HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4001  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 6:27 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit View Post
you know, conrad black's contribution to this discussion is not half-bad. it's a lot more historically informed than most.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ready-to-deal/
Agreed. And I personally loathe Lord Bloviating Bellicose of Crossharbour. But, in this case, his assessment and review of the record is quite good.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4002  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 6:35 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post



Him having ancestors direct from continental Europe going to the Canadian West does seem like the most probable origin at this point.
Could be. The French white pages have about a dozen people with that name in France. Which makes it extremely rare in a country of that size.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4003  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 6:58 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
French-Canadian nationalists, long accustomed to denigrating Canada as a mediocre amalgam of Anglo-American leftovers, now face the fact that it is one of the 10 or so most important countries in the world, and the French Canadians effectively governed or co-governed this country from 1921 to 2006, except for the Bennett and Diefenbaker years (1930-1935, 1957-1963).
Surprised this chestnut didn't raise more discussion. While I believe it's 100% accurate, it sounds very much like a lot of the "RoC telling Quebec how it is" that gets derided so much here.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4004  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 7:05 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
Surprised this chestnut didn't raise more discussion. While I believe it's 100% accurate, it sounds very much like a lot of the "RoC telling Quebec how it is" that gets derided so much here.
I actually thought it was a pretty astute observation.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4005  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2014, 12:22 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Whatever one thinks of Black, that is an interesting article, and not only for the straightforward presentation of relevant history. His thoughts on a new constitutional dispensation, including the formalization of mechanisms for the partition of seceding provinces, are the kind of thing that Canadians need to be discussing, although we may not be ready in which case the opportunity could be missed.

For as long as I can remember, the issue of Quebec independence has seemed like a one way street, which has served to generate increasing resentment and resistance in MOC, even to the point of dangerous "don't let the door hit you" attitudes during the recent Quebec election campaign. New thinking is required. Specifically, I'd like to see the country move on to "What is Quebec willing to give in order to achieve what it wants?". Black's suggestion of agreed mechanisms for the partition of seceding provinces strikes me as a very good one, as part of a broader package (just look back to comments on partition in this thread to see why). To that, I'd add explicit constitutional recognition of the federal mandate in international affairs (with a defined, limited provincial role if necessary) and a formal agreement on some federal role with respect to Canada's francophone culture. I actually don't find his comments about the Senate and Supreme Court very contentious (why not have the Feds appoint them from lists of qualified candidates provided by the provincial governments, for example?).
Good points. I like how he just out of hand says Quebec is unlike any of the other provinces, never has been, and should be dealt with differently.

As an aside, ironically enough, had the provinces gone along with Harper's early Senate reform proposals, something like the Fair Elections Act would have a hell of a hard time getting through the Senate.

Quote:
I have my doubts, however, that public opinion in Canada is prepared for that kind of thinking - the "oh no, not the Constitution" mentality seems to have a pretty firm hold.

Edit: Reading the comments in the NP (one should never do that!), it would seem that many are totally unprepared to shake off old ways of thinking. I wonder if the same wouldn't be true of Quebeckers' comments (coming from the opposite direction) if Le Devoir or La Presse were to pick up the Black piece?
Other pundits were responding similarly on Twitter as well. The sentiment seems to be that separatism is dead, let the good times role and ignore any of the things Quebec has had issues with over the years because it doesn't matter anymore.

I think they're wrong and Conrad Black is correct: we haven't seen a premier of Quebec like Philippe Couillard in living memory. He hasn't been elected on a sovereigntist ticket, nor even on a more typical Quebec Liberal nominally federalist but demand-more-out-of-Ottawa platform. The very fact that he wasn't elected on either of those is the perfect reason why now is the time to get the constitutional issues addressed and out of the way, once and for all.

I also see another issue in the future: if Couillard actually is successful in getting Quebec back on its feet - and he seems like the type who might just be able to carry it off - it will make the 'cost' to Quebec of separation more bearable. All but the most blinkered of Quebec sovereigntists realize that Quebec has to gets own house in order before separation can be seriously contemplated. By the same token, it's an idiotic national unity strategy to try to keep Quebec in Confederation by way of fiscal dependency.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4006  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2014, 12:27 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
With the federal Conservatives imploding (it increasingly seems) and focused on the 2015 elections, I suppose we have a couple of years to see if Couillard's election really presents an opening to look at constitutional matters. I don't have a good sense of the man, but he doesn't seem like a typical Quebec provincial Liberal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4007  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2014, 12:40 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,775
[QUOTE=kwoldtimer;6540127]With the federal Conservatives imploding (it increasingly seems) and focused on the 2015 elections, I suppose we have a couple of years to see if Couillard's election really presents an opening to look at constitutional matters. I don't have a good sense of the man, but he doesn't seem like a typical Quebec provincial Liberal.[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting point. Looking at his bio he seems much less of a career politician that most of the ones we've had in the past few decades: Bourassa, Johnson and Charest.

He's also got more life and professional experience in the "wider world" than these guys had. (Interesting that while doing the bio search I noticed most of the PQ leaders over the same period - except for Pauline Marois - generally had more experience with the wider world than the Liberal guys did.)
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4008  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2014, 12:44 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post

Edit: Reading the comments in the NP (one should never do that!), it would seem that many are totally unprepared to shake off old ways of thinking. I wonder if the same wouldn't be true of Quebeckers' comments (coming from the opposite direction) if Le Devoir or La Presse were to pick up the Black piece?
What is your question exactly? That if someone suggested reopening constitutional talks that the general view in Quebec would be NOOOOOO?

If that's your question, my sense is that people would be OK with that course of action. Contrary to people in the MOC, people in Quebec can never really forget the "national question" and a bit aspect of that is constitutional. Opening up constitutional talks to try and get Quebec to sign on would be like water on the back of a duck. Of course the separatists would be very cynical about the whole thing, but they wouldn't be sitting at the table anyway.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4009  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2014, 7:07 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
What is your question exactly? That if someone suggested reopening constitutional talks that the general view in Quebec would be NOOOOOO?

If that's your question, my sense is that people would be OK with that course of action. Contrary to people in the MOC, people in Quebec can never really forget the "national question" and a bit aspect of that is constitutional. Opening up constitutional talks to try and get Quebec to sign on would be like water on the back of a duck. Of course the separatists would be very cynical about the whole thing, but they wouldn't be sitting at the table anyway.
No, I was extrapolating on Black's partition mechanisms comment and wondering about reactions to a real two-way negotiation that would involve trade-offs for meeting Quebec's traditional demands. I sometimes feel that we've all be brainwashed into seeing the only option as giving Quebec what it wants, or giving it nothing at all. That kind of thinking has led us to what increasingly looks to me like an impasse. Black's comment seems to suggest a new option, at least to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4010  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2014, 8:58 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
No, I was extrapolating on Black's partition mechanisms comment and wondering about reactions to a real two-way negotiation that would involve trade-offs for meeting Quebec's traditional demands. I sometimes feel that we've all be brainwashed into seeing the only option as giving Quebec what it wants, or giving it nothing at all. That kind of thinking has led us to what increasingly looks to me like an impasse. Black's comment seems to suggest a new option, at least to me.
OK I get it. I actually found it was one of the weaker points of the article. None of the provinces want that so why is it there? Ottawa would be dealing with a federalist premier open to discuss things respectfully so why sit down for negotiations and open up with putting a gun on the table? Seems very counter-productive.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4011  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2014, 1:02 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
OK I get it. I actually found it was one of the weaker points of the article. None of the provinces want that so why is it there? Ottawa would be dealing with a federalist premier open to discuss things respectfully so why sit down for negotiations and open up with putting a gun on the table? Seems very counter-productive.
Well, since the right to secession itself would never be on the table, one assumes, clear partition mechanisms would be an effective way to mitigate chaos in the event of secession of a province (i.e. if a majority in a defined area voted to remain in Canada, there would be agreed rules in place to make that possible). I was struck by Black's raising it because of the long back and forth on the subject in this thread, which showed no common understanding at all on the issue. It just makes sense, imho. The contrary view, that a province's borders are sacrosanct, merely contributes to the impasse, I believe. As I said in my original post, I would add provisions to get the provinces out of international affairs (with defined, limited exceptions including enhanced powers wrt immigration) and an explicit recognition of a federal role wrt Canada's francophone culture. All in all, it doesn't seem like much to ask in exchange for meeting Quebec's traditional demands
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4012  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2014, 1:07 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Well, since the right to secession itself would never be on the table, one assumes, clear partition mechanisms would be an effective way to mitigate chaos in the event of secession of a province (i.e. if a majority in a defined area voted to remain in Canada, there would be agreed rules in place to make that possible). I was struck by Black's raising it because of the long back and forth on the subject in this thread, which showed no common understanding at all on the issue. It just makes sense, imho. The contrary view, that a province's borders are sacrosanct, merely contributes to the impasse, I believe. As I said in my original post, I would add provisions to get the provinces out of international affairs (with defined, limited exceptions including enhanced powers wrt immigration) and an explicit recognition of a federal role wrt Canada's francophone culture. All in all, it doesn't seem like much to ask in exchange for meeting Quebec's traditional demands
I suspect that a Quebec Liberal government's reaction to this would be ''WTF?? We're federalists so we're not even going to contemplate what would would happen post-independence, let alone formally put shit in place that officially frames anything related to that eventuality''.

Remember that the Quebec Liberals were very hostile to the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference that preceded it.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.