an ‘accord’, the Clarity was an ‘Act’. Big difference. However, Charlottetown was FAR from ‘bloody’, in fact I think it was a template for how referenda should be run. Both sides at least had some money to work with (unlike New Brunswick’s referendum) and Trudeau’s involvement meant that both sides had some notoriety.

    Canadians dove into the referendum with the zeal that has rarely been shown in other jurisdictions, even on important referenda. There was close to 80% turnout, and face it, if you aren’t a minority, a criminal, a protestor, then its a pretty uninteresting topic. As was said of the 19th century referendum on prohibition “there were no men waiting to pay $2 to purchase your vote, no candidates waiting in the beer halls to buy you booze, it was during fall harvest and only during working hours, and women were not allowed to vote, yet still over half the population turned out”

    Study groups were set up, and immediately Mulroney’s side knew they were in trouble, a lot of people blame it on Trudeau, to try to make it sound like canadians are retards who can’t read. Media, political parties, virtually every journalist and organization on the government payroll screamed that refusal would destroy us all.

    The feds waiting as long as possible to put out the actual text of the accord, and from that point on it was all downhill.

    People like to blame it on rejection of Quebec, or on one thing or another. That’s fine, but being realistic this document set out a template to completely rewrite the charter and had virtually NO details. These were all to be worked out later by politicians. The fact that Mulroney wanted it so much and by this time was so hated didn’t help, since short of an election this was the only way to ‘thwart’ mulroney. No doubt some people voted that way, its a big country.

    It was for this reason that Patrick Boyer, the then conservative MP who is often attributed with pushing the national referendum, was told that we wouldn’t see another national referendum in a hundred years. We’re over one tenth there.

    I know this is off topic, sort of, but direct democracy is my raison d’etre and I take every opportunity to bring it up. Governments in Canada have one great fear-canadians. They fear us because we POTENTIALLY have power. This was shown in the Charlottetown Accord, this is why Reform, as a populist movement, originally touted citizens initiatives and why the media establishment jumped all over it when they could, and ignored mentioning it as much as possible.

    Notice that since then virtually every referendum has been carefully controlled both in its question and in its legislation so that the outcome can be assured.

    The Charlottetown Accord PROVED that canadians were as capable, or even MORE capable than their representatives of evaluating what is their best interests, and voting accordingly. There is nothing that politicians, or more accurately, those donors and lobbyists that control the central offices, fear more than the population. That’s why Irving puts so much propaganda out there. Right next door is one of the half of the states that has citizens iniatives and local referenda ALL THE TIME. How often have you EVER seen the outcome of one of these referenda discussed in the Irving paper? You may hear about Nova Scotia’s government, or Quebec, yet more of our border is shared with Maine than any other place and how often do you hear it mentioned-except maybe now that one mayor is supporting Atlantica and some people talk about building a highway through there.

    How often do you hear about their referendum on clear cuts? Or bear baiting? Or LNG terminals?

    Actually, the Clarity Act was FAR more ‘bloody’, just go read the media accounts while it was being pushed through. And of course while it was passed the bloodiness, like that sometimes attributed to World War One, was in most cases senseless. Quebec says they will ignore it anyway, and immediately wrote their own act to refute it. It was bloody and a waste of time. At least Charlottetown had people involved, they weren’t merely spectators in their own country. In fact, a poll a little while ago showed that a generation of canadians, unlike those before, actually KNEW what was in their constitution thanks to this exercise.

    We now return you to the originally scheduled broadcast.

  7. MonctonLandlord says:

    As time goes-on, and more and more NBers, relocate to Montreal. The yes and no votes are being skewed by the new residents, and I beleive that with time, the referendum will never acheive the required votes to seperate.

    Therefore all this talk will never change anything for Canadians. Except of course, imagine these talks actually generate a topic that could see a different Liberal Leader.

    Editorials and reporters are sad…

  8. scott says:

    Actually, the Clarity Act was FAR more ‘bloody’, just go read the media accounts while it was being pushed through.

    Why would I read the media accounts, I was there during that period. I had to work 72 hours straight with my MP while the Block fillibustered that bill.

    And next time, save the “Act” and “Accord” speal [explanation] for the neophytes in first year university. 😉

  9. scott says:

    If you’re wondering about the 36 hour bit, Joe Clark made his caucus show up on tuesday and because of the small size of his caucus many had to put in long hours.

    And for all those neophytes who actually give a shit, it was reported as 36 hours in the news but for those of us who had to endure 72 hours…well…we know better.

    Plus, a little inside tidbit from somebody who is too lazy to write a book about it, the Clarity Act was the main reason why Tim Powers [policy advisor] quit working in Joe Clark’s office and joined the Alliance. A TSN turning point for both his office and the loyalty of caucus members [Jim Jones et al.]

  10. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t you just restate my point?