Hate to say I told you so R/man

Nevertheless, I think Rafe is saying the same thing I've been writing here at Tyee since before the results were all counted. You think?

Now, we could all be wrong; Rafe, Jeff Simpson, the noble Mr. Coyne and G West too I suppose and time alone will tell.

Sadly though, I think it's the Prime Minister and a whole army of wishful thinkers who're smoking the wrong kind of cigarettes on this file.

Time will tell.

I am conservative

We Western Conservatives can see PM Harper using our western wealth to buy off the east, in order to get a CPC majority government. No problem there. After all the power of the west ( MONEY ) is the grease that will speed this up.
Alberta won't complain about equalization payments. How could they?
Money is plenty in the west. And was gained by local initiatives that occurred in spite of the Federal Govt.
Quebec will have to get real.
You can't expect this western subsidisation to last forever.
You Quebecois will need to vote CPC to get our attention.
If not, you better get a new game plan.

Quebec and the 51st State

Harper is so enthralled with the US that he would love for the country to meander off in all directions so that it can be swallowed up by our friends to the south. The Globe and Mail is just doing its usual job of putting us to sleep so we won't notice.

Tick......tick......tick

The separation clock is ticking. The Campbell Quislings are slowly selling off BC to American interests, tick....tick.....tick.

The US master plan is slowly unfolding; want to be Canadian? Enjoy it while it lasts and better start learning the Star Spangles Banner.

ADQ voters all the same?

I think Rafe makes a big error in assuming that the ADQ voters are a homogeneous group. The commentary from around Quebec seems to be that a lot of voters checked off ADQ as a protest. It will be the NEXT election where the rest of Canada can see where the population of Quebec sits on the issue of breaking off from Canada. It would be more useful to look at the changing demographics in Quebec than the last seat count in last month's election.

La Belle Province & 'The Rest of Canada'

The 'two founding nations' crap that Ottawa has constantly engaged in has got to come to an end.

East of the lakehead the mindset is that of 2. Quebec and 'everybody else' or 'english canada'.

West of the Manitario border, there is vision of 10 equal partners, but then not all are 'equal' are they?

Time to wake-up, will the cup of plenty in Western Canada be drained dry by the largesse that Ottawa doles out to maintain its (ottawa's) position of Power in 'the canada' before something changes?

I say that the payee, or the Peter whom pays Paul shall have to simply say NO MORE.

I look forward to that day, then each province shall really have to be "maîtres chez nous" unto their own, something that the stupid equalization and other financial nonsense from Ottawa prevents.

All hail murdockville

No thanks my friend.

Your cure is far worse than the disease it's meant to treat and the Yankee traders would be licking their lips as the country splits into divisive little bits.

Readers

I never thought I'd say this, but if they want to split, let 'em go!

Enough is enough. We pour billions into Quebec and bend over backwards. Quebec reminds me of an old girlfriend of mine. I started off treating her bad, but got better. However, every advance I made, she simply demanded more. It was never good enough! She'd demand something, I'd give it, and she'd immediately start demanding something better.

Needless to say, we are no longer together!! It may be time we let Quebec go!

Enough is enough - we give them everything and then some. If you don't want to be part of Canada, fine, you sort out your own mess!

Rafe not quite right

About the lack of a post-separation plan.

I Googled (love that verb) and found pages on pages of discussion about post-separation Canada.

Being a fairly optimistic person, I think it can work out pretty well. It doesn't mean the absorption into the US. The ROC would remain a powerful country economically, and therefore internationally. And with the divorce behind us, we could get rid of the divisive, distracting, enervating politics of appeasement and its spawn: the BQ, bilingualism, federal government favouritism in matters of contracting and regulatory boards, etc. This would allow the ROC to focus on building for the future as a stronger independent country.

For Quebec, it's going to be a rocky road. Good luck to them trying to preserve their unilingual, unicultural status as an island in North America, but it's what they want.

Interesting new book reviewed here:

http://thesuburban.com/content.jsp?sid=18670409101965510459113807113&ctid=1000002&cnid=1010938

Same old same old

Says Scowen.

Make the necessary changes and substitute the appropriate words for Alberta or B.C. (see concepts clearly spelled out by Cappy here and elsewhere) and the same formula would work for Western alienation over the fact that a lot of Canada's current wealth comes from the West.

As for your pessimism about Quebec's chances without Canada, I just don't buy it, they'll do just fine on their own - in my view. They have a cohesion and sense of themselves as a 'nation' that the rest of us can only dream of in our quest to grab the biggest pile of stuff we can accumulate.

Why are you such a pessimist about Quebec Yammer? You might want to look at the example of Slovakia for a little lesson about the consequences of separation for a weaker and smaller partner.

I'm no pessimist

I'm actually a sunny, easygoing type.

If you mean my criticisms of appeasement, I make them because they don't work.

The BQ: a federal party purely devoted to the interests of a regional, linguistic minority that wants to separate from the government that it supposedly loyally serves. That doesn't seem ridiculous to you?

Bilingualism: an absurdity. Outside of Quebec, nearly as many people have Cantonese as a mother tongue as French. Meanwhile, Quebec itself is de facto unilingual.

Federal government favouritism: does it need to be belaboured? Come on. CF-18. Meech. Separate immigration policy. Separate court system. Sponsorship scandal.

Rafe sums up the situation correctly. There is a force of Quebecois nationalism that evolved and entrenched from the 50s til now. The counterforce of federalism has greatly weakened from Mulroney onwards.

Also, and what Rafe does not seem to acknowledge, the "nationhood" of Quebec is legitimate. They do things their way. Most of their population wants a version of independence.

Why hang on? They're not happy. The accomodation has not made them happy. The accomodation makes the rest of us less happy.

Let's have a trial separation. We'll still be partners in many ways, like the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I'm not sure why you point to Slovakia as a cautionary tale, when they are in fact a model of peaceful separation, yet continued cooperation.

Not a cautionary tale at all

But merely a refutation of your oft-repeated point, which I'll now repeat again:

I don't think it will be. The rocky times will be the squabbles that crop up amongst the ROC after the divorce. Remaining a separate entity independent of the North American Gargantua is going to be a lot tougher for the two-pronged rump that's left when and if Quebec goes. All this talk about Quebec not taking Rupert’s Land and the Island of Montreal with them – I think it’s just wishful rhetoric. If Quebec goes the best the ROC can expect is reasonable passage from Canada West to Canada East. My view they’ll appease us on that issue – no problem.

We have no distinct language and culture, art and traditions that are really distinct from America. We'll be the ones with problems if the Quebec thing spins out of control.

As for your suggestion that Quebec is being appeased; hardly, Quebec's politicians just understand the game and play it with élan.

But then, they have a language and a culture to defend - we don't. All we have is a standard of living certified by a Swiss Travel Agency.

Never thought you'd say this Capitalism?

It may be time we let Quebec go!
Enough is enough - we give them everything and then some. If you don't want to be part of Canada, fine, you sort out your own mess! - Capitalism

Better start waking up to what it is that Harpers Conservatives say daily.

"lets balkanize this country so the U.S. can pick up the pieces! We'll make lots of money in the sale of those pieces. We so love capitalism. USA! USA!"

and there's this mantra chant...

"We're so much better than everyone else. Everyone else can go their own way, tired of supporting freebee's. We're loyalists, but... lets separate! Enough is enough!"

Sound typical? Hypocritical say this, but do that, were loyal to our country, but Quebec has to go. We're so much better than "they" are.

Not ridiculous at all. Sounds just like an Albertan/Harper conservative.

But aside from leaders who push the pride button "were so much better than this group or that province" shite followed by hypocytical responses, "were for federalism, but let them separate" (cause were so much better)

Chris H makes an excellent point.

The ADQ vote is a protest vote. The next election will see a much more accurate reflection of Quebecs stance on federalism/separation. The ADQ has too many unknowns at this point. Were still pretty much guessing with the ADQ.

Where is Alciabides when ya need them ?

I dunno;

I am awaiting Alciabides comments on this issue.

BTW: Where are they? ...at C---of_Rome's pad ?

I'm torn

Aside from the blackmail stopping, I don't know whether separation would benefit TRofC.
We'd probably be stuck with the NAU, and I don't know whether separation would free Quebec from its sticky clutches either.

Oh, Maestro, G.West promised to stop posting as Alci a while back, so hopfully he's gone forever.

mopled

I said he'd retired. He was a little long in the tooth anyway.

But this is interesting -

you can only play this "game" so often and I think pee wee may just about have reached the limit.

Tories unveil new attacks TheStar.com - News - Tories unveil new attacks
April 02, 2007
Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA — The Conservative party showed off its organizational muscle today by escorting reporters through its new sprawling campaign headquarters and launching more TV ads attacking Liberal leader Stéphane Dion.

"We really don't want an election; we really don't want an election," protested cabinet minister Maxime Bernier after reporters were shown the 17,000-square-foot suburban warehouse space outfitted with a television studio and banks of computers for "rapid response" public relations teams.

Bernier and another senior minister, John Baird, insisted the Conservatives just want "to govern" and implement a family-oriented, tax-cutting agenda.

"But politics being politics means that we must be ready," said Baird.

The ministers, and the new ad, which will air only in French, and only in Quebec starting Tuesday, focused on Dion, saying the Liberal leader denies the existence of a "fiscal imbalance" with the provinces — an imbalance they claimed the federal budget resolved.

Dion wants to "return to power as soon as possible," the ad intones, over quotes and headshots of the Liberal leader. He would "return Quebec to the past," the voiceover says.

Both ministers insisted the "big and costly" headquarters would remain open until 2009 — the proposed date for fixed elections according to a bill tabled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Yet they denied the Conservative party is the one gunning for an election with all its saber-rattling.

The briefing gave the national press gallery a taste of how the Conservatives intend to use their new location to strictly control the flow of information. Party officials overrode objections and dismissed television cameras from the room after just one question in English and French. The two ministers then continued to answer questions briefly for the use of radio and print media only.

They said Conservatives are "fanning out" across Canada in the next two weeks to make announcements "on the environment, technology and innovation and tangible results for hard-working Canadians."

(emphasis mine)

And that resolved 'fiscal imbalance'

Do you think Danny Williams, among other Provincial leaders, got that message?

Clarity sought, SVP

So ....Let's get this straight for the sake of "clarity".

Dancing around the issue like a "Trudeau pirouette" without blatant Bribes didn't work.

Blatant shameless upfront Bribes didn't work.

Up "La sh!te Creeque" without "la paddle"?

What's next ,....what's Left ?

Isn't it obvious??? (hint...no more throwing gas on the fire in an atttempt to put it out. )

Icing on the cake was the news reports on how Quebec was allotted (per capita) Federal payments of approx. $440, whereas BC received approx . $ 190 per capita.

Enough is enough. Au revoir.

Yep

That's all there is to this country, a balance sheet. Roll up the sidewalks and call tenders on the place. Maybe we can all retire to the Solomon Islands

By the way, where'd you get those numbers?

Here are the real ones, for 2006/07

Newfoundland Labrador $1,334
PEI $2,102
NS $1,475
NB $1,927
PQ $725
Man $1,445
Sask $13
BC $107

Equalization payments to provinces expressed on a per capita basis.
Guess it won't just be Quebec you're waving goodbye to maestro. What does that leave of Canada, Hmmm? Alberta, Ontario and maybe Saskatchewan, I guess.

Source: http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

Divide to conquer

Interesting theme of how the division and amalgamation are polarities working towards the same objective. Do we need Quebec to keep us from being officially politically absorbed by the United States, rather than simply economically and culturally absorbed which seems to be the current trend? Good question.

The upcoming North American Union isn't being received all that well by the United States either as indicated by this article from the American Free Press.

Stepping up to the plate, Idaho has now become the first state to pass a legislative resolution, House Joint Memorial No. 5, in an effort to direct the U.S. Congress to drop out of the North American Union, or NAU—a proposed economic-political merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada. The resolution also calls on Congress to withdraw from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, an initiative designed to lay the groundwork for the NAU.

Sounds like Idaho is soon to be joined by Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Montana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Virginia.

Thanks for that ov

And for the report from the Delta Rally too. 300,000 is not a number even the Socreds (sorry Liberals) can afford to ignore for long. Maybe Rafe's next piece will focus on Gateway.

If you have a moment stop in at BC Mary's blog too.

There was another non-court appearance this morning in BC Supreme Court.

Even Ian Mulgrew in the Vancouver Sun is beginning to notice the serial foot dragging.

I'd love to see some Canadian provinces join those American States and do some foot-dragging of our own, wouldn't you?

G . West: Re: Numbers

Saw those numbers reported the day the last Federal Budget came out.

On T.V.

( Sorry, NOT on CBC. I think it was on Izzy's empire.
Does that still count ? )

I'm not waving good-bye...especially not to the Maritimers.

(Also the HABS NHL Hockey Team stay in Canada, even Trudeau-sky and I agree on that one.

The Feds, mostly under the Federal LIEberals have made just about everything East of Manitoba Pogey-ville.

The path the Federal LIEberals chose actually set this all in motion, which you capitulators, serial "Stockholm syndrome" groupies , and denialists don't ever seem to grasp.

Quit the US boogeyman/ straw- man argument. The Federal LIEberals since Trudeau have created the political equivalent of the In-Site addiction clinic...simply replace the pharmaceuticals with Loonie$$$...inject "here" 3000 miles East of BC ...repeat the dosages close to elections. There is no such thing as an overdo$e in this case$.

The chickens are now coming home to roost.

Then you didn't post this?

Enough is enough. Au revoir.

And why didn't you get the actual numbers right?

And why would you dump Quebec when the cost per capita of each of five other provinces for equalization (2006/07) are almost or more than double the per capita costs for Quebec? Only BC and Saskatchewan are less on a per capita basis and BC costs almost 10 times what Saskatchewan does.

The point is that the fiscal argument for dumping Quebec won't float, period. So, you must want to get rid of Quebec for some other reason although what you posted just above me mentions nothing but a lot of stuff about straw.

Are you stuffing the straw into sack cloth to make palliases on the side?

It would seem to me that the

It would seem to me that the real danger in seeing Quebec leave is the distinct (no pun intended) possibility of conflict with Canada after separation. It would be an untenable situation for Canada to be physically separated from it's east coast provinces. As well, a significant portion of Quebec's population is not Francophone, and would not welcome losing it's association with it's non Francophone brethren.
It has always struck me as very odd that Pequiste's look at the option of separation from Canada as being legitimate, whereas the the same situation as applied to themselves is out of the question. The "wins" we've had in the past with the so called separatist referendums have only served to mollify us into believing that this issue isn't going to happen (Canada's perception). Quebec separatist's believe that any potential for conflict would be glossed over with a "Sovereignty Association" agreement. Through into the mix an anxious United States willing to implement a 21st century version of the "Monroe Doctrine" and we have a powder keg waiting to explode.

G West:

Talk to Izzy's heirs at CanWest...them's the numbers reported.

I beleive it was extra bribe dollars in the Federal Budget, not necessarily old bribe money.

maestro

Your p/c figure was LESS than mine. Wake up!

I don't care where you got them, they were incorrect.

we'd all be better off if all provinces were countries

Canada as a nation does not and cannot work - china-lite perhaps? - just see the other story on the tyee

http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/03/30/RanchRevolt/

to get an idea that we have to start fresh and create a truely just country and not one just concerned about making money.

Way off target

Rafe, it is a huge error in believing the ADQ to be a homogenious group, to all be separatists, or even to all be as right wing as Harper hopes they are. They're not. There are the protest votes, there are the soft nationalists who would vote "no", if sometimes only to save the economy, and there are the people, especially in Quebec city which voted surprisingly in the "no" column last referendum, who are simply more conservative minded and are voting for the ADQ for that reason. Like you said, provincial election results are not referendum results and the separatists would have to see Brian Mulroney run again if they hope to win.

One thing is certain, though, and that is Quebec separation was a non-issue in this election. The same thing happened in Spain when Catalonia was recognized as a nation, though they receive far more autonomy, in that the separatist parties suddenly had nothing to campaign as. Quebec nationalists don't necessarily want a country, they just have a separate identity, and there is nothing those in English Canada can really hope to do to change that. No, had Mulroney tripped in front of a bus at age 18, even that wouldn't have changed it.

I hope you're right tessa

However, my reading is that it wouldn't take another Brian Mulroney at all to re-create the nascent passion for nationhood - a Stephen Harper and his purblind duplicity will do the trick very nicely. His current pander to Quebec is already illustrating this. And you can see it in the eyes of the folks in the ROC – most of whom have never taken the time to attempt to appreciate Quebecois culture – and instead run around lighting their hair on fire because a percentage of their taxes is being spent in a province to the east instead of on fun and games at home.

At a time where it's very likely that Scotland will separate from Whitehall peacefully, there is little reason to believe it couldn't happen here as well.

Sadly!

Not Exactly

Much as I enjoy Rafe's comments this one needs a grain of salt.

The numbers work but they also work for the other side if one remembers that during the second PQ election, around 1982, this was after their unsuccessful referendum, they were easily re-elected. Even PQ cabinet ministers were dumbstruck, expecting to be turfed but the people just wanted good government - and the people NEW that seperation was not on the table.

Same thing this time. The ADQ may have a strong desire, to say the least, for the devolution of powers to Quebec and that may not be such a bad thing if the other provinces are afforded the same priviliges.

One other important factor to consider is that almost, perhaps every time that a PQ leader has been in power he has lowered the outright-seperation question. Levesque, Johnson (they turfed him), Bouchard, they all water it down. Why? Because when they get power they get a chance to look at the books and reality slaps them in the face. Fiscal reality. They all opt for 'association' of some stripe. They all finially fess-up that Canada ain't so bad when it comes to money. The share of the Canadian debt added to the existing Quebec debt is over $230 billion. That's a big mortgage to shoulder when you're starting out and credit's tight on you because you're a newbie that likes to spend!

Simpson speaks French but Coyne, and Rafe do not and this limits their exposure to the present commentaries that are inevitably filtered through translators. Like seeing the movie but not reading the book.

Cheching in with Ground Zero, rather than relying on Anglo interpreters or spinmeisters, I have lately spoken with; a company president in aerospace, a filmaker, a graphic designer, an advertising professional, an architect and a mother - all living in Quebec and all completely and absolutly bilingual and to some degree bicultural (there is a difference). They are all proerty owners in Quebec. All of them say that the election results were good (the Charest Liberals needed to be galvanised into 'some' action) and all say that, from their perspective, the concept of seperation and the PQ have receeded.

A NEW KNEW

Sorry, the NEW capitalised above should be KNEW.

Checking in from ground zero

Could we have a little evidence for that?

Please.

And my recollection of the 1982 election doesn't accord with yours at all, btw.

My co-respondents - University people from Quebec City, Montreal and the Gatineau; businessmen and friends from Montreal including some that work for a major railway in the engineering and architecture department say something quite different indeed.

Moreover, none of my friends ever claimed they were paying a 60% marginal rate of tax on their income either.

From their perspective, the possibility of separation is no more than the next election away - as per usual.

Check the bloody facts then

If you don't remember then think harder or check it out!

In 1976 the PQ were elected winning 71 seats (Liberals 26). After the referendum that they lost, they won 80 seats (Liberals 42) in the 1981 election.

So Westie what do you figure. All my friends are stupid; or are all yours? Are all mine lying, or dilusional? Did we ask them loaded questions? I said "what did think of the election result?". Maybe they're too scared to tell the truth. All mine have French blood or spouses, how 'bout yours? Maybe you're not telling the truth, maybe I'm not.

Maybe they'll be knocking on the door soon and inquiring where thay can pick up a nice modest bungalow for around $300,000.

Not at all

Just that we have different friends.

Like I said, I wasn't surprised by the result of the 1982 election. I expected the PQ to win and they did. What's so surprising about that?

By the way, my question - the one that I wanted clarifaction about had nothing to do with your friends and their opionions or whom they're married to either.

I thought this:
Quote:

Could we have a little evidence for that?

was eminently clear. I wanted some evidence that PQ politicians and statesman of any era had said they thought Canada was a great thing - money or otherwise.

I'm surprised you needed me to explain it twice.

And what's with this 'westy' thing anyway?

We're talking about opinions, remember.

I'm glad that my Quebec friends can still buy a modest bungalow for less than 300G in many parts of the province. My BC friends should be so lucky.

Watered Down

West, to answer your question.

Levesque toned down the first referendum question with the long paragraph that came out as 'sovereignty-association', the second one was on 'sovereignty' along with an optional partnership offer, this partnership clause was inserted after Lucien Bouchard took the reins from Parizeau.

In both cases the question was toned down and not because of sentiment or nostalgia but because of moola.

Even Bourassa was a strong Quebec nationalist and when asked by his official biographer why he didn't support independance his answer was simple enough, "Four Billion Dollars a Year."

Je me souviens

That's about what I expected.

You don't have a case. There are no PQ leaders/Prime Ministers who would make that case for Canada from Quebec’s point of view

There might have been. There was a time when Levesque was prepared to work together with 8 premiers to put the question of a new Constitution and Bill of Rights and amending formula [plus an opting out of shared programs in favour of equal funding for provincial priorities] to all Canadians in a nation-wide referendum. Remember that? If those 8 premiers hadn't betrayed their agreement with Levesque that night in, what was it, November 1981 I think, then things might have turned out differently.

Now, under Harper we have virtually the same thing - the opting-out clause - given up by pee wee in return for nothing: No inclusion of Quebec in the Constitution and a lead-pipe cinch that there will be more of this in the future.

Those self-proclaimed heroes who shafted Quebec and Levesque that night in November still have a lot to answer for.

Je me souviens indeed
My view.

West is right

How can we accept that a Province within our Dominion, can form a political party, with the sole purpose of breaking off from the Dominion, job one.
Who let this happen?
Was is The Liberal Party of Canada?
How did we get here?
If we Canadians are willing to accept this model, then I assume we should be tolerant to an Albertan succession party.
I would go for that.
Why do we put up with this divisional debate?
I don't think it's smart for Canada to break up, we have a HUGE country to share with a few of us.
We can share this with the rest of the world, without having to pay a guilt tax.
We have the technology to deal with anything put upon us, except the SUN acting up.

The 'Separation' Stick!

The talk, or threat, of separation by Quebec, or Alberta, or whoever, is no more than a ploy to get access to $.

As a Quebecer (27 years) and then a resident of Alberta and BC; provincial politics are little different. And so are the people. Most people are fed up with hi jinls and lies and false promises from every politician! The recent vote was likely a protest vote designed to teach the provincial Liberals and PQ a lesson -

It is also a political industry that keeps a party like the Block Quebecois, or the Parti Quebecois relevent. Oh and the salary of a Member of the National Assemby is a nice bonus too!

While separation may be part of the discussion, It is all a ploy to access $$$$$

Enuf said!

Oops!

I meant to say political hijinks! LOL!

Allo!

Gobbledygook and misinformation!

West, this paragraph, above, by you says nothing except, what? Indecipherable. You are seriously misinformed as to how this country is legally structured. Who is 'pee wee' and how was, or who gave up any opting-out clause? Did you also imagine that the inclusion of Québec in the Constitution should have been done? Do you know how that would be done? Certainly not by the Ottawa government as you really should know.

If, as you say, I have no case then please explain why both Levesque and Bouchard watered down the referendum questions. Was is because of glowing sentimental attachments to Canada or do you think they just chickened out at crunch time? You discount my, and many other commentators, opinion yet offer no alternative suggestions or ideas.

Another (Francophone) caller today from Québec (50km SW of Montreal). I asked him too what he thought of the election. He said he didn't vote for Charest because; "He hasn't done nothing, and we're still angry over all that corruption thing. I voted for Dumont and so did lots of my friends, he says a lot of good things and he's not a separatist. The PQ have got big problems now. That guy they have is not very good. They're way down now".

Take a Valium

Commentators who suggest that separatism is bubbling just below the surface and likely to pop should remember Aislin's cartoon from 1976, when the PQ were elected for the first time. A sketch of Levesque with the caption, "O.K. Everyone Take a Valium".

Plus ça change.

Just for you r/man

If you read Le Devoir you'd know who pee wee is. They printed a wildly funny editorial just after our dear leader's first post election trip to Afghanistan.

The author labeled the Prime Minister, paunchy and clad in a ridiculous sort of leisure suit with all the accoutrements (excluding only, I think, a quantity of cleft sticks) Pee Wee Rambo. It was a piece of writing worthy of Evelyn Waugh.

I'm sorry you found my recollection of the 'night of the long knives' so inscrutable.

As to the PQ leadership, I think if you had paid any attention to what I've been writing here that you'd remember that was my thesis from the beginning. Boisclair has been a walking disaster for his movement and his party.

As to your inability to understand what I thought was very clear, the agreement Trudeau made with Levesque and 8 premiers was, if you'll recall, meant to be put to a general referendum of all Canadians. It would have (if passed) provided a means by which all provinces could retain federal funding while creating programs suited to their own provincial circumstances. It was not Trudeau’s first choice of course and he succumbed to the referendum proposal under duress, but he did agree to it. The details are in Levesque’s biography and have never been disputed by the other participants.

If you don't see the similarity between what has happened subsequently (in addition to the ‘notwithstanding’ clause which was not part of the agreement reached before Levesque's betrayal by his colleagues) then I can't help you.

My point simply was that we got the deal worked out by Bill Davis, his Conservative colleague from New Brunswick, Richard Hadfield, some enablers from the west and Jean Chretien. They did it surreptitiously and presented it to Levesque the next day as a fait accompli.

Had the original deal among the 8 come to pass and Quebec been part of a subsequent constitutional agreement, I was simply suggesting that Rene Levesque might have been a PQ Premier who had something good to say about Canada.

The opportunity lost after the 1980 referendum may, in the end, have provided the basis for the eventual squandering of the whole nation , if our current Prime Minister's tendencies to divisiveness and ad hoc devolution are any indication.

I'll take it more slowly and carefully for you next time.

You're Pythonesque

Rather than answer anything, West, you further obscure the debate by bringing other people like Roy Romanow, the NDP Premier who, along with McMurtry of Ontario squeezed the Notwithstanding Clause out of Jean Chretien, back in 1991! The NDP Premier may, as you say, have been responsible for the so-called betrayal of Levesque since Romanow defended it for so long and so vociferously. You are wrong, again, Bill Davis was not part of it! If you wish to keep re-hashing historical events then at least try and get your facts right. Surely this is required if you want to be taken seriously. Apparently not to you.

To wrap Steven Harper into this incorrect and highly opinionated diatribe as a latter-day repeater of that event is comical considering Harper's pragmatic accomodations and understandings of contemporary Quebec society, for which his standing in that province only continues to grow.

Steven Harper is carefully correcting some of the mistakes that were made in the past that you yourself seem perplexed over. Yet, you display ignorance and inconsistences by suggesting that what Harper is doing is deceitful.

You seem, although it's difficult to penetrate, to be saying that Quebec has been disallowed certain powers and cheated but when this is now being righted you think it's all wrong.

You want no devolution, I guess because you like big government, but that's a recipe for more bad Liberal-type government and more complaints from both Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.

Your idelogy has overtaken your common sence and is causing yoiu to say different things within the same sentence.

Re: Quebec:

Its rather amusing to again re-hash this tired old topic of Quebec and Separation.

Reagrdless of the idiosyncracies and " the devil -is-in - the- details" of what are often simply shallow backroom appeasements $$$ deals, I think the often overlooked yet most important issues are how this plays out to the oft -ignored and deemed ignorant grassroots Canadians "from -sea to -shining -sea".

Seems to be best summarized as Hostage Taking Meets Bribery.

The Federal LIEberals set this in motion...years ago, and simply made a choice between (i) a truly United Canada ie a long term gain or (ii) short term gain to maintain LIEberal power. Bad Move. Acquiring Quebec votes Federally was strategized using a wide variety of policies and initiatives. However, this was dependent on a static status quo in Quebec , and Quebec pro - Francophone policies. Bad Move.

The Quebec sponsorship scandal caught up to the LIEberals. It was almost predictable, and yet indicative of LIEberals attitude towards Canada as a whole. If one looks at a map of Canada, and combine an area which includes BOTH Quebec and the Maritimes...you have an area approx. 1/2 the size of Western Europe that should perhaps be called Pogey-ville given the disproportional Federal Funds flying eastward.

Quebec itself apparently feels "threatened" by immigration of Non- francophones..but thats OK...right???..so the country stays intact at any blank- cheque costs?. If that was elsewhere in Canada that's racist/prejudice.

The whole house of cards Pierre Trudeau and his successors have built is simply falling apart. It is being gutted from the inside, what's left is only the shallow veneer that camouflaged it originally. The LIEberals had, in the past, ironically, set in motion legislation that so-called entrenches minority rights...liberalized divorce laws, yet is continually "shotgun wedding " the Quebec- Canada marriage. Somewhat inconsistent and illogical , thus sheer cheap politics.

Given the size of Canada,geographically speaking, what happens in Quebec is as relevant to BC as Turkey is to Ireland ....or Saudi Arabia is to Norway, or Italy is to Pakistan. It appears the same cultural divide and difference are here as well and much like separation foreshadows a divorce , these differences are becoming more and more irreconciliable. Maybe they always were there, always will be..just poorly covered up.

Canadians will simply tune out the old rhetoric and soon entertain "sh!te or get off the pot" political platform speeches.

Get your facts straight

Romanow was NOT the Premier of Saskatchewan at the time.

The notwithstanding clause certainly was a carrot (via Chretien) to get the gang of 8 to abandon the agreement they'd reached with Levesque and which (the referendum part of which) Trudeau had also agreed to.

Davis and Hadfield were the only Premiers who stood with Trudeau while the other 8 were agreed with the proposal Levesque favoured.

Davis sent Roy McMurtry to do the deed for him and it was in 1981 not 1991.
Can you not even recall when the Constitution was patriated?

You go back and read the actual history, get the actors and the dates straight and then we'll talk. You seem to have conflated Mulroney's later Meech Lake and Charlottetown efforts for the period and the events I was referring to.

Later on, when you're a little surer of yourself, we'll talk.

G West

I'd love to see some Canadian provinces join those American States and do some foot-dragging of our own, wouldn't you?

It would be nice to see somebody put up a little bit of a resistance to the upcoming Anschlush, but I'm not holding out too much hope from Campbell and his jolly roger crew.

I think the best bet might come from the city level. At last summers World Urban Forum there was a talk about free trade between the South American countries. I brought up in question period that they should be wary of free trade deals based on Canada's experience with NAFTA. The answer was that they were dealing with trade in ideas and cooperation, and that this was a different thing. I had a chance to have a talk with the chairperson for that group outside during a cigarette break and he further explained that he knew what I was talking about, and that at the country level they weren't having any better luck, but where they were showing signs of encouragement was between cities. That seems to be the key. The country level gets too bound down with international debt issues, but the cities are free to cooperate outside of the world bank system.

But think about it, the only services that the national level provides is war and debt which are the two commodities we don't need. I think all taxes should be collected at the city level, and then what's left can be transfered to the province, and if the province has any left over they can send it to the federal level. If we printed our own money and got out of the war business we wouldn't even need the federal level.

OK it was 1991 and Romanow was Atorney General

That night, November 4, 1981, Attorney-General Jean Chrétien negotiated with the Attorneys-General of Saskatchewan (Roy Romanow) and Ontario (Roy McMurtry). The premiers agreed to get rid of the "opt out" clause, while Chrétien reluctantly offered the Notwithstanding Clause on the Constitution. Lévesque was not called. Hatfield and Davis agreed to the compromise and told Trudeau that he should take the deal. Trudeau accepted what would be called the "Kitchen Accord" because of the negotiations in a kitchen.

On the Romanow Front:

Apparently, ol' comrade Roy Romanow, in conjunction with Ontario's McMurtry and Quebec's Chretien was a key figure in this 1981 Kitchen Accord that lead to the Canadian Constitution. Romanow strongly objected to protection of Private property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and none were ultimately included.

Comrade Romanow was apparently a good buddy of Comrades Trudeau and Chretien...and received the Order of Canada and other higher purpose person perks and priveleges till he retired.

Same - old in Canadian politics.

Quote: OK it was 1991 and

That's 1981 and you still haven't done your homework. Keep looking until you have the whole picture. The deal worked out by 8 provinces, including Quebec and which Trudeau agreed to take to the people – even though he didn't like it – would have created a very different Canada then. And, in my opinion it would be a very different Canada NOW too.

The point is that if the Constitution had been patriated under different circumstances with Quebec as a partner and not an outlier then we might not have reached the situation where the only way to get Quebec's cooperation it to pay them off. Which Harper is doing in spades to no little effect.

Trudeau, Chretien and his kitchen buddies saw themselves as heroes at the time. Quebecers, and Levesque especially, say it as a betrayal.

My view, a different result then would have meant a different Canada today. In the end, Trudeau, for all his intellectual beans, wasn’t much of a democrat.

Proposed referendum

It wouldn't have passed any way G, so Quebec would still have felt betrayed. Moreso in fact since it would have been by the ROC citizens and not just the premiers.

I dunno Frank

It was worth a try and Trudeau the elitist didn't trust the people with the responsibility to make an important decision for themselves. With 8 premiers (including Quebec) on side I'm not sure that it wouldn't have been a go and, thinking back to 1981, there was a very different atmosphere: Most of the country was in a recession and Nafta/free trade wasn't even on the radar.

Too late now of course so we die the slow death of a thousand cuts under Harper.
Funnily enough I think even Trudeau was on record as saying it would be better to go with a bang than a whimper.

Now pee wee is in a huge advertising fight with Newfoundland and Labrador and busy setting one set of provinces against Quebec all over again. How are we better off now?

Much of our industrial capacity has been scrapped; Petro Canada, Air Canada and CN are all gone. There were other ways the Federal Government could have worked to bridge the gaps between the provinces then that just aren't available now and much more of the country's industrial capacity wouldn't have necessarily ended up in foreign hands. Ordinary working people can't afford to live a decent middle class life without working 6-7 days per week and neglecting their home lives. And look at the people who're shuffled out of the picture for one reason or another because they can't take the pace or the stress.

This is meant to be one of the best places in the world to live?

Baloney.

Unless you relish life on a treadmill or you're independently wealthy - it's not.

Remember it was only Hatfield (the guy who brought the Bricklin to New Brunswick) and Bill Davis (part of the Conservative family compact that had ruled Ontario since the deluge) who were Trudeau's alies and who opposed the deal the other 8 had worked out.

If the country eventually splits apart, my view, the historical record of the final record will start the clock at November 1981 and not November 15, 1976.

errata

that's 'allies' not alies and, in an earlier post, I mis-spelled Hatfield.

The referendum

Not arguing the merits of the other agreement. My argument is that 1981 was a terrible time economically. I was cleaning carpets and pretty darn happy I was working. A lot of the guys I went to school with were unemployed.

Trudeau and the premiers could have held a referendum that promised free chocolate and it wouldn't have passed.

Maybe so ...but

Given what's happened since I think the alternative should at least have been put to the people who actually live in this country.

In fact, I mentioned the state of the economy in my little argument as well.

On the chance of a referendum about free chocolate passing. Well, I think it would have. Nearly everyone likes chocolate Frank.

Instead we ended up with Trudeau's forced compromise, alienated about 27% of the country's population till hell greezes over and set the table for Mulroney and Nafta. And today we're getting more division and provincial autonomy to what end?

So the few economic standards left can be surrendered to back room deals between Edmonton and Victoria that are now going to be shopped all across the country as the latest version of a free-trade miracle. Something that may make the prices at the local Wal-mart a little cheaper but won't do a damn thing for people on minimum wage.

And we now have a Federal government that's satisfied with not much more than looking after foreign affairs (except in matters that involve Quebec of course), fighting for a lost American cause in Afghanistan and transferring more federal tax dollars to the provinces for programs they will have to design and run themselves anyway.

What the hell have we gained? We now have a country more split and divided than ever. An economy that's humping along at top speed (here in the West) which only serves to make us more selfish - even among ourselves and certainly as regards our neighbours in Quebec and the have-not provinces. How could the deal Levesque worked out with 8 provinces (excluding Ontario and New Brunswick) have been any worse?

errata

Should be ..." Nearly everyone likes chocolate(COMMA) Frank "

I know Easter is almost upon us...but a "chocolate Frank" (?)

Also " ...till hell greezes over..."
Greezes = has a nice sound to it.

Otherwise...keep sparring dudes.... this is a rare event. Hopefully Club - sky has been put to sleep.....err ...in bed counting sheep.

il étais une fois un Village et un pays ( * )

Bed time stories are now possible ....

Origins of Coquitlam remain a mystery This isn't the first boom we've seen.....Much confusion exist as to the who, what, where, when and why of this region.

March 23rd 2007

http://www.thenownews.com/issues07/034207/news.html

The Coquitlam Star's 'Progress' edition from May 8, 1912, when there was hope that what is now the Tri-Cities would become the Pittsburgh of Canada.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't the first boom we've seen
The difference is that in 1912, you could buy a building lot for $300.

Thanks maestro

The greezes needed correcting - the other one didn't no comma necessary. That's..."till hell freezes over"

Village:
We have a tendency to forget the sun doesn't rise and set with 'us', don't we?

And, if you won't accept my word for it

That is, my word about what a compromised sleaze bag the current Prime Minister of this pathetic country is - relative especially to his hollow promises of being a 'different kind' of politician - then you might want to take Andrew Coyne's word for it:

http://andrewcoyne.com/2007/04/welcome-tory-partisans.php

Nice stuff pee wee! You and your partisan crew of mean-spirited 'Rovian' cranks make Paul Martin look good.

I didn't think THAT was possible.

Betrayal

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the chances of a referendum put forward by Trudeau and Levesque in 1981.

One thing is I don't understand why what the provinces were proposing was better than Trudeau's view? To paraphrase Trudeau, when the provinces meet to decide what Canada should look like, who speaks for Canada in that group?

But regardless I've never bought the story that Levesque was betrayed by the other premiers. Many thought Levesque had actually betrayed the other premiers first and that the idea of Quebec being betrayed is just a myth perpetuated by the separatists like Bouchard and the Cdn Right from Mulroney on (for political purposes, I don't think they actually believe that).

However, I'm feeling motivated tonight to read Levesque's book that I have sitting on my shelf all these years.

Bears repeating

In G's link, Andrew Coyne, referring to his right-wing commentors starts off with

Enjoy the read Frank

I'll be interested in your thoughts when you're done. Just can't imagine myself being allied with Bill Davis and Richard Hatfield under any circumstances.

No matter how tough the situation, I'd always prefer to have une bière avec René Lévesque than a whole case with those two phonies.

IN the final analysis, the last word should have gone to the people.

I should clarify too

That the idea of a nationwide referendum on the constitution was Lévesque's idea, to which he was convinced Trudeau had agreed in their bilateral talks. He clearly thought he'd been betrayed by both Trudeau and the rest of Canada after those events in November of 1981.

Good old Andrew

I thought you'd, eventually, like Andrew Coyne. I never did take you seriously when you scoffed at me for quoting him.

Reading Rene

As it should always. However, referendums suck. I'd prefer an "STV version" where shades of grey are permitted.

Take the Charlottetown Accord, there were parts of it most people would like. Other parts that they didn't. I realize Rafe hated it but I'm not sure if he was 100% against it or 65%. I know I wasn't 100% for it or against it.

Things like Charters can't be a simple Oui or Non, they should be voted on clause by clause or a statement of principles should be voted on point by point or a Constituent Assembly should be elected to hammer out the details.

As for Hatfield and Davis (and Levesque), in the final analysis I can't stomach the idea of the premiers deciding what Canada should look like. And that includes the premiers of 2007 too.

But then I'm a centralist, a nationalist, not a devolutionist. Its provinces I want to go away, not Canada. Just in case anyone here doesn't remember my biases.

As for Rene, I've been meaning to get to that book for more than 10 years (bargain bin pickup) tonight is as good a time as any to do so.

I guess you like TILMA then

TILMA kinda merges BC and Alberta in some things. Two provinces becoming less distinct and more like one.

Ar ar

2 provinces engaging in "free-trade" deals makes Canada more centralized? So creating the GVRD strengthens BC?

The fact provinces can engage in such "free-trade" deals makes it pretty obvious Canada is already too much like 10 separate countries.

Rene

Rene may have sincerely believed that he was betrayed but then some other premiers felt betrayed by him just the day before when he didn't consult them on his dealings with Trudeau.

Something which Bouchard conveniently left out of his letter attacking Trudeau's version of events.

I think the whole betrayal bit is part of a mythology unique to Cdn provinces. Novemeber 1981 is Quebec's version of the NEP, or how some of both Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders still claim they were betrayed by Confederation.

Every province in Canada loves to jump up and claim that the other 9 betrayed them.

The referendum

Also, the referendum wasn't going to actually happen till late '83 or early '84. Only after 2 years of arguing was a referendum going to take place. And even Levesque appears to have believed that 2 years of arguing with a referendum at the end was just a convenient excuse to get out of Trudeau's post-referendum constitutional meetings without anything constructive being done.

Decentralization Starting

Frank

So, as BC & Alberta agree on certain similar standards and accreditations we have, effectivley, 9 provincial jurisdictions instead of 10. If, and as, others join then the number of jurisdictions continues to lessen.

Remember these crazy stories ?:
"Numerous well-publicized cases show the folly of such interprovincial rivalry. The Ontario Sheet Metal Workers Union used an obscure province-wide contract clause to force a Quebec ventilation duct company to drop a contract it had won in Ottawa. And later, across the Ottawa River, the town of Aylmer, Quebec, ordered a new brick sidewalk torn up because it had been built of Ontario bricks." It goes on and on. It is ludicrous that we are talking about an unqualified -- depending on who you are listening to -- free trade agreement and we do not even have it in our own country.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/house-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/1987-05-28_L018.htm

R'man

Shall I assume that you like TILMA? That you would support BC-Alta moving to a single government with the same standards? That doesn't strike me as decentralization, it seems to me to be the opposite.

Anyway, so if we got rid of provincial governments we'd have one jurisdiction with the same standards across the whole country. I'm all for it, to me that would be an awful lot like a "real" country. I assume you would be all for that too?

Frank

You may be right. My reading of the history is always that you have to look at all sides of each story.

I think Lévesque was chastened by the almost 60% 'No' vote in 1980. In the rerun, under Parizeau, we can see how far the situation had deteriorated by that time.

Now I suppose you could argue that Mulroney's facile end-run with Meech/Charlottetown is comparable with what might have happened if Trudeau had agreed to a national vote but I doubt it.

The atmosphere was different then and our tendency to predict what might have happened on the basis of what we already know is suspect, in my view.

For example, I voted yes on STV, not because I thought it was the best option (I think it isn't) but because it was the only one available. I'd have been happy it passed (if it had) not because I love it, but because it's better than the alternative.

I look at the 1980-1984 period the same way. We could have done better if we'd taken a chance then. Now, sadly, it's too late.

As for Andrew Coyne R/Man, I'm not a fan. He's surprised and upset his heroes are revealing their true colours and exposing their feet of clay. I'm not. I never expected anything better from them. They're performing exactly true to type. Even the announcement of the Veteran's pander was on the list I provided here at this time last year.

The universe is unfolding, not as it ought, but precisely as expected.

Just about the time the Americans end their fatal fascination with phony right-wing politics, we in Canada are about to entertain our own personal nightmare with them.

More is the pity.

STV

Exactly, which is my problem with referendums. I voted for STV because I think its the best but that means you and I voted for the same thing for different reasons. Which is what you get in referendums. For example I don't think 50% of Quebec wanted separation in the second referendum. Some probably just wanted a higher number than 40% for political purposes. No proof, just that I believe a lot of people would be thinking strategy.

Yep, that is how I lean on this issue.

Agreed, but that's all I have to go on.

Fair enough

But, still seems to me it would have been better to give the whole country a choice on what Quebec wanted (and I agree Lévesque was tending to drive that issue while Trudeau, Hatfield and Davis were on the other side). There might have been a chance of the project going forward together from, say, 1983 on, than to end up with the alternative we did get.

Which is, as I see it, a constant repetition of the same old story of Quebec asking for more and the rest of Canada bitching about it - or, worse, getting pee wee or Paul Martin or someone else to give it to them one way or another with virtually no universal standards. And, the inevitable bitterness and demands that follow from the other provinces.

I think, given the situation in Canada for the first half of the 80s, there was a real chance to constitutionally define the relations between the two parts of the country in a way that might (underline might) have proved workable and lasting. And hang onto important economic levers like Air Canada, Petro-Canada and CN.

It would have grown out of the 1980 post-referendum atmosphere and Quebec's subsequent willingness to come back to the table in some kind of cooperative posture.

Since what happened in 1981 there has been no chance when that could have occurred and I truly feel we lost the opportunity; such things don't come along very often and I think it's a shame we didn't take it.

Just like, although I think STV is a bad option, I wish a few tens of thousands more folks had voted yes in 2005.

That train doesn't pass by very often.

I think we've slipped into the situation we're in right now and the country is slowly pulling itself apart.

TILMA - Frank

Anyway, so if we got rid of provincial governments we'd have one jurisdiction with the same standards across the whole country. I'm all for it, to me that would be an awful lot like a "real" country. I assume you would be all for that too?

Sure, Frank, I've read the TILMA agreement and I cannot see anything in it that enables a corporation from overriding any Municipal Law or Zoning code, as many detractors have suggested.

If I were an architect, a licensed welder, or other professional requiring accreditation, I think I would be very pleased that I could now work in either province, whereas before that was not the case. The more provinces that sign-on the better. The country should be our oyster. That's decentralization, one set of regulations instead of many.

As for your suggestion that the provinces should be abolished, or collapsed in their entirety, I would like to see that too but I can guarantee you that Québec would never ever dream of agreeing to that. Even a mild form of TILMA would be very difficult to for Québec to agree to since professionals there have to pass French language testing, for a start.

R/Man

Then you haven't read very carefully - or noted who appoints the tribunal that rules on whether or not someone has violated the TILMA

Nor do I think you can ignore how signally unsuccessful the dispute resolution mechanism for NAFTA has proved to be - as David Emerson and pee wee are learning to their, and our cost, right about now.

By the way Frank

What I've described is more centralization, as you said.

G

I'm curious what you don't like about STV? (Apologies in advance to RedRiverGirl, whom I promised not to raise this subject again till the next election)

I agree that after the 1980 referendum the country was in the mood to reconcile but its my opinion that the politicos pissed that opportunity away with their constant bickering. All it takes is a few weeks of the news showing them arguing and pretty soon every province is feeling "humiliated" and "betrayed" and the opportunity was lost.

The first ministers meeting was a bad idea. Worse, it was a terrible idea. Something along the lines of a constituent assembly looking for common ground with Quebec would have been the way to go.

On the other hand, I have nothing really against Levesque's sovereignity-association. If Scotland and England can go their separate ways but still have close ties why not Canada and Quebec? Some people are great togehter as friends but can't stand being married to each other after all.

Similar to what Bouchard said in his public reply to Trudeau. Both sides get pissed at each other over this constant theme.

R'man

Well, you're ahead of me then because I haven't read it.

Well, in my view this should come from the top, not from the provinces.

Actually its "centralization" but I see you added a comment saying that.

If the only way to get rid of provinces was to separate from Quebec that would probably be worth it. Canada and Quebec would be fine on their own with the exception of the land mass of Canada being split. East and West Pakistan didn't work and neither would the Maritimes being separated from Ontario. But if Canada, less Quebec, was a contiguous land mass I'd be all for it.

Quebec professionals

R/Man - I've been through the Quebec ARCHITECTS ACT (2006 revision) with a fine tooth comb. I Can't find anything in it that says you have to use French to practice or qualify in the province.

I'm not saying it isn't the case because I haven't looked at the Regulations.

Several sections and subsections were repealed in 2006 so the rules may well have changed since the time you're thinking of. Setting up a firm in PQ is a different matter but I see no reason why a registered professional couldn't simply associate with a local firm. The practice is quite common in other jurisdictions, as you well know. On the other hand, Ontario and Quebec did clear up most of their cross-border issues relative to reciprocal work arrangements and construction contracts about the same time.

No doubt it's difficult for unilingual Anglophones to work in some professional capacities in Quebec; I happen to know several individuals who've found the reciprocal arrangement to be a little troublesome as well. Quelle surprise rien ne changera!

Frank - STV

STV.

First: I don't like the multi-member ridings; to me it discriminates against rural ridings in a province like BC and over-emphasizes the influence of urban issues at the expense of rural ones. It also creates confusion in the mind of citizens who are looking for help from their MLA – ‘Who you gonna call?’ sort of thing.

Second: I think multi-member ridings are too easy to game and are subject to manipulation by special interest groups.

Let’s look, for example, at a riding in, say Surrey, where there are a lot of voters who hold a particular point of view or belong to a specific special interest group. Getting one of their number on the ballot wouldn't be troublesome in a multi-member riding and some careful planning (using the preferential ballot) could, it seems to me, get a member elected in that riding with a very small number of votes (from a provincial perspective) who is only interested in a single special interest - let's say opposing, oh I don't know, 'abortion'. Under STV I can see more than one of these characters (maybe someone like John Weston or Cindy Silver - who ran for the CPC in the last federal election) getting seats and causing nothing but trouble in the house. Just use your #1 preference for the candidate and don’t bother recording the other preferences. Liberal and NDP voters could easily game things the other way with strange consequences – you know the sort of thing.
#1 goes to your party and 2 , 3, through whatever go randomly (or by design) to anyone but other (fill in name of your biggest enemy). I’m not quite ready to give up on party politics yet.

Third: I think there needs to be a minimum threshold - say 5% - which must be reached before a member (or a party) gets any MLAs.

Fourth: I don't want multiple-member ridings and I think citizens should get just one vote. The results allocated proportionally according to ridings with the necessary balance provided from party lists as they do in Germany and Scotland. In addition to many other places as well.

I think the STV thing is better that FPP, but not much. And, since we didn't get STV - I didn't like the process either, I think it was set up by Gordon Gibson and his gang from the Fraser Institute and the Liberals.

As I said, I voted YES, but only because the status quo was worse.

Now's the time to make a commitment to real electoral change by giving the people some actual choices among real options. I haven't spent any time trying to figure our how to do that, but if we can have a referendum on STV and a referendum on Native treaty negotiations and a referendum on a useless recall initiative I think we can manage to design one that'll put real choices in the hands of people who ought to have the responsibility for making them.

Just like I think would have worked better in 1981 with the Constitution.

I have great faith in the intelligence of (most of) the people.

STV

Actually that's one of the reasons I supported it. I think we need more representation of different points of view. Right now we only have two as is the case in most places with FPTP systems.

I may not like the Giant Lizard Party or the the Raving Nazi Party but hey, if they can get 20% of the vote in a 5 member riding, sure, I'm all for them being there.

Doing so wouldn't change anything. It would have no effect.

Why would your other choices have to be for other parties? You could rank 5 different NDPers if you wanted. STV doesn't mean voting for other parties.

Across the province? Why? That would mean no independents or very small parties if a guy, or the Peace River Separatist Party, had to get 5% of the provincial vote. I think if a guy can get elected in his own riding that should be all that matters.

In the end ranking wouldn't change the fact that citizens would only get one vote.

As for party lists, I'd rather stay with FPTP. If I don't like the NDP candidate in my riding my only choice is to vote for another party. Party lists and pro-rep make that even worse. Even if the NDP guy I don't want loses and nobody votes for him at all he could still be elected through the pro-rep because he's a good party man. I want to see parties lose their control over their MLA's, pro-rep reinforces that control.

What I like most about STV is that during elections, every riding will be important. Currently, who cares about most of them? Anybody with the electoral records of the last 3 elections and an hour to look them over closely can predict who will win each riding. Only a few ridings are ever in play and the MLA that represents one of those "safe seats" can do anything he wants because he's in a safe seat. Under STV people from the same party run against each other which I like.

Can't agree

I'm not totally ready to give up on party politics yet I guess and 2 - 5 % doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

You didn't deal with the issue of rural single member ridings vs multiple member urban ridings. Why should the city dwellers have all the crazies?

I can't see why you have a problem with mixed member proportional - it's working fine all over Europe and leading to decent coalition governments that seem stable and progressive - even when (as in the case in Sweden right now) the largest party happens to be Conservative.

I think STV is used in Ireland and just about nowhere else to elect a national government, maybe in some Australian states.

In my view MMP is a much better option. Personally, I don't want the monster raving looney party getting in if they happen to get 5% of the vote in West Van.

I like the idea of the Greens (or a new aboriginal party which could surely reach the threshold for the whole province but likely not in any ridings) getting exactly what proportion they earn according to their actual vote tally throughout the province and they'd get seats in the leg that way even if they didn't elect a single member directly.

Why is that not preferrable to a system that clearly can be gamed because of the preferrential ballot?

One person one vote - to me anything else is silly.

Remember, it already got BC what, 25 years of Wacky Bennett? That's enough of a contra indication for me. And I especially disliked the way the STV selection process worked - nothing democratic about it - my view. I don't want a group of a couple hundred folks picked by lottery making such an important decision for the rest of us.

There would be lots of interest and excitement in the MMP scenario too and, in the long run, elections only happen once every 4 years. A half dozen single interest dingbats in the house for 4 years I can do without - we have enought party-orientated dingbats as it is.

But, much as I disliked STV, I voted yes and - if it was the single choice again - despite my feelings about how undemocratic that would be - I'd probably vote YES again.

I'll wager, if the situation were reversed and the only option were MMP that you'd likely do the same - or at least think very seriously before you checked the status quo.

Betrayal

Because its the same problem as when someone complains Ontario has all the votes. Well, that's where the population is and it might not be fair but I don't see any other way to handle it. I don't think its fair when a rural vote counts for more than an urban vote.

Ya, but I do want them in. And 5% of the vote just in West Van wouldn't get them in.

How can it be gamed?

Their vote only counts as one vote regardless of their preferences.

That wasn't exactly the same system. And Wac got rid of it immediately.

Well, they didn't really, they just suggested it and we made the decision in a referendum on it.

As for MMP, there'd be no change from what Rafe calls the "trained seals" routine. Party discipline would be more enforceable than ever.

Good thing RedRiverGirl has left or I'd be getting an earful about now.

Still think MMP would make a huge difference

Just look at what the result would be right now in Victoria if the percentage vote decided representation in the house. And, I think the rural urban split is an enormous shortcoming - the secret is a much better allocation of seats on a population basis - not giving urban ridings a whole slew of members of various strange stripes and varieties.

Not at all, giving that kind of power to a manipulated and stage-managed clique has nothing to do with suggestions. It was a bad system and it came up with a bad and highly-manipulated result.

I'd like to see a poll about what the result would be if MMP had been the option.

In fact, though, the STV process method just sucked, plain and simple. These guys are still haunting the web pushing their pet project.

And you still haven't dealt with the fact that STV is largely unproved and experimental compared to MMP which is working just fine all over Europe.

One thing I would like to see happen is to go to voting on a Sunday. I think it would make a huge difference in turnout.

Furthermore, when a decision is made about how to change the electoral system it can't be something that can be changed again if the results don't please the MLAs ...this has to be the people's decision and not the pols. Getting the result directly from the people - even if it involved votes on successive weekends (like they often do in Presidential elections where the winning candidate must get 50% of the vote to win) is the key to its eventual acceptance. Even if STV had won 60% + 1 vote it would still have been very controversial. I'll bet there were a lot of reluctant yes votes like mine.

Still haven't?

Because it doesn't lead anywhere. It'd be like me saying we've had FPTP forever so why change. Just because something is done somewhere else doesn't give it more legitimacy than what's done here. If MMP is to be the basis of our system then it should do so based on its own merits, not because the Germans use it.

I have, it would mean lots of bad politicians never having to worry about losing their jobs because they know the popular vote for their party will never crash that much. Under FPTP where a guy tends to win his seat with 60% of the vote he can pretty much ignore his constituents and toe the party line and he's safe. Under MMP, he's even safer. Under STV he doesn't stand a chance. Unlike MMP and FPTP, STV is the only system that breaks the power of the party over MLA's.

Under MMP rural voices will be ignored. Why even go to Stewart and Prince Rupert for even an hour to campaign when it won't affect the popular vote?

I don't know if it would, people giving up part of their weekend to vote? No one minds time off from work. But we could give it a try.

If the people had one election with STV they just might like it. No harm in giving it a whirl.

TILMA - Frank

I agree, Frank but since the agreement deals with Provincial responsibilities the Federal Government cannot rule in some areas that are outside its jurisdiction. We come full circle here since changes coming from the top would require a Constitutional amendment and that's what this whole thread is really all about.

R'man

I'm fine with workers in Canada being able to work anywhere else in Canada. That's how it should be. However, that means we need a uniform set of standards or everyone will get their ticket or whatever in the weakest jurisdiction. Which is why I'd want this all run at a national level.

And companies from anywhere in Canada should be free to bid on projects anywhere in Canada.

On the other hand I'm against the FTA and don't see why US companies should be treated like Cdn companies on bids here. Don't block the US companies or workers but favour Cdn ones. The US does it, in fact every developed country has done it.

I Agree...

...but opening the Constitution is not something anyone in government in Canada is presently daring to contemplate. The deal between Alberta and BC is a baby-step that at least helps bring about what you suggest.

How so?

I think Germany and Scandinavia are pretty decent examples of excellent positive results. It'd be one thing if the potential were to create a system that didn't respond to people's needs and the question of building social capital but that's not the case. MMP HAS done that. STV is a virtually untested quantity. I like coalition governments but I don't relish giving the Christian Heritage Party (as an example) a soapbox in the Legislature. If they can't muster some minimum threshold in the whole province they shouldn't be making decisions about the whole province.

STV has a tendency to turn the Legislature into nothing more than a collection od city governments squabbling with each other. There still needs to be some concept and commitment to the whole Province. May view STV doesn't do that - all the multi-member riding care about is local issues and that's not enough. We have too many ministers from Pt Grey, Shaughnessy and West Van now without encouraging them. So what if 10 0r 12 members come from party lists. Look at what someone like Stanley Knowles contributed to the country over a long career in parliament and he never was part of a government.

As I said, I'm not prepared to abandon the party system as yet but I do think we need to find better and more democratic ways to fund and finance it. The current corporate ownership of the BC Liberals is an excellent example, as is some of the past experience of the NDP. There may be ways to structure the makeup of the party lists to address some of the rural/urban disconnect.

You still haven't addressed the undemocratic nature of the STV selection process.

R/man: no response on the Ontario/ PQ thing?

Does that mean it's off the table and not a problem.

TILMA is unnecessary and probably makes AB/BC more subject to national treatment under the NAFTA which just makes the situation relative to the US worse.

My view.

Why would the CPC bother with the Constitution - they've already given up the game. Why do you think I called it death by a hundred cuts.

If pee wee gets his majority I'm afraid the country is done - you might as well sign off and call it a corporate entity and not a country at all.

Just a matter of time.

Quote:You still haven't

You'd first have to say why you think its undemocratic.

That's a big "so what". I think it undermines democracy when voters aren't in control of getting rid of people. Party lists are inherently undemocratic.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then because I think they should have representation in the Leg. STV will encourage small parties and independents at the expense of "big-tent" parties and I'm all for that.

Well, again, we'll have to agree to disagree because I'd welcome the Leg becoming a place where actual debate takes place instead of the same old gov't versus the Loyal Opposition.

I think a Leg formed after an STV election would be much more dynamic and engage the electorate more than an MMP election where we can pretty much say the NDP will get 40% of the seats forever and the same faces will be in those seats till they die.

Canada cancelled

Just a matter of time.

I said that when Mulroney was aiming for his second majority. He got it and the game was over then as Chretien and Martin proved.

Same Thing

Or, at least very similar.

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/about/ontque/oqlma_toc.html

What Quebec finally agreed to with Ontario is along the lines of TILMA. Although TILMA is better because it's nowhere near as piecemeal since it includes many other professionals.

If you liked the QC/ON agreement I can't imagine how you wouldn't like this one.

THE penalties -

And the limitations on a provincial govt to do things to stimulate and encourage local commerce and development. Is what's wrong with TILMA - it caters to the LCD no matter what. And forces the issue with prohibitive fines and a flawed dispute settlement tribunal.
Haven't you read the agreement. By the way, I dislike NAFTA for many of the same reasons - Frank and I may disagree about electoral reform but on the other subject, not so much difference..

The other problem, is that half the time your prejudices are the result of being uniformed or misinformed - as I am constantly forced to point out - the ONT/Que thing being only the latest example.

Frank:
You still haven't addressed the main concern of mine - that proportional rep is up and running and delivering satisfactory results (especially compared to FPP) in all kinds of jurisdictions that have a bigger commitment to social democracy than we have. No reason new parties can't start if the electoral financing laws aren't retrograde; plus you haven't addressed the untried and experimental nature of STV which might work in a jurisdiction the size of Ireland with a fairly homogenous population but might be a disaster in a heterogeneous culture like BC.

The reason it was undemocratic is that the selection process was:
a) random and arbitrary;
b) it was driven by a top down agenda, and;
c) it didn't provide the electorate with an adequate choice, which was, likely;
d) what its creators planned all along; and
e) in the end is wasn’t much different from the current ‘canned noise’ conversation on health care road show that the BCLiberals have underway.
My lunch is over - back to work for me.

In short, I agree that we disagree.

By the way

Who do you think Charest looks like in the picture at the top of the story?

I see a tiny hint of Jackie Gleason in his heyday there, especially around the mouth and jowls.

Anyone else?

G

Yes I did. I pointed out that its a non-starter, that just cuz some other kid jumps off a bridge doesn't mean we have to as well.

Also, MMP would not produce social democracy. Scandinavia does not lean left because of its voting system.

Not true, FPTP would produce the same outcomes even if parties had no money at all. This was the argument I had with Brain a few months ago. The friction point between parties in swing ridings is where elections are fought and won. New parties get started all the time and almost all of them go nowhere. That is not because Canada only needs two parties, its because any movement away from one of those 2 parties ensures victory for the other one so fear drives the electorate. Finance reform will have zero impact on electoral outcomes.

But, if you had a system where you could vote for a 3rd party as your first choice without wasting your vote, 3rd parties would thrive. As an example, under STV even Brain or Coyote could start their own party and have a decent chance in their home riding because people could vote for them safely because if they goes nowhere the people who voted for them would know their vote would not be wasted, it would go to their 2nd choice. I think the results of a ranked ballot would be of immense benefit to our system.

That's not an argument G since there's no basis for that fear. I can't defend STV against a hypothetical when there's no data.

No one is saying STV will change the average person's morning routine, its just a voting system.

I thought you meant STV elections were undemocratic, not that the process that selected STV for the referendum was. Actually, I don't have a problem with the process. Gordon Gibson was involved but that doesn't invalidate the whole process for me. I liked the way the citizens were chosen.

I also mentioned Germany

There are other positive examples of proportional rep too. And only one very early result in anything like a situation analogous - though only marginally so - to BC for STV.

Gordon Gibson is one of the very real reasons why I dislike the STV process. He and I had a protracted discussion about it at the time and he tried to convince me that his serving as a fellow of the Fraser institute didn't have an impact on how people viewed his comments and advice.

You still haven't looked at the top-down nature of the hearings and meetings. From all reports I've heard (and the activity since on behalf of folks who were part of the process) it sounded like something akin to a cult. And giving a randomly chosen group of individuals the job of making a decision about the method is not democratic - it's elitist. One choice - from among a range of possible and very viable options is not a real choice, in my view.

I don't think the assertion that STV can atomize the electorate in multiple-member ridings is hypothetical. Further, any group of say 5,000 committed single interest voters could game the STV system in an urban riding - I don't think that's a good idea in a society that's trying to become an example of multicultural harmony.

I've already said the party electoral process needs to be addressed as well so I won't expect the nominal response that ethnic voters manipulate nominating conventions now. In fact that's precisely why I'm chary about an untried system like STV anyway.

I think giving people who vote Green some assurance that their votes won't be wasted is a very good reason why province wide proportional representation is needed.

I can't see how a couple of fringe individuals elected in an urban riding is any different than the odd pathetic independent sitting by him or herself now.

A party structure is still needed - ask Elayne Brenzinger and Paul Nettlton about the joys of being an independent.

I think third parties would spring up immediately in the aftermath of either reform movement (look at the greens in Germany who grew from nothing in a very few electoral cycles) and I like coalition governments anyway.

In the federal case they've given Canada the best governements we've ever had.

The comparison between MMP and jumping off a bridge was funny - but hardly fair.

The bridge has already collapsed, btw.

Anyway - that's my coffee break - gotta go.

Have a good Easter w/end.

How Weird

Well, on reflection, I guess not:

GWest

Well, Brian Tobin is a Fraser Fellow too, he was a Chretien Liberal Minister. Are all his opinions to be utterly dismissed too? Isn't that a bit childish to make such a sweeping discriminatory ideological prejudice. It's like saying that you disagree with American foreign policy so therefore no US citizens have any ideas that you will agree with. Reminds me of that sad comment on those who are stubborn, 'My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts'. Better write your autobiography now West, since you have all your facts and they aren't going to change. I'm shocked, and disappointed, at your intransigence.

Gibson and STV

I think the Gibson factor has been overstated G. For RRG and Stuart (two long-time posters now gone) Gibson was a big reason they were against STV too. But really, if I was in there I know he wouldn't have swayed my vote and don't we have to give some credit to the people in there?

I'm not saying Gibson is a non-factor, but I don't believe he determined the outcome.

Actually I don't think you can get more democratic than randomly choosing citizens to make a decision.

How?

Harmony would be nice but it will never happen if people's opinions are simply ignored. I think its healthier to have all these people in the Leg. What causes unrest is when people are told to shut up. The Christian Heritage Party should have the right to be heard even if they only elect 2 MLAs and have a popular vote of 4%.

Green votes wouldn't be wasted under STV either. And even better, it would be the people choosing which Greens get elected, not Ms Carr.

Parties are not needed. Elaine and Paul are only examples of why a party structure is needed under FPTP. Independents exist now only when people quit their party. They don't get elected. And under the current system they have very little chance of being re-elected.

Both MMP and STV will lead to coalition governments but under MMP the coalition will be between parties and formalized. Under STV it will be between MLAs and ad hoc.

Weekend

Leaving for the weekend G, back on tuesday.

Ad hoc sucks.

Don't think I ever said they shouldn't, did I?

But I doubt very much you'll find them with 4% overall whereas they could easily game the system in just one riding by voting only for themselves and making no other choices. As I understand the protocol you don't have to make the 2.through.20 (or whatever) choices if you don't want to. If an organized group of 5,000 or so people did that in multi-member ridings they'd place high enough to get into the house from that riding - I think you acknowledged as much above here in our discussion. And we all know how Liberals (and Conservatives) use mass membership to get their candidates nominated - doing the same thing on voting day is just a matter of a little organization. My view.

That isn't necessarily because they aren't good people - merely because they're irrelevant once they become independents. Which they'd likely be in STV too - except that they'd tend to create a Vancouver City Council atmosphere in the legislature about local interests. It's bad enough there now without every dog and pony show starting up its own party and getting a member in the house.

(more to follow)

the end

And, your views about individual choice seem a little at odds with your willingness to subsume the whole electorate's lack of real choice in the cult-like atmosphere created by Gordon's gophers and, truth to tell, as it was interfered with by the government of the time - if my memory serves. Those people were supposed to be representing my views - I don't think they did that very well - which leads me further to suggest that a bunch of outliers from Victoria wouldn't either.

I don't think we're ready for Swiss Canton style government yet - although if we were I'd likely support it because it gives ME a chance to be heard directly.

I still think that changing the way parties choose their candidates and finance their activities would solve many of the problems you have with the current system.

I'm not a big fan of ad hoc. Must be the prairie background. My dad was a very small farmer - he only got the land he did through the VLA when he came back from overseas. If there hadn't been a quota system he'd never have even gotten his produce to market before the big farmers that held the land all round him (guys who stayed home and didn't go overseas by the way) had filled the elevators and left him at the gate.

Small people need the power of a party and a movement to make their case. A bunch of single individuals who couldn't care less about the general public interest will never do that. All they care about is themselves and their pet projects. Society is too atomized now and our sense of community and shared effort is frayed beyond belief - maybe beyond fixing. STV is a bad idea, based on my understanding of the way it will work, the way it could be gamed ( in my view) and the way it became the only choice British Columbians had.

Have a great Easter Frank

STV

Haven't left but also don't have time to respond to your entire post.

You're mistaken on how the counting works. There is no advantage to not selecting 2nd and 3rd choices etc. You're only increasing the chances of your vote being wasted.

Once your first choice is eliminated they go to your 2nd choice. If you don't have one, your vote is wasted. There is absolutely no benefit to only making one selection.

And I think the Heritage vote would increase under STV.

Then they won't get re-elected. People could just vote for another guy in the same party instead.

But

You just said this:

Now you're telling me they won't be there for long anyway.

If not making second & third choices isn't an option - and I'll take your word for it - I still think I could write a computer program to distribute the votes of a committed minority in such a way that they increase the chances of their candidate getting in and only getting a very small percentage of votes relative to total votes cast in the province. Further, it seems clear to me that the permutations of a system this complex will require computer tabulation and probably electronic voting machines, something else I'm not in favour of.

Why introduce unnecessary levels of complication and added cost and confusion without some assurance of the benefits - especially when weighed against the potential risks and dangers.

I think cost benefit analysis for the change is a dismal failure. MMP, for all the minor objections you've raised (which could easily be addressed by a careful regulatory regime concerning the qualification for being on a party list and enforced term limits unless one submits as a riding-based candidate) are not significant.

Especially compared with what seem to me to be real problems, the untried nature and the potential for corruption and atomization that come with STV. Perhaps, if you eliminate multiple member ridings, I could see it - otherwise I don't think so.

Quote:You might want to look

Or Norway, which is so very like BC geographically and in population, which was both part of Sweden and of Denmark, successively (in that order) until having its sovereignty, which was monarchical-based Scottish-style, split off; it had remained a separate nation under ether the Danish or Swedish kings, I think, i.e. the King of Sweden was also King of Norway; Norway wasn't part of Sweden in the sense of country/nation, even so, only in terms of "royal nation-state" and a dominated/colonized economy and a population similarly ruralized and at one time less cosmopoitan than Sweden or Denmark.

i.e. re ref to scots k'dom vis a vis Norway-Denmark/Sweden

...only in terms of "royal nation-state"...

In the same way as the United Kingdom is comprised of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland and the Principality of Wales (whatever the hell Ulster formally is - a Province but traditionally one of the four main Irish Kingdoms; I'm not sure, but prior to Irish Home Rule I think Windsor and its predecessor dynasties since William III etc also wore the mantle of King of Ireland; I'd imagine for them to claim King of Ulster is a bit too politically volatile in Ireland, and I doubt that the formal traditional title "High King of Ireland" was part of, say, Victoria's panoply of titles. Maybe it was, I'm not certain; if someone knows I'd be interested as to the particulars.

and the point was

BC could make its own way, just like Quebec and its "cousin" Norway....4 million is more than enough, and we're growing; and it's not good for us for our economy to be run in the interests of a rival economy 2500 miles away, now, is it?

Seems like common sense to me, but historical/political inertia being what it is and political gutlessness in BC also being what it is, I can't see it happening; well, maybe after Quebec pulls Le Grande Ditch on us and bails; Campbell and the nearby governors have probably all got it worked out already....maybe what the hell we'll let the yanks annex the Kootenays directly to Idaho and Montana; as Idaho got its little panhandle towards the eventuality of, actually, and the Okanagan and boundary can join Eastern Washington, which wants to separate off from the coastal/I-5 bunch, and it's always made sense, in an organic/geographic sense; but I'd only go for it if the whole Northwest split off, basically all the old Oregon Country (42nd to 60th parallels west of the Rockies); or as a group of states/countries, so we don't have Seattle pulling weight on us like Toronto has; although IMO there'd be a fresher inter-city dynamic here if the border wasn't in the way, and much tighter ties/identity than before.

Yeh - that kind of scares me too

If you could guarantee that the monolith of the lower 48 would split into smaller and more sensible groupings I might be all for it.

Problem is the immensity and power of the US - whether we stay together - or split apart.

In any case, I concur that Quebec can and probably will do just fine on its own – even without the Grand Canal – which nearly everyone has forgotten it seems. Funny, the proposal, in its most recent incarnation, isn’t that much a thing of the past.

Isn’t Norway #1 or #2 among nations now, in the UN rankings?

Well....

Don't forget that our breaking up in the wake of Quebec (or anyone else) pulling out is also likely to destabilize the US itself, in terms of exacerbating regional quasi-separatist/autonomy aspirations there. And any attempt to absorb us, or any one of us, is going to destabilize the balance in the electoral college as well as the Senate and Congress, and also the balance of voting strength of their major parties.

They'd reap the whirlwind for even beginning the process of annexing us; our regional distinctiveness and resentments would be compounded with those of our neighbours; the Seattle-Vancouver-Portland "axis" probably augmented by Boise and Juneau-Anchorage and maybe even Eureka/Redding splitting off from the rest of California; the WA-NY-Boston one vs Chicago-Northwest, Detroit-MidWest. More into something like a devolved EU-type situation, although the hell it would take to bring that about in the United States is frightening to think about. Breakup there is loaded with patriotism and calls of treason and would not be a pretty, orderly affair with referenda and governors' conferences settling things privately like up here.....

I don't think political absorption is on the menu anyway; more like cooptation of the provinces as proxy states, with near-statehood rights and an open border Benelux/EU style after the immigration rules are standardized, and presumably our drug and other criminal laws are brought (yikes) into line with theirs. We'd better hope it's a Democratic-ruled or Green-ruled or non-GOP-ruled America that we get merged with, that's for sure....but I think it's going to be a matter of proxy states, honestly; the constitutional difficulties and political volatility of adding new states would be too much for the Union to bear, and would tear it apart fairly quickly, and not in a minor way. The strain would be too much; it's already harshly divided on regional lines; we'd only make it more complicated, and I'm sure the State Dept and Wall Street and the Beltway are all very well aware of this.

but....

...if not, they're fools....

Wellllllllllllll

Since you brought it up.

There is a fair bit of evidence in the column headed F O O L I S H - isn't there?

And not just south of the border:

ENERGY Minister Neufeld's latest foray below the 49th has yielded some interesting news via a Freedom of Information request from Sean Holman.

Check out PUBLIC EYE ONLINE.

GWest, Sept.06 Quote:I do

GWest, Sept.06

BC could make its own way, just like Quebec and its "cousin" Norway..
Campbell and the nearby governors have probably all got it worked out already....

Quote:

Campbell and the nearby governors have probably all got it worked out already..

If you could guarantee that the monolith of the lower 48 would split into smaller and more sensible groupings I might be all for it.

Coming around mate?

Let's start drilling. Norway has over $250 billion in rainy-day funds stashed away in overseas investments. Norway can teach us much.

yea, but....

Norway's oil industry pays taxes, lots of them, and Norway is not run by bulldog resource capitalists who hate social programs; anything but; oil development would not have been allowed to threaten the fishery in Norway if its industry's commitment to Norwegian social programs and community well-being was strong, and remains so. It's also Norwegian investment that runs the fields and supplies the rigs, not outside investment; Norway doesn't want to be beholden to anyone, so that's why they're not in the EU (they don't like the idea of any kind of political union with Sweden or Denmark, though Denmark maybe less so...), and also why they don't allow foreign domination of their economy.

The drillmasters here are not masters in their own house; they are salesmen, come in for the fire auction before reform of our corrupt political system makes it impossible to get away with. i.e. selling off public resources and other assets to friends of the government party in return for help remaining in power......

Speaking of blatant corruption and robber-baron government BTW I'll be checking the actual Mexican news on those journalists who got shot in Acapulco; Global tonight mentioned 22 murders of journalists since October, and made it sound like they were all drug war killings, but I know at least one that wasn't, so I'm curious as to what the real story is here....

BTW I don't blame the oil companies, they're only taking up an offer that somebody's opened up; it's campbell that's inspired to sell it, because this place remains "the Gold Colony", where actual production of real goods is not necessary because there's all this stuff you can just TAKE and well off....

also about Norway

The other big factor is that Norway is a powerhouse in international shipping, and in shipbuilling, and has had a vibrant fishing industry - now depleted like everywhere else (I can't imagine Norwegians not having cod to eat every day...not out on the Coast anyway...). Our shipbuilding industry was wracked by the forces of regional political imbalances, and in part the end of the age of the steamer-railway route around the world spelt an end to the great age of shipping here; which coincided with teh Klondike, hence lots of traffic up and down the Inside Passage.

But Norway's equivalent coastline is settled and populated, and has been for centuries; a people raised to the sea, and though a small nation - like the Greeks also - they have a disproportionate role in global shipping, and in ship design, management and construction. All with a nation of four million people, spread along a mountainous coast (and not much else) with hardly any arable land, and really not much in the way of minerals (Sweden has more); lots of hydro, like here, for the same reasons (the home island where my family's from is rainier than Tofino...and no snow, or only wet stuff into muck, just like here...).

So whenever I hear that crap about a small nation just can't make it, I look at Norway and Finland or Belgium or even the Czech Republic or....Iceland. We have real estate as a major industry; and it's real estate attitudes underlying the sell-off of the drilling rights, when the time comes, not concern to develop the local economy to a post-resource phase; like the trees and the gold before it, they just want to give it all away so taxes can be reaped off the cashflow, i.e. off anybody but the companies, but rather their employees. It's that trickle-down stuff, right? supposed to work like a charm.....but it's not how it works in Norway...

I found some drilling maps on BC MapPlace; google that and there'll be a directory of various drilling and mineral rights maps, all pretty techno-neat but also very revealing...

Norway's thankfully warmed by the Gulf Stream, relatively given its latitude. I shudder to think what will happen to Norway if/when the Atlantic Salt Conveyor moves and turns Northern Europe into a not-so-mini Ice Age....

Mind you, we'd all be in a for a shock if the Japan Current moved 5 degrees north or south, too.....y'never know what's around the corner these days, do ya? '-)

and of course

I guess it's a blind spot; one very important element in the development of the Norwegian marine economy/profile was its role in whaling; most of all, perhaps, originally, in making the money to develop industrial-strength shipping production and global-scale management; the same is true of some New England and Maritime, and even BC, wealth....(whaling)....and it remains a national passion for some Norwegians, and it's national tradition/identity thing something like the seal hunt in Newfoundland.

No, I've never tried whalemeat and none of my cousins ever mentioned it...

Skookum1

Good info. I'm interested in how BC could emulate Norway. More on Norway, please.

Coming 'round' - hardly!

The last thing we need is more oil: Especially when the development of the damn stuff is a pander to the Americans in direct opposition to our own public and environmental best interests. Buying our way out of the problems of capitalism thievery hasn’t worked so far and it’s not going to either. We could, however address the anomalies of a rich country where more than 20 % of the population are desperately poor by adopting the social democracy of Scandinavian nations. I’m glad you hear you’re interested in that option.

So NO, MATE, I'm not coming round. I'm absolutely convinced Canada needs Quebec as much as Quebec needs Canada. Skookum1 thinks there's a chance we could end up with a rationalized nation cum city state amalgamation with some of the NW United States if the US flies apart.

As much as I think that would probably be the best thing for both the ecology and the economy of the whole world I doubt that the Neanderthals in the upper echelons of the US military-governmental-industrial complex would agree so it's pretty much academic. At least until the whole system down below the 49th tanks – and of which there are increasing signs of late.

Still, we do what we can here in the here and now.

In addition, the last thing we need is a Richard Neufeld playing tricky-Dick Cheney to the oil industry in direct opposition to his sworn allegiance to the public interest and clearly-expressed views of the people of this province. Nor do we need him to pay obeisance, contrarily, to the commercial special interests of companies like Exxon and the rotten husk of Enron (now known as Kinder-Morgan).

I just wonder when you'll start to come around “mate” - There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

my scenario...

As much as I think that would probably be the best thing for both the ecology and the economy of the whole world I doubt that the Neanderthals in the upper echelons of the US military-governmental-industrial complex would agree so it's pretty much academic.

Well, like I said it't not going to be pretty if the US flies apart (as it inevitably must, whether ten years from now or a thousand). And us getting joined up with the PacNW states isn't necessarily a nice thing either, because in all likelihood the breakup of the US will be accompanied by civil war; by a fracturing of that very military-industrial complex along regional grounds and allegiances, or just pure tactical reality.

Puget Sound is one of the great naval and air fortresses and production/maintenance facilities in the world, like the Kola Peninsula or certain other parts of the US (well, by now most of the US...esp. its coasts.) and there's no way secession from a surviving Union would be tolerated.....but that's only so long as centralized rule holds sway out of DC and there may come a time that it doesn't.

So if "the centre cannot hold, things fly apart", the rought beast slouching towards Seattle and Victoria is likely to be a five-star general or ambitious colonel looking for politicians to legitimize him, and politicians looking for a military figure to legitimize them.

cont.

It's a chicken-and-egg thing; BC's toe-sucker regimes have been making overtures behind the scenes for years (other than the NDP, or you'd hope not anyway), but I think it would take a breakaway of the Evergreen Triangle from the US as we've been fairly willing whores for a while now and that drunken sailor nearby just hasn't pulled out the cash. On the other hand, if we break off from Canada it, as said before, excites regional sentiments within the US. But I think it would take military/economic upheaval in teh STates before there was anything that might lead towards a regional government/state, probably evolving out o a military governate in the wake of the "stabilized" political landscape over a protracted civil war or possibly out of a US police action into BC in the wake of an emergency of 1983-styl political crisis; in that model BC would be under control of the nearby US brass, whose increased political power as a result would play back south of the line and could give them aspirations/momentum/basis for local rule.

But it would, as implied, take a breakup of central control of US forces and the emergence of "warlord" figures "keeping things under control" on a continent that, by then, won't be possible to control....

Seems pretty wild; but I think it's actually far more likely than peaceful devolution or merger by negotiation. We're only human after all, not conventioneers to a Star Trek-style galactic congress....

Always loved Yeats - should be able to quote that from memory

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I think that's pretty close. Seems somehow apropos all the clueless falderal about Vimy on the tube etc today, the fact it's also Easter and that I just heard we've lost 6 more young Canucks in country.

The old memory’s not in such bad shape after all.

the travesty of Vimy memorials/TV specials

What's really galling me with this celebration of our "national hour", the moment that defined us, with over 3000 of 30,000 men dead for a few hundred yards of ground - lost again within days, to boot, a fact which was not curiously absent from the Sun's big four-pager today (well, five including the Review's coverpage).

Vimy was a charnel-house, a wasting of the "flower of our youth", as was the whole of World War I (or as I'm told, being Canadian, I'm supposed to say the Great War}. The First War destroyed old Vancouver's dynamism and many of its most talented (well, most colourful anyway) and put the brakes on Canadian society in various ways, including the post-war economic struggles/illusion which culminated in the '30s; development ended, liberalizing sophistication was replaced by political and economic extremes and more.

It was AJP Taylor's Illustrated History of the Great War that clued me in to how pointless Vimy was; he gives it a one-liner, but then most of that book is pretty terse. But now it's being used as part of an obvious recruitment commercial for the forces, and increased militarism/military pride/military-flavour patriotism in this country. If they really wanted to do that Vimy special right, 18 of those 175 teeangers play-acting trench warfare should come back in body bags, 40 should come home as amputees, and about half with gas damage to the lungs and/or tuberculosis.

Not much glory in that war; but you'd never know it to listen to CBC or read Global's hype over it. How many more years of this are we going to be subjected to annually anyway? And it's seasonal; at another point the annual homage to Dieppe, then Arnhem, then Anzio.......I mean, honestly, people, get over it. War is ugly, and involves the death of young people serving the interests of others for no good reason, other than the one they've been sold on. Vimy may have been a turning point of national pride; but it was also a slaughterhouse and nothing for our politicians to be proud of IMO.

re yeats

for others here, unless you spelled it out for them, Yeats' poem The Second Coming quoted by G West is about the Great War, directly; and secondarily, though part of the same era, the Irish Uprising.

Quote:Now you're telling me

That's how real democracy works, unlike the sham version we have.

Okay, but until someone writes such a program its nothing the Irish or the Maltese or me will be worried about.

If we need the results 5 minutes after polls close then yes, computers will be needed. But otherwise we'd be fine. The Irish didn't need them.

To give us a better electoral system. Of course, that assumes that is actually what we want.

I don't.

I don't need to attack MMP, we pretty much already have it. Its nothing but FPTP with party lists to top up based on popular vote. It'll give us the same results we have now. Big parties with the head honchos telling everyone how to vote, or else. I don't consider that a minor criticism but then I suppose many like that system.

Corruption due to STV? It couldn't hold a candle compared to the corruption intrinsic to MMP.

But Frank

1. The Irish and the Maltese are homogenous cultures - ours isn't. What works there may be a complete disaster here – especially in a province with diverse social and cultural populations – the opportunities for conflict and divisiveness are myriad.

2. I see more problems with STV than you do; you think the reciprocal is the case for MMP. You’ve provided nothing but references to the current system as evidence of the problems with MMP - hardly convincing since the results in BC would be very different under the two systems. I think there would be a conservative party created within a week of the adoption of MMP – so it certainly wouldn’t be just a 2 party race in the future.

3. Everything I said about MMP is also contingent about changing the way party membership works and candidates are elected - I think I was pretty clear about that.

4. You've cited your own personal objections to MMP - I don't think the experience in nations where it has been used bears out your conclusions about corruption. If we look at the last 2 provincial elections the results would have been much more representative of the electorate's wishes under MMP than has been the case with FPP. Agreed?

5. I don't think the result IS better obviously and why would I want the added expense of computer voting machines which just serve to further alienate real democratic activity from the people and put in into the hands of elites - we have too much of that already and the cult still supporting STV two years after the election is indicative of that.

6. I think having elections on a Sunday would be an enormous improvement over the current method, by the way and I think there is lots opportunity for new party development and growth in a proportional system without creating the chance that multi-member urban ridings would end up taking all the time and attracting all the attention to their own selfish agendas. We have hardly anyone now who pays close attention to details of public interest for the whole province and STV would tend to make that much worse. Using a party list would give each party an opportunity to get some members into the Legislature who are not beholden to anyone and who can therefore concentrate on global provincial issues like health and welfare.

Anyway, to finish this off, I'd say that if the current gang ever gives the people another non-choice opportunity to vote for STV again (which I doubt they will) that I'll vote yes again - but not because it's my first choice, and I'll hope subsequently that your sanguinary analysis is not too far off the mark.

Vimy

You are absolutely correct. Vimy had already accounted for some 300,000 dead and wounded by 1917 when the British Army took it and held it for a few days as a result of an enormously costly ( in terms of men, materiel and time) Canadian attack about which all the falderal is being spouted this weekend.

Total myth-making over an event that is barely an asterisk in most WWI histories.

The achievements of the Canadian Corps in the last 80 days of the war, that was something to talk about perhaps, but Vimy - never.

martyrdom and patriotism are intertwined

On the back of the stage in the old Mission Legion, which is the huge old building on the curve out of town at the west end of First Avenue/Main Street (now a gym) had on its back wall a mural of the Vimy Memorial, as seen from an arched pavilion; all very sacred - this was the '60s and some WWI vets were still around, just barely - but there was an aura of bitterness in the services, I remember; you didn't hear much talk about patriotism, but you did hear talk about heroism and loss. I'm not sure that the actual WWI generation venerates these events in the way it's sop-sold now; I konw this is the case with WWII and Korean War vets...

actually...

...it's more "sacrifice and loss" than "heroism and loss"; heroism was more downplayed, more due respect than glorification, but not to be vaunted about; but Canadians were different a few decades ago, weren't they?

Real Stories

The real stories are never told in the popular press and certainly not on television.

Currie and the reputation of the Canadian Corps seems not to have been affected by the anti-war backlash that swept across Britain and the Continent in the twenties.

Somehow the fact that Canada itself had been left relatively untouched by the war seemed to make the difference. Currie was the plaintiff in a libel suit against the writer of an editorial in the Port Hope Evening Guide (June 1927) that suggested Currie's attack on Mons on the morning of Nov 11, 1918 was nothing more than an attempt to see that the Canadian Corps fired the last shots of the Great War.

He won the case, and was awarded $500.00 but, the fact of the matter is that the last soldier killed in the Great War was a Canadian by the name of George Price who took a bullet in Mons that morning.

The whole mythology that's grown up around Vimy - which has reached its apotheosis this weekend - is cut from whole cloth. Somehow even the anti war fiction and poetry of Europe never seems to have dented the 'Canadian' view of it's heroic soldiers who volunteered to fight for the 'old country'. In fact, the whole idea of Canadian soldiers in the First World War fighting for freedom and democracy in this country is utter foolishness anyway, but, as volunteers fighting for a cause that wasn't really theirs anyway, the memory of the Canadian Corps seems to have been invested with special glory that was never the case in other countries where the obvious idiocy of 4 years of trench slaughter was so much more clearly evident to the population at large - by virtue of their physical proximity to the fighting. It would be hard to find a Brit, a Belgian, a German, a Dutchman or a Frenchman, let alone a Russian who would try to make the case that WWI had been a glorious adventure.

Most of the WWI soldiers I knew didn’t think so either…but the folks back home sure did, and they’ve been doing it ever since.

The majority of the B&W film footage of the war, the attack on Vimy included, is not real, the stuff was filmed after the fact in the rear. A fact few if any commentators acknowledge to this day.

But

Yet, this doesn't have anything to do with STV or MMP or voting systems. I don't see how a culture's ethnic makeup limits its choice of voting systems.

You haven't demonstrated that that would be the case. And it is my contention you don't have a case to make. The difference in results would be minor. The differences in structure, that is party politics where the party retains a firm control over its MLA's, would see even less change.

Only STV undermines the power of political party leadership. And only STV makes changes to the system at the riding level.

I would have to read what those changes actually are and judge for myself their effectiveness. Not that "changes" would be made and they'd somehow fix the problems you admit are inherent in the system.

Only insofar as it concerns the relationship between popular vote and overall representation by a party within the legislature. The result would have been that Carole James would have been able to choose a few more NDP candidates to sit in the house and Ms Carr could have selected herself and maybe 1 or 2 other Greens to sit in the house. Then the Libs probably would have had to have made a deal with the Greens in order to pass legislation. Not earth-shaking change. Carr, Campbell and James would have retained complete control over their MLAs.

And not everyone in a party might necessarily be happy with the people that Carr and James would choose. At the riding level poeople simply have to vote for the local candidate or vote for another party altogether. At the list level they don't get to pick who is on that list and the order in which they're selected. Only under STV does an NDP voter get to decide which NDP candidate to support by marking that candidate as his first preference. That would mean a legislature that is much more representative of the electorate's wishes.

But part two

There is no need to use computer voting machines at all. The Irish had STV long before computers were invented. Also, computers are only a problem if their information is hidden, otherwise they're just another tool, like paper. Whether votes need to be counted using an FPTP system (as in the USA) or MMP, or PR or STV, the answer, if we want to use computers, is to use open source.

6.

I don't know, we'd have to try it and see the result. My guess is it wouldn't make any difference what day of the week the election was but I'm happy to try it and see.

If your objective is to have elections fought on broad provincial themes then we shouldn't have ridings at all. If we are to use ridings then STV will provide a better representation of the electorate rather than the FPTP/MMP result of a single winner, a single representative. But if we want our elected officials not to originate in local politics then we should elect our legislature from a province-wide vote where the future MLA's are not tied to geographic areas so that they are not hijacked by local issues.

It also allows each party to elect those members they owe a favour to, or are related to etc. Under PR or MMP Gordon could have seen to it his brother Michael was elected. Additional rules are required to prevent the corruption of PR and MMP systems. Additional rules which are not required by STV. The entire problem with PR and MMP is it does not break the power of political parties. The Cabinet will continue to run the province, not the legislature because MLAs will continue to look to their party, not their constituents.

Only STV pits people from the same party against each other and that is the best way to break the power of the party over its MLAs. For many, this is not an issue because party control of MLAs is welcome. I see it as one of the major problems in our system.

combat footage

Actual combat footage would have been very rough, like those rare originals of the Normandy Invasion that turn up now and then; the standard footage was re-filmed, like McArthur's re-staged landing on the Phillippines and all the usual "Normandy" footage.

More appropriate to have shown would have been All Quiet On The Western Front, I'd say. Hey - have you ever read any other Remarque? - I'm thinking The Black Obelisk, which is this wild trip through the Weimar Republic and a fascinating exploration of how to survive during mega-inflation.....

It's worth remembering that all this sentiment was developed by the ones who never went, not by those who experienced trench warfare. Talking about trench warfare the way they do is an abstraction, like something seen from a general staff maproom, not the horror and death and tens of thousands dead a day, millions a year, that it was. All for what? Naval dominance in the Atlantic? Russia living up to a promise to protect Serbia if etc etc etc? and so on?

The fervour with which the men of Vancouver and countless small communities across BC signed up, some never to survive as towns as a result (most famously Walhachin but also others), is kinda scary. I may have said this before, but it's worth noting that the location of the Cenotaph in Victory Square is the very spot where the sign-up tables for the trenches were; the site was chosen carefully, and pointedly. And it's meant to look a little in the stlye of the Vimy monument, but maybe that's just current funereal-monumental taste at the time (?)....but it's like there's a seal of mass death on the spot now for me, now that I know that story; not a happy place.

Mind you, it was the foot of the old courthouse steps when the tables were there, so not a happy place beforehand either. Just a lot busier....

another flic they should show

Oh What A Lovely War from Richard Attenborough. One nice thing it does is strip all sentimentality from all the hit tunes of that war by setting them amid the carnage of the war; brilliant; but too political for what the CBC is now; I don't have cable so don't know what else is out there in the programming these days...

solzhyenytsin

Has anyone ever tried adapting August 1914 to screen? You'd think a post-Soviet Russian might have tried, or will....or is Aleksandr still pretty much unread/unknown there?

coverage of today's deaths in a-stan

When it was announced, I guess on Global at noon, the phrasing was "on the holiest day of the Christian calendar, six Canadian soldiers were killed etc." The religiosity of such coverage is a bit distressing, no? It may indeed be why they were targeted, as our religious holidays are perhaps more important to others than for many of us, but if that was the case we'd hear about a press release rejoicing in killing Christians on their holiday etc. No, this is "religious linkage", the upping of some media ante, all too much like the religious overtonse of the US networks....

In a homogenous society the

In a homogenous society the issues that divide a population tend to be different that the issues that are frequently contentious in a society that is composed of a number of different ethnic and cultural groups - especially groups that have not been in the country a long time. We need to encourage people to come together in communities and not further atomize and already division-racked society.

It is the same cultural disequilibrium that leads to much of the nomination meeting nonsense that goes on now in traditional politics. In STV I think those things would be exacerbated and amplified - as I've pointed out already - especially in heavily ethnic areas of multi-member urban ridings.

The changes I’d propose relate to how political parties establish, support and finance their activities - all of which would be tightly regulated by the office of the chief electoral officer. The days of gathering up several bus-loads of folks and handing them $5 memberships in the BCLiberal, Conservative, Green or the NDP party on the night of a nominating meeting would be over.

And so would the use of corporate or union money to finance any party.

Your point about being happy with one's member is a non-sequitur - I see no indication that the result would be any more pleasing under STV. Further, I think a house made up of members in proportion to the actual votes of the population would be a house far more attuned to the necessity of having a good program and sticking to it.

I have very little confidence that allowing everyone to make politics more of a phony popularity contest than it already is would be a good thing.

In my view, we should be looking for institutional solutions that emphasize the political sphere as one where commonalities and cooperation exist and not ones that accentuate differences. And I still haven’t seen any evidence of how awful MMP systems are in places where they are in place and have been in place for quite some time.

Vimy

Canada lost over 3,000 dead but also captured 4,000 German prisoners. Also, all four Canadian divisions attacked together in a single operation, a "Canadian" operation.

Canada had bigger victories in WW1 but after Vimy it was no longer new to read of a "Canadian" victory. At the beginning of the war Canadians were simply part of the British army. At the end of the war the rest of the world knew Canada was capable of fighting its own battles.

Without Vimy and the emergence of the Canadian Corps and then Canadian leadership its not guaranteed Canada would have been treated as a real partner among nations. Just as if the Americans had not won the battle of Saratoga it would have been doubtful that anyone would have considered them to be anything but rebellious Brits.

Historically, nationhood was indeed won and lost on battlefields, and not by counting bodies either.

Glad I don't watch Global

That comment was revolting but not untypical of the kind of coverage I've heard today.

I think I did read The Black Obelisk.

Did you know that Remarque's book sold 400,000 copies in Germany in the first 4 months after it was published?

I always liked the dedication:

"This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war"

Party control

I think a legislature that includes more varied voices would be a step towards greater cohesion. From the above I assume you think big-tent parties are the way to go, different ethnic groups voting for the same party?

So if we somehow create a rule preventing the stacking of nomination meetings and get rid of corporate and union donations you believe FPTP or MMP would work fine?

Under STV, the electorate would have greater control over who is elected from their party within their riding. It wouldn't be perfect under STV either, but it would be a step forward.

Why? Don't we already have that under FPTP?

MMP is also a "popularity" contest. Its just one that replaces being popular among the electorate with being popular within your party.

Just as I have not seen any evidence of how awful STV is.

Also, you haven't addressed party control over MLAs under MMP/PR.

Nor why the simple change of topping up the number of MLAs from a list makes FPTP the best system.

Nor why we need to have ridings at all for provincial elections if the objective is to make the electorate think provincially and ignore local issues.

Nor why people from the same party shouldn't have to run against each other.

Vimy

I agree that WWI was an important part of Canada's nation building. Vimy is an important part of that and it has become iconic, but not because of anything inherent in the battle itself. Virtually all the glory was invested in the battle in subsequent years by folks who know little or nothing about the history. Much of the myth was created by Pierre Burton and others.

The last 80 - 100 days of the war was the period that the Canadian Corps should really take pride in and that was a time when they actually were under Canadian command, not being led by Julian Byng. Vimy was just a rather small set-piece that was in no way important to the outcome of the war.

It has become a piece of myth, that's all and I suppose myths are important, even if they aren't based on facts or real lasting achievement.

Vimy

What I was trying to say is that the importance of the battle is irrelevant. Its that anyone who read the papers at the time saw it as a "Canadian" victory. That's what was important for the future, not the yards gained or the prisoners taken. As I said there was bigger victories.

And although the 100 Days were full of victories and high numbers of prisoners captured, it was like that for the Americans and Brits too. The US for example will often trumpet the battles of St.Mihiel as where the war was won. Americans tend to adopt the "lions led by donkeys" view of the western front and that it was their arrival that then won the war.

Vimy was also important for when it happened. Coming on the heels of bloodbaths such as the Somme and Verdun.

I don't subscribe to the "lions led by donkeys" view at all. Not that the BlackAdder version of that theory isn't funny.

This is it for me Frank - gotta head to bed

I think that's a contradiction in terms, if not a non sequitur.

.

Nope. Never said that. Fixing the nominating methodology and the financing of political parties won't fix FPP. Nothing will because in FPP only the winning candidate gets any representation in the Legislature. The losers, no matter how many of them - get nothing. That's why we need true proportional representation.

If FPP weren't broke nobody would want to fix it. I think MMP does a better job of that than STV.

STV goes too far in the popularity sweepstakes, in my view. We need people who will have the whole province in mind and not just narrow local interests and people who have skills, talent and experience - not just folks who happen to appeal to a local group.

So you really don't have any horror stories about MMP - that's just a counter to my suggestion that STV can be gamed, right?

Making the Legislature more democratic and giving any party that receives a certain level of province-wide support would lead to party reform and party democracy very quickly. As would the advent of real coalition government.

I'm happy to do away with ridings and vote proportionally for the whole province if you are. You're the one who had a problem with provincial lists, not me. I’m not interested in a system that makes government more of a popularity contest than it is now – that’s one of the main things I dislike about STV.

Quote: From the above I

What - you're implying is that ethnically-defined parties might be better??? Do you want a list of strife-torn countries/political systems riven by those? It's very long....

Papers

Vimy hardly merited a mention in the papers in 1917. In the official Imperial record of the war it merits less than a page.

If the ridge had been held or had been the keystone to a subsequent exploitation of the advantage it might have led to then it’s place in popular imagination would be a valid foundation for Canadian pride – instead it’s just a myth.

As it is, it's just a manufactured case, a political expression of no military significance. Even the 3000 lost on the ridge pale to insignificance compared to the 16,000 who died at Passchendaele before it was finally occupied on November 6, 1917. Not much crowing done about that victory.

After the German offensives in March and April of 1918 had virtually wiped out Haig's Fifth Army and all the losses of 1917 had been recaptured it was the Canadian Corps that then had the training, the knowledge and the leadership to focus on the battles to come between May and November.

General Currie

One comment I saw somewhere, perhaps on a TV doc, though not CBC more likely A&E or the like, was that if Arthur Currie had more say in the conduct of the war from the start, or at such and so a point, and not the British Generals, things might have come out a lot different. Overall, it's always worthwhile to remember that it's the general who pushed for war, and built up the militaries with drams of glorious war of bygone times, not the tom-fool politicians who let themselves get talked into it.

Also, somewhere, in the opening of another dense history of the opening days of the war like Solzhenytsin or one of Taylor's thicker works, I remember that for a few strange weeks there were speeches in Parliament debating as to which of Britain's various commitments to throw their weight in on, with all the various dominos now falling; as they had obligations to Germany, and also advantages to gain from war with France....it was the naval sinkings which tipped the balance, or some such other provocation, like that nasty march through Belgium; but the politicians had reasons to look both ways, although they had to plunge in; the generals just wanted to plunge in. Not themselves, of course, that is....there were no Alexanders in that war. Well, really, in few wars, but you know what I mean...

BTW Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita ring any bells? Seems fitting to mention on Easter; half of the book's chapter's are the story of the Passion told from Pilate's perpsective, as a Roman noble/executive career type bored out of his mind and frustrated with Yerushayalim and all its horrid humidity; the different perspective on the politics of the time is refreshing, and ya gotta wonder about that Barabbas guy (cf. Lagerkvist's Nobel-prize winner by that title). The other chapters in the book are a hallicinatory trip through the Soviet Union, with the Devil and his green-eyed giant black cat drinking at the Writer's Club in Moscow during the throes of the Revolution, and all kinds of mad carnage. Amazing piece of writing; must be bizarre in the original Russian.....

STV

What - you're implying is that ethnically-defined parties might be better??? Do you want a list of strife-torn countries/political systems riven by those? It's very long....

Not at all, a culture made up of different elements does not become cohesive because of a lack of political representation. I can provide a list of where muzzling was tried and failed starting with the biggie, the Soviets.

People having to choose between the Libs and NDP does not mean there are no differences between ethnic, regional and economic groups. Its simply a way of masking the problem. Underneath, all the problems are still there.

But it will fix MMP?

This is a utopian view of the system, ignoring that we have ridings. Even the premier is elected in a local riding, not by the province at large. Local ridings cannot exist if you want people to concentrate on provincial issues and ignore local ones.

Because STV cannot be gamed. And I'm too lazy to look up the history of voting in Europe.

Goals are not remedies. The question is How do we make the Leg more democratic? How will we see party reform and party democracy? Especially quickly.

No, I'm not.

But you're the one that doesn't want candidates tied to local concerns. And yes, I do have a problem with party lists.

And I'm not interested in a system that doesn't make any real changes to the system, which is what MMP offers.

Vimy

In Paris the papers trumpeted the victory as "Canada's gift to France".

It was not every day in the days of trench warfare that an actual position was taken and 4,000 prisoners captured.

Again, it was militarily significant. The German dead and 4,000 prisoners taken would not be returning to the field.

The 4 Canadian divisions attacked and won a victory as a Canadian formation. That was a very significant event in our history. Politically more than militarily but significant nonetheless.

I think this is getting a little confused

And now this:

I was simply coming back to you with your suggestion, remember?

I think your view of STV is highly utopian whereas my appreciation of the positive gains that MMP would represent over the current system is based on all kinds of empirical evidence from Europe and is extremely practical.

As for the ethnic thing, again, I disagree and I think Skookum1 raises a good point.

On Vimy, you're absolutely correct that it's manufactured entity. If you read contemporary accounts from local Canadian sources from 1917 on you can see that, by the mid to late 20s there was a concerted effort to 'create' the image of Vimy Ridge that we've seen ad nauseum all through the past weekend.

Even the location of the memorial is a bit of an accident and an exercise in mythmaking.

I'd have far rather the emphasis had been on the last 100 days of the war when there truly was something to celebrate in Canuck elan and esprit de corps.

Vimy and the fuss about it is an anachronism although I know it's practically treasonous to say so.

I knew a fellow quite well when I was a boy who was in on both Vimy and Passchendaele. He had nothing good to say about either but maybe the fact that he had bits of schrapnel in his groin for the rest of his life had something to do with that. He was damn proud of his role in the last 100 days though.

All the fuss was and is being made by folks who wouldn't know what to do if they were presented with a Lee Enfield and a bayonet.

My view, like all such talk, it's pretty cheap. Pee wee Rambo wouldn’t last an hour in the mud of Passchendeale. All the falderal about the Vimy memorial glosses over the ‘nature’ of the first world war and turns its essence into something noble.

That is, at bottom, an essential lie.

A good book

In 1997 UBC Press published a book by Jonathan Vance (from Wilfred Laurier) entitled

.

Vance bills his narrative this way:

"This book is about memory. It is about constructing a mythic version of the events of 1914 - 1918 from a complex mixture of fact, wishful thinking, half-truth, and outright invention, and expressing that version in novel and play, in bronze and stone, in reunion and commemoration, in song and advertisemsnts."

This past weekend is just another episode in that construction.

Which is fine, as far as it goes - but it has very little to do with real history - it is really just a way of giving meaning to insanity.

Most of the other participants in the Great War, repulsed by the carnage and blood, reacted with a strong anti-war response.

Canada rejected (as Paul Fussell says in his Globe and Mail review of Vance's book) the "...irony, ourage cynicism and disillusionment (of the war) and stress(ed) instead the magic of this war as an almost sacred force for healing religious, ethnic and nationalistic divisions in a Dominion seeking an ideal cohesion. Paradoxically, in Canada the war brought not violent ideological change but a reinforcement of the image of continuity."

We need to remember that Canada's veterans, unlike the bonus marchers, never made it to Ottawa.

STV

I don't believe it was a suggestion, I was simply following the logic of where we would need to go if our objective is to elect MLAs that think provincially and not locally.

This is two things. Yes, my view of STV is utopian in the sense that I was a PR guy until I heard about STV, checked it out and loved it. Because it is the answer to my political objectives. In this discussion I have not attempted to impose on you my objectives. I understand your objectives are different and I have tried to isolate the differences. Such as by pointing out that I think your objectives require a province-wide vote and the end of ridings. By raising the issue it doesn't mean that's what I want because my objectives are different than yours. Mine are to break the power of parties over their MLAs, increase the chances of people having local representation and making MLAs more responsive to local electors. Obviously province-wide voting would work against my view of how the system should work.

Secondly, is your view of PR and MMP systems. You want the kind of politics they have in Scandinavia and Germany. I look at those systems but don't see the same benefits you do. Probably because I'm biased against systems that increase party control etc.

Vimy

Canada rejected the ... (etc)

Paradoxically, in Canada the war brought not violent ideological change but a reinforcement of the image of continuity."

However, it was Canada that disarmed. The other powers retained powerful militaries. And "All Quiet" didn't stop Germany from rearming as soon as possible. Revenge trumped Remarque.

Its not an either/or. I have posted a few paragraphs on the Tyee in the past about August 8th 1918 and why the combined attack by the Australians and Canadians was such a great victory. I don't need to denigrate that victory in order to raise up Vimy. Both were victories, both may be celebrated as such.

For what its worth facing shared hardships bind people together more than any electoral system can ever hope to.

Wellll

I have no problem with Vimy being one of several important icons - I just think the kind of stuff we've seen in the last few days is unnecessary, over the top and, essentially, dishonest - that's all.

It's using an imagined and largely invented ‘Pierre Berton’ memory for disingenuous purposes. I celebrate Canada's role in the First World War - than doesn't mean I have to lie about it.

I think the story of cardboard boots on the Salisbury plain and the obscenity of the Ross rifle and Colonel Sam Hughes and Currie’s rip-off of trust funds ought to be part of the mix too - as well as the story of the pre-demobilization riots at the end of the war.

We ought to be big enough and mature enough to tell the whole story and not just the glorified parts of it - such things are - as Vimy currently is being - often put to inglorious uses

Easter, Vimy vs Easter, Kandahar

It occurred to me while watching the portraits of the young soldiers "killed by a roadside explosive device [otherwise known as a bomb] while on patrol near Kandahar" that, even less than the carnage of the trenches, this is not fighting we're sending the troops into in Afghanistan. It's random violence, with soldiers being simply moving targets to be picked off; these guys didn't plunge into a gun battle or even have to charge a minefield; they were just driving along. And too many of the casualties in this war and in Iraq are like that - not actual battle casualties, but terrorism casualties. We're sending in troops to be the victims of terrorist randomness.

Just as in 1914-18 we sent them into machine gun fire and trenches full of disease, gas and death. And in both cases we talk about military achievement and, increasingly, glory and national pride.....

The reason Canada disarmed after the Great War was because they didn't have any domestic need for troops; all of the Great Powers did, just to keep their own populations under control (even the UK, cf Ireland). And Canada, already financially out-of-sorts from losing most of its labour force and a good deal of its materiele to the war, did not have the budget to maintain a home military, or an overseas one, even if it wanted to or had ar reason to (the attempted seizure of Wrangel Island in this period was cute, and the minor risk of war with Norway over Baffin and Ellesmere Islands would have been entertaining....).

So instead you got the Grand Army of United Veterans political party-alliance of parties, and Canada on the verge of revolution - especially when it came out the newly-enfranchised women had voted booze off the market while the boys were away. If it hadn't been for the US starting their own Prohibition shortly afterwards, and thereby providing lots of job and business opportunities for unemployed vets in Canada, there would have doubtless been a full-scale revolution. That aside Canada disarmed not for any noble kind of reason, but simply because the noble reason was over and, oh yeah, the bottom line didn't allow it.

Funny how we don't get big specials on Suez, or on the hostage-taking of Canadians in the Yugoslavian Wars. Do we get annual specials on Shidane Arone?

Vimy

Canada has for years ignored its military history. You won't find August 8th 1918 even being mentioned in high schools. I find it refreshing to see Vimy given the same treatment as the disaster at Dieppe for example.

That kind of information is already available in any good book on Canada and First World War. I don't see why we'd celebrate it.

Canada

The point is, Canada disarmed and others did not. That was the final outcome of all the revered authors writing anti-war books. They didn't sway their own populations. Whereas for all the concern over Canada celebrating its great War achievements leading to some kind of revival of the Prussian state, it didn't happen.

NHL teams also don't issue video libraries of seasons where they finished last. What would be the point?

we didn't finish last

We didn't finish last at Suez; we trumped the British and French, for pity's sake. And that we were victimized during the Yugoslavian Wars doesn't diminish the importance of that war/those wars in also defining our national military pride, identity, even the pathos for the poor schmuck who got manacled to a radio-transmitter-cum-bombing-target. Why don't we celebrate the Battle of the Medak Pocket - said to be one of the strategic engagements, though small, of the 20th Century and the very epitome of stalwart duty and valour in the face of hostile fire, on behalf of civilians etc; there's even a post-tragic heroism in the story of Romeo d'Allaire and Rwanda, despite the "loss" that represents (courtesy UN Command, whose orders to act D'Allaire never got; or rather he got orders to NOT act, as I recall...).

Vimy coverage does not portray the world as it was in 1914; it focuses on the battle and our national pride at expense of all other reality at the time. Without understand the diplomatic and military machine/momentum that led into 1914, any story of Vimy is even more meaningless than the battle itself, in terms of the war. It's important because we "stood on our own". On whose ground, and for what cause? Because I have never yet found significant moral cause behind the Entente's political motivations for the war, or for the general tension of "armed peace" as had developed in Europe oer the previous fifty years. OK, OK, the violation of Belgium, but even Germany was only going to war because their machine was primed to do so, not because there was going to be any long-term advantage to crushing the hell out of France - which was as big a threat to Germany as vice-versa. Toss in the madness of the Austro-Russian front and the encirclement-capture of Russian troops in East Prussia and it's almost like Imperial Germany couldn't help but be cast in the role of bad guy (not that they hadn't been since the time of Bismarck, though I rather like Bismarck...from what I know of him through AJP Taylor anyway).

What was WWI fought over anyway? Nobody's ever been able to come up with a clear answer, althoug stuff like "national self-determination" got pitched by Wilson et al, but that wasn't the reason for the war - which also would have happend whether or not Germany overran Belgium to outflank the French; it was going to happen; it only happend to be Princip's shooting of the Archduke that lit the fuse at that particular moment; and so the Third Balkan War became the First World War....

cont.

Point is that there's a lot more to WWI than Vimy, but Vimy is all Canadians get told about (over and over), and in the wrong light (as if the ridge were permanently taken, for one thing...); likewise with WWII and Dieppe, Arnhem, Anzio etc. We do our children andnewcomers no service by dwelling on overblown hyping of a nationally-defining event nearly ahundred years ago that most people today, esp. new Canadians but also most youth, are so distant from it's irrelevant. Furthermore, the "Canadian nation" that was defined at Vimy, so proclaimed, no longer exists; it was overrun by multiculturalism, even told it's "bad old white Canada" (not in so many words but that's the drift) and the national identity created then is also the one that interned the Japanese, brought in the Exclusion Act etc etc etc. World War I barely resonates to most young Canadians; to new Canadians barely at all, at least insofar as the "Canadian national achievement/identity" goes.

Rhetorical?

I give, why don't we?

For pity's sake, Vimy didn't happen in 1914. It was 1917.

And the answer is to denigrate the battle of Vimy Ridge? I disagree. The answer is to increase the education of Canadians. I would support adding a few hours a week of nothing but Canadian and regional history classes.

As for Arnhem and Anzio, those aren't considered to be Canadian battles. Ortona and Caen/Falaise would be better examples of Canadian battles from WW2.

As for WW1 not being important to the new Canada, maybe not. So when should Canadian history start?

Taylor

Taylor to the contrary, Vimy was not a meaningless battle. Not to Canada nor to the western front in 1917. Captured prisoners outnumbered friendly dead and an impregnable position was taken. The moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1 as Napoleon would say. Proving you can dislodge the German army from a dominating terrain feature after the battle of the Somme is in fact a meaningful battle.

As for WW1 in general, lots of pages of ink have been written as to what the war meant and why it was started. In my opinion Germany was an aggressor nation. It was German armies that invaded France, Belgium and Luxemburg. Which isn't to say that the diplomatic maneuvering prior to August 1914 leaves the French guilt-free either. But in the end it was German armies that crossed the frontiers and attempted to take Paris once again.

I actually don't agree

Canadian military history virtually ignores those features, along with the fact that parts of the CEF were actually private armies in 1914 (PPCLI). The whole debacle of Sam Hughes, the pre-war militia and the mess at Valcartier is completely overlooked in the fascination with canned VIMY glory. I've heard not a single word about any of that, Ross Rifle, corrupt defence contractors and the like.

My point isn't that Vimy shouldn't be a big deal, although, given the effort put into a 4 day battle whose gains weren't consolidated it's hard not to agree with the footnote status it has in every serious WWI history that I've read. The point is that all this weekend's tripe has been exactly that, tripe. It ignores the whole experience and range of the war in favour of a soft-focus look at the past that is just plain WRONG.

The vainglorious attitude also ignores the fact that the War also gave form to the essential split in Canada's national character.

The vast majority of the first draft that went overseas were British-born, some of them having been in Canada less than five years. No one ever mentions that the medical corps treated more than a thousand cases of venereal diseast in the first five months after the wild bunch got to England either.

I just think the whole thing has become entirely unhinged from reality - much like the reasoning behind our current role in Afghanistan. Thank heaven the Dutch seem to have taken over our usual function there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I'll be very pleased when pee wee realizes what we're up to now isn't working and starts emulating the Dutch.

Wouldnt this, what follows, be a better testimony

From John Keegan: The First World War -

There's no doubt that the arrival of the Americans did much to create the 'atmosphere' of depression which reigned over the Germans after their attack in the St Mihiel salient, but, as Keegan says, "...the professional opinion of veteran French and British officers that (the Americans) were enthusiastic rather than efficient was correct."

From August 8 until November 11, the Canadian Corps was in the thick of the action, spearheading the roll back of the Germans - that, rather than Vimy, is a true testament to Canadian feats of arms, in my view. It all started with August 8, what Ludendorff called 'The Black Day of the German Army'. There's something to celebrate, if la gloire is what we're after.

Maybe we should get back to Quebec - there are aspects of our perennial & problematic Les deux Nations relationship that are, I think, echoes of those years on the Western Front and the soldiers who fought and died there.

Quote:Canadian military

Whether you pick up a book by Goodspeed, Swettenham or whoever, most Canadian historians discuss Hughes, the Ross and Valcartier. I have several hundred books on Canada in the First and Second World Wars and picked up my copy of Swettenham just to check before typing this. He mentions it all. Most do.

But you also mention the pre-war militia. In what context? Because for all his faults, such as the Ross, Hughes was expanding the militia, bettering the rifle ranges etc.

As for corrupt contractors, so what? What has that got to do with Vimy and the Black Day and Ypres etc? Napoleon dealt with corrupt contractors, as did Washington, Wellington, Lee and Grant, the list goes on. Corrupt contractors are something we should have weekend specials on 90 years after the event? For what purpose?

Do you also agree with the footnote status Canada itself has in every history of WW1 and WW2? When I was a kid I used to check the index of books just to see how often Canada was mentioned, if at all. Perhaps the fact that some books don't even mention us as being part of the D-Day invasion, or that we aren't given any credit for our role in the Battle of the Atlantic means we're too insignificant to celebrate anything?

Perhaps this weekend we should be celebrating the Argonne, Verdun, and the Brusilov Offensive because those events are in every history of the war and what our troops did was insignificant and unworthy of attention even from their own countrymen.

Maybe that's why Canadians know the battles fought by the Americans better than they do their own history. We'll get rid of Vimy and Dieppe remembrances and instead remember the Americans at Anzio and the British at Arnhem and maybe the Russians at Leningrad.

Young soldiers contracting venereal disease is news? Or perhaps means their later sacrifices should be ignored?

Keegan

As I said earlier, go back a year or two in the Tyee archives and you'll see I have already written on the Black Day. I certainly recognize wehat a great victory it was.

As for Keegan, he called the Canadian taking of Vimy Ridge "epic". Not bad for a non-Canuck.

till some sunny day

I'm gone again till tomorrow night

Keegan

I thought he called it "sensational" but it's a minor point. Vimy doesn't rate much mention as a separate event because it's actually the battle of Arras in the history books and the Vimy operation - despite being called a turning point by the Queen today - was a small feature in a very big operation whose overall plan (thanks to Nivelle) was hardly a success.

Furthermore, as you no doubt know, for some reason Falkenhausen had his counter-attack divisions 15 miles back of the front in the Vimy-Arras sector, a clear miscalculation. In any case, my only point is that the emphasis on a four-day battle in the spring of 1917 does a great disservice to the rest of the Canuck record.

More about the pre-war militias tomorrow – I’m gonna have to hit the books.

ahem

For pity's sake, Vimy didn't happen in 1914. It was 1917.

I meant to put 1914-1918 rather than specify a year....

And I'm not denigrating Vimy. I'm denigrating the nationalist hype that surrounds it; no disrespect whatever to the dead; many of whose comrades would be mortified to see their battle used to sell enlistment in another war. Most/many Great War vets were adamantly anti-war because of their experiences; this seems to have been forgotten or ignored. And as I said, and as borne out in the figures in the paper today, 59% of Canadians don't recognize the name of the battle; if it did define "being Canadian" for a few generations, it doesn't anymore and doesn't have any relevance to the new vision of Canada that's been constructed in the last thirty years. It's that simple; it celebrates/symbolizes the birth of a nationhood that was itself abandoned for sake of political expediency, and now itself is being used to sell yet another vision of nationhood that has nothing to do with why those guys charged the ridge at Vimy.

Poor bastards, they did it because some general decided they had to.....

in other words

if our nationhood is to have been defined by blind obedience and self-destructive valour in the service of stupid orders, all in the name of a war nobody has ever been able to explain the logic or purpose of......well, if that's what nationhood or national pride is supposed to mean......

Amen

Couldn't have put it better myself. A whole weekend of sound and fury - signifying nothing.

as if...

...that weren't true of nearly else else in national political/historical/propaganda coverage...they even give curling sound and fury.....or try to....

Just finished a fascinating

Just finished a fascinating book on the years of John Diefenbaker as a political force within this country.

I come away fascinated by the details of his life that to this day has escaped my attention...,

There is much to be learned by reading about some of our GREAT LEADERS who dared to step up to the plate.., and attempt to come to grips with such an '' impossible '' country as CANADA .., has come to be.. or is becoming..*..(* according to many pundits who have observed our baby steps to nationhood .)

My take on all matters concerning Canada - including the very matter of QUEBEC VOTE SIGNALS SPLIT * itself .., such as the above article tackles.., and furthermore , my very own fascination with the IGNORANCE palpable of our vast LANDS..., it's history , it's heritage , it's ROOTS..! ,brings me to the following reflections..

Though my thoughts also go to another article written by Rafe , in which he predicts - yawn - once again , the break-up of this country.. *.., I am more interested in the efforts that are on going on a day to day basis.., by CANADIANS and yes CANADIENS* of all stripes who go about building the kind of CANADA that will not only survive the naysayer.., but will eventually thrive , with the innovations that come with a determination and with a sense of destiny also..,

What can each of us do to build the CANADA OF TOMORROW rather then drowning in our sorrow of what will happen if we break apart.. , God people ,get a GRIP ON LIFE .. !

Let keep the candle burning on this beautiful dream of having a homeland that is not only nourishing and plentiful but so vast as to have all of us live out the remainder of our lives.., within our means , within our dreams.., of living out to the outmost of our potential the kind of life we would have for ourselves and our CHILDREN*...

Various threads

So are you saying you would agree with me that we need a lot more of such "weekends"?

That everything from Ypres to the Reichswald should be remembered as well?

Regarding World War One's origins, it's true that it wasn't a Roy Rogers movie the way WW2 was. Germany was out to dominate Europe as their war aims make clear (just look at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk) but the Kaiser wasn't a lunatic in the way that Hitler was. Regardless, the war cannot be lumped in with the limited wars fought over secession and other issues in the 1700's either. The war had valid reasons for being fought and a clear origin point.

On the topic of the soldiers, it wasn't blind obedience. The Canucks were volunteers. But an army is not a democracy. Once those soldiers exercised their democratic choice and entered the army they knew they wouldn't be consulted on every operation from thereon.

As for our nationalism. There are few things that create more of a sense of nationalism than shared experience in war. Not just for Canada, but for any country. Most nations look to points in the past where they were defeated in battle (such as Serbia) or won some great victory leading to their liberation. I don't know of too many countries that define their national identity due to a court decision or a radio program or the creation of a new type of wheat.

Sadly True

quote]I don't know of too many countries that define their national identity due to a court decision or a radio program or the creation of a new type of wheat.

I think Canada is (or had the potential to be) one of the world's few truly peaceable countries. There are and always have been enough countries forged in violence and war; having a few democratic and successful places who don't define themselves that way is a good thing, in my view. Further, I don’t agree with the formula that Canada started at Vimy or on any other blood-soaked battlefield although you could certainly make the argument that the crystallization of the French/English split was achieved by Borden’s war-time ‘conscription’ election. [Just trying to bring this back to the 'Quebec' connection.]

There will always be a big enough supply of bullies in the international community, Canada is much more interesting and valuable as an exception to the rule. This past weekend was, in my view, an extended expression of collective jingoism – as such it did no honour to the men who died or the ones who came back maimed from that ill-fated European adventure.

Forged in War

But our country was forged in war. My ancestor arrived here as a soldier and someone in our family has been serving, and dying, pretty much ever since. The first couple of hundred years of Quebec and Canadian history is all about war between the French and the natives, or the French and English or the Canadians and Americans.

Canada actually has very bloody origins.

CBC

I wouldn't call the CBC program jingoistic. From what I saw there was a lot of discussion about the people who died. Where they were from, who they were, who they left behind, etc. I can't see how that's not honouring them.

I've no problem with that part of it Frank.

I think I was pretty clear it was the 'Vimy turned the war around' and 'Canada as we know it wouldn't have existed without it' trope that upsets me.

I love military history and read it all the time. Some of what was presented was history - most of it - especially the speeches was worthless spin.

Sadly.

I think there were some colonial wars

I think there were colonial wars waged by others in the early history of British and French North American. That's obviously true, but: I think the creation of Canada in 1867 was a noble attempt to bring together a country that stood for and emulated something else. I don't think the period from 1837 to 1867 was an example of a country being forged in war at all.

In fact, we were forged together, such as we are, in endless meetings and consultations. Only when we've departed from that model have we been in real trouble.

I have no problem with our involvement in the two necessary wars of the 20th century but we should recognize that had nothing to do with creating, sustaining or building the country. In fact, the way conscription was handled - in terms of a majority dictating to a minority over what is essentially a moral issue - has become a fundamental flaw in the way this country has failed to live up to its potential.

I don’t disrespect your vision Frank. We come from pretty much the same background, I just interpret the data a little differently than you do.
In my view.

Call it a day

Let's call it a day on the Vimy thing and move on G.

As for pre-1867, well, one ancestor died at the battle of Chrysler's Farm. To me, he died a "Canadian" and even though we weren't officially a country yet the term "Canadian" was in use. Two other ancestors died in that particular war (of 1812) too. They may have been "British subjects" but really, I think its fair to call that a war for Canada and that they were Canadians defending their native land.

The ancestor that served with Wolfe on the other hand I consider to be an invader.

On a new topic, after the 6 Canadians were killed the other day in Afghanistan I saw one of the commanders on tv. I won't name names but I find it interesting that I went through officer training with that guy and he was one of the biggest assholes I've ever met. He was my pick to be "most likely to be shot by his own troops". God help us if he's making the decisions.

That's why I picked 1837 - 1867....Agreed

Have you heard the latest about the tanks and spares we flew in to country at a cost of $189 million just a few months ago?

They're too hot now and we need air conditioned Leopards as a replacement. I'm just watching O'Connor announce that we're now going to spring for another few dozens of millions to better protect our soldiers.

We're now going to buy up to 100 surplus Dutch tanks - fly them to CANADA - borrow a bunch of German tanks for Afghanistan.

This guy you saw on tv CAN'T possibly be any worse than the defence minister.

Does no one in DND know anything about the climate and weather in country?

What a bunch of idiots - God help us is right.

Quote:This guy you saw on tv

Really? I'd invite Gordon Campbell out for a beer before that guy. But to be fair I don't have the urge to flush Gordo's head down the toilet when I see him.

Haven't seen anything about the tanks. But believe it or not I've hardly had time to watch any tv. Last night I was so tired I even fell asleep during the Canucks game and never saw any of the 4 overtime periods. And you know there's no way in hell I would have missed a Canuck playoff game if I could have helped it. Had to find out who won this morning at NHL.com

That Bad?

Jeez.
This is going to be an interesting series. Both teams play the style of hockey...

I hope the Canucks can win their home games because the ice is generally pretty bad in Dallas. One win there out of two is about all that can be expected.

The other problem is shots on goal - we're not taking enough.

Too bad you missed it, the Sedins seemed to be getting better as the game went on and the Canucks survived about 50 seconds of 5 on 3 in OT - which was dicey.

Truth to tell, they got outplayed and survived on Luongo's heroics. My view anyway - watched to the bitter end.

Officers

It has been ever thus, at least since the days of collegial/academic-schooled warfare. There's all kinds of bits about men-who-shoudln't-have-stripes in a lot of history and biography; from Good Soldier Svejk over to some characters who cropped up in Sir Kenneth Clarke's autobiographical "Another Part of the Wood" and life/people in the 10s and 20s; including some who made it whom, and others who should have, or it's a pity they didn't.

I've seen other authority figures risen to TV visibility and/or high rank who you have to wonder about, too....

Canadian then and now

Well, it was already a country, just not a state (as in nation-state), which is why somebody would be a Canadian; and at Chrysler's Farm especially it's "old Canada", as Upper Canada was all newly-settled by comparison (well, around that part of Quebec there was a lot of UEL displacement of canadiens, that's true also); but whether in the French sense or the then-newly-emerging English sense of "Canadian" and "Canada", in those days that meant only from Lake Huron to the Gaspe (and sorta not really the Gaspe, which is quebec's taste of the Maritimes/Acadia); point is that the modern sense of Canadian, as being people from BC, or people newly in Canada, means something different. The story of Chrysler's Farm didn't form the character of British Columbians, because it wasn't part of BC's time period (not much goin' on here 1812-14, other than some juicy inter-Indian wars); THAT Canada is a different world from here, the one with the national symbols and the maple sugar and Lundy's Lane and the Plains of Abraham; that's always been far away from here, and for new people in Canada it's all irrelevant to them, as such stories have ever been.

You can't have national iconographies that survive bulk immigration, which brings with it its own identities and histories, with little interest in what went before. So much Canadian myth-making is just that - "making", manufactured nationalism, overbeaten sentiment and sanctimony (the somlemn pause between each of "the fallen soldier's" names were read on the news the other night), the plastering of that designer-concocted maple leaf symbol bloody everywhere, like they were advertising a corporation (well, really they are....).

Back to your Canadian forebears; yes, that is one meaning of Canadian; but it's not by extension the same meaning for someone from another part of Canada, without an origin in "old Canada" or any family connections to it (I happen to have some, though I'm not sure if that far back - at Stanbridge East).

Nationalism and Vimy memorialism

One of the cornerstones of the 'Canada' myth - the one that was being trotted out last weekend in the 'Vimy-fest' was the unstated orthodoxy that Canadians of the time were all, forgive me, 'dying' to volunteer for the Western Front. I remember Kris Kristofferson using that term in his introductory remarks to the 30th Anniversary Bob Dylan Concert Celebration - he called it a Bob-fest.

Anyway, stated or unstated it is a palimpsest that underlies the Canadian myth and - given the fact that this myth also includes the idea that there was an enormous disconnect between the patriotic (some might say suicidal by 1917 but that's another question) instincts of English and French Canadians that,subsequently, has led to divisions between the two solitudes ever since.

This mythology was at the bottom of one of the CBC pieces (Monday night) I watched: The one that focused on the letters of Talbot Papineau to his uncle Henri Bourassa at Le Devoir.

The interesting thing is that at no time during the whole Vimy-fest did anyone mention the reality of the conscription issue in the broader context.

from page 351 of the Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs for 1917:

The statistics from that page show that of 404,395 registered for Conscription in Canada, 380,510 sought exemption - that is 94%. I note that 68.9% of the requested exemptions were allowed.

Exemptions sought by region:

Maritimes - 90%
Quebec - 98.8%,
Ontario - 93.9%
Prairies - 98.2%
BC and Yukon - 80.7%.

In fact, of 656,953 deemed conscripted under the Military Service Act, only 23,885 wanted to enlist and a further 252,558 failed to register altogether by the end of 1917.

This too is a Canadian reality.

skookum1

Thanks skookum1 for your posts. I can't say I disagree with you at all. And its true, assholes always seem to rise to the top of anything regardless of the ideology in place.

New Westminster

By the way skookum1, do you know much about New Westminster history and personalities prior to 1939?

Conscription

G, its two separate discussions isn't it? That being the motives of volunteers and the number of those conscripted that didn't want to go.

I would imagine that by the time conscription became a reality everyone who actually wanted to go would have already gone.

I can certainly understand anyone who didn't want to go. I know what my reaction would have been in 1918 after seeing the casualty lists for 1916 and 1917.

Coming back

Wanna come back to one thing you said skookum1

Wouldn't this be more necessary in a country as diverse as ours in both regions, history and makeup than anywhere else? We don't all speak the same language, believe in the same god, have the same trees growing in our communities or even face the same oceans, if we're near one at all.

So wouldn't we have to try harder to create "national myths" rather than relying on Tim Hortons, Canadian Tire and hockey to get us to stay united?

Oh I agree Frank

My only point is that the conscription issue and the way the conscription election was fought was along French/English lines. Borden clearly used every dirty trick in the book - as you no doubt know - to win the election on the conscription issue and it has been (as it has contributed to the divide between the two solitudes ever since) an enormous obstacle between Quebec and the ROC.

I think it was a phony issue - or at least far from the line of cleavage it has turned into if you actually look at the reluctance of a majority of eligible Canadians of either national group to truck on over to Flanders in 1917.

Given the fact that the vast majority of the original CEF were NOT Canadian born the whole Vimy/Canada/ virtuous and patriotic sacrifice for the nation is more than a little hollow.

This is from a letter to the CBC Ombudsman written by a political scientist called Andy Shadrack:

As a young child and teenager growing up in England I had an opportunity to talk with men who had survived the World War I trenches. Those who saw the worst action said the least, and I remember one genetlemen telling me that he refused to become an officer because they usually only lasted 'ten minutes'.

Sometime we have to fight to prevent the spread of tyranny, however glorifying the tragedy of World War I and the resultant carnage is not the CBC's finest hour. I also strongly object to the corporation mis-portraying opposition to the war as being based on Quebecois nationalism, when in my own area of BC 40% of those who voted in the 1917 general election referendum opposed conscription. A remarkable feat when you consider the fact that most women and all naturalised Canadians after 1910 were disenfranchised under the Wartimes Election Act.

I myself grew up in a house in the north eastern suburbs of London, England, which lost all its doors and windows twice during WWII due to it being along the path to the London Docks from the North Sea. In the early 1940's my mother worked for the East End Mission during the Blitz and once spent over an hour gently prying a child from a kitchen table leg in a bombed out house.

Nation building consists of more than sending men off to war to be maimed and/or die, as I can testify from watching two of my Father's best friends taking twenty years to die, one after being blown up in a tank on D-Day and the other from being imprisoned by the Japanese after capture. This same City that I grew up in was still not rebuilt when I emmigrated to Canada in 1970. Twenty five years after WWII was over some residents of the Docks were still living in "temporary" housing.

Quote:Borden clearly used

Political expediency G. Borden wasn't the first and wasn't the last to divide the country in order to rule it.

I'm telling you, political parties and their "all or nothing" ideologies have reached the end of their time.

If we had STV in that election the outcome you've described wouldn't have happened. And yes I know I'm evil :-)

I would have to look this up, so feel free to call me on it but wouldn't the first groups of volunteers have been pretty much wiped out by Vimy?

I tend to the view that there were lots of Canadian-borns willing to fight in France. But yes, we had lots of immigrants in-country even back then.

I'll have to pull out the books

I think the original CEF was more than 60% Limey of one kind or another...

My problem isn't so much with Borden but, like Andy Shadrack, with the current bunch of curs and the CBC.

I'm all for changes in the electoral process as you know but I'd wager MMP wouldn't have given Borden his desired result either so I'll suggest that's just a tiny red herring.

I'm just not impressed with wars and killing folks as an effective way to build a nation - especially when it's someone else's nation you're fighting for....but, as British Subjects I don't think we had a choice. I'd say that the small amount of independence we showed (which didn't extend to exempting our soldiers from British firing squads as the Aussies did) did help us become an independent nation.

But that was because we were sick and tired of being pulled into European wars as much as it was because we felt like full players on the world scene because we got to initial the paperwork at Versailles.

What do you think of the Liberal/Green alliance/ quid pro quo in Central Nova?

Quote:What do you think of

I support it. There's no rule that you have to run in every riding.

Besides, I think the Greens and Libs are closer than the Libs and NDP.

Suggest away, because it was.

But the point is that no one can blame Borden for doing what every other PM has done or considered doing. FPTP lends itself to such shenanigans. Would you have pulled a "Borden" back then to stay PM?

As for Shadrack, hey I've read lots of anecdotes from people. Broadfoot's "6 War Years" is full of them and I'm sure you've read it. I'm not claiming war is glorious. I am however claiming that nation-building has taken place on battlefields and that shared casualties among a people does bring them closer together.

So to me the Vimy weekend, in spite of the fact I only saw an hour of it, is the kind of thing I want to see more of. Not exclusively on wars either but on all aspects of our nation's history. Although I don't want wars excluded either.

I don't actually disagree with the general case

But I think the coverage was overblown, bloated and disingenuous.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, I like the history too - just not some of the unwarranted political and jingoistic extrapolations.

And nope, I'm not seduced by power much at all - I'm more of a Dave Barrett type. Get in, do what you can and damn the torpedoes. We're still enjoying little Dave's best ideas today - if he'd nationalized BCtel when he had a chance I think that would have been a great idea too - probably better than some of his efforts in the forest and resource industry. Sasktel is a major asset for that province and none of the Liberal governments- Thatcher or Devine - dared touch it.

Quote:By the way skookum1,

Other than Raymond Burr and Mandrake the Magician and that the 'Bellies were/are bigtime, not really - other than the Hyack Battery and loudmouth newspapermen like John Robson, and stuffy aristocrats from the same period; don't know its civic history, except bits and pieces: rich stuff. As much old-guard and pioneer stories as you'll find in Vancouver or Victoria, but not as well known, I guess because the city's been absorbed into the younger, more famous (and vainer) upstart in the Inlet.

May and MacKay

I'm about to post re Frank's and mine's subtopic but the so-called Liberal-Green alliance in someone's post caught my eye. While the Libs are certainly not above backroom deals and electioneering, the Greens certainly are (for now)>. It sounds like the local Liberal faction decided E. May was more electable than their own Peter-killer; or more pointedly they didn't want the humiliation of a third-place finish, which is also likely. Better to get the unknown quantity into the Commons, where it might stand a chance of destabilizing the traditional parties. And the Grits aren't stupid - it's common knowledge that as much, ir not more, big-G Green support comes from small-c conservatives; fiscal conservatism and conservation go hand in hand (on the other hand fiscal conservatism and moral conservatism rarely do, i.e. in practice, but it's taking the right wing parties a generation of two to figure that one out), and as with the get-Elizabeth-in-the-leaders'-debate tactic, Liberal strategy views the Greens as more likely to eat votes from the Tories (of all people, but it's true) and the NDP than from themselves. That the Greens are happy to play along with this is only an inkling of their eventual political cynicism/pragmatism. But don't anyone think there's a Green-Liberal deal; Greens are too hapless, too guileless, to deal with it; that Liberals aren't is the Liberals' problem, and to the Greens' gain.

Quote:Skookum1: So much

Frank: Wouldn't this be more necessary in a country as diverse as ours in both regions, history and makeup than anywhere else? We don't all speak the same language, believe in the same god, have the same trees growing in our communities or even face the same oceans, if we're near one at all.

So wouldn't we have to try harder to create "national myths" rather than relying on Tim Hortons, Canadian Tire and hockey to get us to stay united?

If it's not there organically, why the fuss to create it? So we can be more patriotic like the Americans? More misled by the national mythos than the British? Why should we have to create national myths at all? Hasn't anyone forgotten that nationalism is responsible for most of the most hideous crimes and wars of the last 200 years - or if not responsible, then the excuse?

The reality is that the country itself is a fiction, a pastiche of pasted-together colonies without a common history other than the mutual legislation/toe-sucking that bound it together in the first place. Pretending that there is a common identity is one of the great fallacies, and great problems of modern Canada. And as someone who doesn't like either Tim Horton's or hockey, you're preaching to the un-convertible; cdn tire is handy, but I wish they'd drop the cheesy moutachioed nerdy Ontarian guy as "joe Canada".....archetypal CBC listener x10.

"necessary" myths?

The "necessary" myths you're talking about, Frank, are ones that overrode actual myths, i.e. in the case of BC the flavour and identity of the province's history and culture have been first negated by the central media, in its homogenization zeal, and then in more recent years that history has been re-invented with little reference to actual reality; that re-invention done to suit the new national mythology/identity but no more relevant to BC's actual history/identity than the previous misconceptions/mispresentations. But because the myth-spinners have big budgets, they can promote their views to the point where most people assume they are facts.

Officially-designed myths are as cheesy and false as the worst and most subliminal of advertising; national myths are inherently lies; when funded and promoted by political agendas they are dangerous, when not simplessly mindlessly destructive in their impact on real identity, and the survival/furtherance of genuine popular myth, and genuine popular identity. Canada's problem is that it wants to pretend that people in St. John's are the same as people in Victoria, and works hard at making sure that becomes the case, in order to prove it....

retraction: cynicism at last

Well, considering that past incarnations of the Green leadership and strategic agenda have always discounted similar deals with the NDP as to this May-Dion thing that, as noted in the title here, I must retract my earlier comments about being unlikely/impossible. May is not like any previous Green leader, and she's been around pro politicians long enough to know how their game is played, so must have swayed party norms in order to achieve this.

I'm trying to remember if there's any precedent, i.e. party leaders agreeing not to run in each other's ridings. Perhaps only ever among fringe parties....there is that nice pre-Great War tradition where PMs and cabinet ministers would resign their seats upon their appointment and get them confirmed in byelections as part of cabinet ratification by the public (nice, huh? - whatever happened to that anyway?.....Emerson would have been out pronto under that system...).

It doesn't change my notions about the Liberal motivations here, which I'm sure will be born out in op-ed pieces in the next few days; the Green vote is going to suck more at the other parties, with the chances that bloc Liberal votes will to to May very high such that whatever slivers of Tory and NDP votes in that riding can be sliced off will be enough to get rid out MacKay in the seat (and as before, I'd like to see that guy follow his heart and move to DC....). There are no apparent deals in other ridings; not yet anyway but that neck-and-neck in the popular vote with the NDP is making more than the NDP uncomfortable; it translates here and there into a few second-place races, even competitive for first; and is easily enough as a chunk of votes to throw off the dynamics of the plurality.

In gravitational analysis the three-body problem is unsolvable, ie. there's no resolution to the interactive pattern. But this is not just a four-body problem, it's a five-body problem, once the Greens invade the Commons in earnest - i.e. as more than one articulate leader, who if she gets in lets hope she lives up to her rep, Chuck Cadman-style.....

So the trick is getting May into the Commons - the Liberals can risk one seat for the introduction of that wild card; and it's about time somebody played a wildcard in the House. The last guys who really did were Preston Manning and Lucien Bouchard. "And look where that got us", of course, but we're talking about one (or two or three?) Greens, not 60 yahoos and 60 Tory-turncoat Bloquistes.....

and meant to add...

That there's a stain of cynical political manoeuvring here that can/will alienate hard-core "green movement" voters, not all of whom have become pragmatists as others in the party have become, or as more pragmatists perhaps have joined the party in more recent times. The flip side is that the hard core are a marginal element in voting numbers, despite being vocal and numerous in party ranks per se over the years; and more pointedly the hard core typically weren't the ones to donate to party coffers, or to know how to spend it appropriately/wisely if there was anything to be had (which there never or rarely was).

So the risk to hard-core green-Green voters, in other words, is nominal relative to the possible electoral/political benefit of a manoeuvre meant to soft core green voter to vote Green, "at least this once". It is political cynicism, and part of the "corruption of the process" warned of long ago by jeremiad-style prophecies within the party/movement. But since the process is inherently corrupt, it's a given that partaking of it must necessarily corrupt; and here I mean corrupt values and principles, although to me the principles in question are, well, questionable.

This is straightforward power-brokering; May has nothing to lose but some radical non-voting ideologues; Dion looks a bit odd in the whole equation, not without a touch of cupidity; it may prove a sign of his downfall; or of a fumbling earnestness once he attains, perhaps/hopefully, a slim minority. Or are there any here who think a Liberal majority is in the cards with him at the helm?

What about a Liberal majority with Elizabeth May at the helm?

Don't laugh/spit. It's all too possible: May gets elected, as do another oh, six or seven Greens because of her performance in the leaders' debate (which she'll get in because Layton won't be able to say no, Duceppe won't mind, and Harper won't be the odd man out), which is enough to hold the balance of power in the Commons when the dust settles. May winds up as Minister of the Environment in a "coalition" type cabinet, with that and, oh, let's say Foreign Affairs in Green hands; another scandal self-implodes the Liberals, and the bulk of Liberals first try to rally around one Grit after another, but only May in the whole government keeps on making sense, and becomes Prime Minister by cabinet vote.

Still a Green member, but a Liberal government - only with a Green leader, likely one who could also recruit a few floor-crossing Tories and NDPers into a "sustainable majority" (nice slogan, huh?).

Stranger things have not happened. But lots of strange stuff has happened.

Quote: We're still enjoying

Agreed. SaskTel has been a force for good in Saskatchewan whereas although BC Tel used to be pretty good they've gone to hell under their new Telus banner.

New Westminster

Well, just out of curiousity sake, know anything about the Mercers? I've got some information but I'm not sure as to their validity etc.

I've also heard stories of New West from my grandfather who grew up there, like how he cheered the internment of the Japanese-Canadians because his brother was drowned on a fishing boat in the Fraser when a Japanese-Canadian fishing boat rammed them on purpose. His stories were always pretty colourful and to the day he died he didn't care for Vancouver (nor the "Japanese").

New West

Well, one thing I will say about the place, and I did live there for a few years around '99-'03, and walked around quite a bit and hung out with old-time New Westers at various spots there (usually the 8th & McBride Bucks, where I'd do my laundry and groceries even though I lived over by 6th & 6th), is that it's got character, it feels like old-time BC. You meet people, including young people, who've lived there their whole lives and wouldn't live anywhere else, and there's a certain flavour to the place. Not rowdy or ribald exactly, more rough-edged but not in the same way as Surrey or Coquitlam; it remains a distinct place even at its worst but the rough I'm talking about isn't about it being bad; it's about the richess of characters you'll meet, the personalities. These aren't suburbanites; these are city people, young and old; to me New West "can't get no respect" and actually deserves it.

Although one of my own maxims for the place, generally about the area west of 6th, is that "everyone's either off their medication, or on it".

Mercer? Same as the construction family/firm is/was in PG? Could be; know they were old-stock BC.

more on New Westers

I meant in the previous context also that the types you'll meet, again young and old (and I'm speaking mostly of men) have worked on the river, either on booms or in boats, or upcountry or in one of New West's industries; it's not a commuter population by and large, and that's because of its culture; I can't say the same for other munis, at least not anymore, for the most part.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it has a distinct palette of people and its own atmosphere to this day; I mostly know it from personal experience and refs in histories of elsewhere in BC, or of BC; I've never read New West history per se.

Interesting that the military geography that made it Moody's choice for the relocation of the capital (which was originally Old Fort Langley, aka Derby) is the same geography -that steep hill and narrow shorefront - that made it inviable as much of a downtown/commercial core, unlike its younger rival to the northwest. I think without that big hill downtown New West might be more consolidated, i.e. Uptown's vibrancy would still be on Columbia St and environs, and its identity as a city (seen from outside) might be stronger; Tacoma has the same slopeside problem.....mind you now that I think about it so does Seattle....

Canadian Myth making

I'm torn on this one. I consider myself to be a "Canadian nationalist". Although I admit nationalism has a bad rap from the days of Otto von Bismarck and Prussia becoming the German Empire.

Its not that I want a rah-rah patriotism like the Yanks. I want more of a "Confederation of Canada" thing where we recognize Quebec is not Saskatchewan, St.Johns is not New Westminster, but there are ties that bind. I don't want to see Newfie culture overridden by the culture of Toronto. I'm all for regions teaching 2 histories, the history of the region plus the history of Canada since Confederation.

I'm still pondering the implications of your point about immigration wiping out the "old Canada" so forgive me if I change my mind tomorrow or next week. Its true, how can you teach Vimy Ridge, the War of 1812, the Depression in Saskatchewan or anything else when half the population have no family memory of it.

Agreed. This is the origin of my point about why maybe we need created myths like Vimy Ridge more than the next country. Canada is not a real country as Bouchard would say. But how do we get there is the question. Or do we even try? I assume you would say what would be the point? And again I think there is a point but I have to admit the immigration and multiculturalism issues perhaps make that moot.

actually

Tacoma's slopeside downtown is something of a parallel, but it's on a promontory-headland and not the edge of a plateau, like New West is; the better comparison is Mission to New West; and Mission's downtown has the same limitations, with the added problem of the floodplain between the tracks and the waterfront, unlike New West where there's pretty well no room at all.

BTW New West's Chinatown was the area where the London Drugs and those old beer parlours and porn store are down off the end of Royal; called "the Swamp" it was wiped out in the Great Fire and never much rebuilt; were there any of the few Chinese businesses that re-established themselves after that stuck on into your time maybe?

More myth stuff

I don't go to Tim's either. I didn't even like him when he played for the Leafs. But the main thing is I don't get my nationalism from the stores I frequent. That makes no sense. Now hockey I think is a "Canadian" thing. Even moreso than Vimy Ridge or whatever. I never did read Ken Dryden's book on it but from what I know of it he's got a point. Although Canada has lots of people who hate hockey you can't find one region that hates hockey more than other regions. Its one of the things even immigrants buy into eventually.

But then hockey is a shared experience across much of Canada. The Lower Mainland is certainly hockey-crazy even though there's not much of a tradition of open-air rinks. Kids here have street-hockey stories instead.

Obviously hockey can't fuse us together alone but I would say its one thing we can say each region shares with the others.

And more on the subject

From my own experience, BC history has been wiped out by immigration much more than in a place like Saskatchewan where there's more of a sense of continuity in a community between generations.

There just isn't the waves of immigrants arriving in Prince Albert and North Battleford like there is in the Lower Mainland and other parts of BC.

When it comes to immigration, BC history is even worse off than Canadian history because of the lack of resources devoted to passing it on and the lack of respect here for what went before. Again, going back to my grandfather (different side of the family than the "old Canada" side) he was the kind of guy that still hated Victoria because it should have never been the capital. But what he was most depressed about was that no one cared because he hardly ever met anyone born here the way he was. He was a New Westminster man first, then a BCer, then a Canadian. Hated multiculturalism.

I don't think Canada should push false myths. But I think if we want to remain a country then I can see why we need myths of some sort and stories about shared casualties in war is one of the only ways of getting there. Its like reading about the history of the BC Regiment on the road to Falaise in 1944. The other regiments around them hailed from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta etc. They were all brigaded together. I can see clearly as to why Canada would look to that type of thing in order to bring about a sense of unity.

But again, I have to think more about your point about immigration wiping that "memory" away regardless.

New Westminster

I don't know if there's any connection to PG.

I do know they were well to do, owned lots of buildings on Columbia etc and then the following generation or two pissed it all away on wine and women.

I lived on 8th street, near Moody Park in the early 90's. Me, mum, grandfather and great-grandfather all born in New West. Although we moved from New West when I was about 1 and I didn't return until my 30's. Grew up in the Okanagan and Saskatchewan (which is where my dad's family had moved to just before WW1).

So I'm not in tune with much of New West history. But always thought it had a heart unlike lots of other places around the Lower Mainland where its nothing but big box stores and new developments.

Unfortunately I never got the chance to milk my grandfather for all the old stories of the place. Just a few things stick out, stories of working on the river, in the mills and that he went to every New West "thing" as long as he could, couldn't care less about Vancouver and Victoria, was pro-internment till the day he died etc.

Myths

Part of the problem for me is the 'manufactured' quality of the official myth we're supposedly constructing: It was that part of the Vimy-fest that sticks in my craw. It was so very American in its conception and the way it was relentlessly forcing the official and sanitized ‘reading’ of the history.

I love the actual history, the stories and recollections and the way it all creates a kind of fabric that 'is' Canada; but when certain, in my opinion, disparate and unrelated elements of the stories and recollections are combined artfully to create this phony idealized "concept" of Canada I think it does more harm than good.

The reality is so much messier and honest and this plastic version tends to ignore or gloss over the essentials and the truth at the same time. A country is as much a sum of its faults as it is the sum of its good or positive qualities. There is no such thing as the 'city on the hill'. Never has been, never will be, and yet the Vimy weekend was an attempt to foster and propagate that lie, in my view.

For all the character and down to earth cooperative quality of the life that I knew as a boy in rural Saskatchewan, I would never claim that there weren't enormous hard lumps of selfishness and racism in those communities too. For all the flaws of urban cultures, they seem to integrate diverse elements in ways that the local 'Chinaman' and his family in towns of 500 - 2,500 people in Saskatchewan can only envy - even after 4 or 5 generations.

the creation of a nation

I've puzzled over how to put my reactions to Frank's responses and I think it boils down to this: I don't see why there's this need to synthesize a nationality, especially if it means at the expense of local distinctivenesses and also at the huge expense (think sponsorship scandal as well as NFL/CBC) of hyping and selling the "created nationality".

You have to remember, that despite all the homogenization efforts, cheesy and otherwise, that plague our airwaves and print media about "how to be Canadian" or "what it means to be Canadian", people in BC turn into BCers after a while, even if they're from the Mysterious East (and for those outside of BC, that's not a reference to the Orient), and to this day BC continues to be settled by a different breed than settle elsewhere in the country (the quick-buck and hedonist lifestyle mostly, but not exclusively; think eco-outdoors and religious utopianists et al). And despite the flattening of "Canadian English" because of media and education systems, Newfoundlanders continue to be Newfoundlanders and Cape Bretoners Cape Bretoners (iconic as they have become within the national myth, too, as though it's patriotic to listen to Great Big Sea or Rick Mercer). And Quebec, well, needless to say regional/local-national identity there has its own peculiar trajectory, and is much more organic than synthesized....

It's right in the CBC mandate somewhere: "to prevent the development of regional identities" (paraphrase), as was cited by the military as pretext when they took over CBC Newsworld during Oka (on whose orders, I still haven't found out...and would be wary of asking). How this translates into not covering local political news but aping the coverage of Global here in BC, while force-feeding us rehashes on the sponsorship scandal when LedgeGate threatens to burst and raise questions about how business is done by all levels of government in this country. But CBC covers the same dead babies, car accidents, cutesy neighbourhood/ethno reports, and pitches for this or that event or organization; Where's the real news, kids? (between the late Jack Webster and Barbara Frum, all this would have been on the national hot-plate for a while now....)

cont.

As for the rest of the national mythology, we're defined as being "people who want universal healthcare". Wow, how stirring. And "people who believe in cooperation and conciliation", which of course doesn't explain anything about the autocratic and often tyrannical and blatantly corrupt conduct of various provincial and federal regimes, or even municipal ones. And don't get me started on the bloated hype around the redcoats as national symbols, vs their actual history (current and past).

But never mind the meat; it's the packaging and marketing I'm talking about; the way it's done. From Sheila Copps' campaign to sanctify the flag (itself a creature of committee development, and to me tragically bland...as well as designer-esque) through to the neo-militarist sanctimony that's going on now to the massive redefinition of "what it means to be Canadian" inherent in media-speak as well as in the the applications and practices of policicies such as multiculturlism, it's all sell-sell-sell. That's what the Vimy coverage of the last week, articles, programs have been, and what Dieppe is, and not too long ago Normandy and V-E Day, and the re-increased importance of Remembrance Day; I mean, other than the re-hyping of our "military tradition", the fabrication of a national/mythology for the purpose of creating one nation spanning actually about twenty or thirty; all the while denying those twenty or thirty real local identities even exist (except the cute, marketable ones like Newfoundlanders and Scotians).

Why do we even have to consider working on the creation of a national identity? You can't make something like that; either it's organic or it's not. Here, it's budgeted, and on cabinet agenda and also part of private sector policies as well....

i.e.

"either it's organic or it's not" - i.e. it's not going to work; cultural subsidy, the investment in fabricating a nation/identity, is a black hole just like regional economic subsidy; either something stands on its own or you're like Canute trying to fight the tide, or Sisyphus with his stone. I think the problem has been the notion that once consolidated as a Confederation, Canada tried to become a nation-state and not just a "state" in the independent government sense, a state that was only a collection of other states (not that Austria-Hungary worked well that way, or the Holy Roman Empire...). Tried to make a nation, a single nation - out of at least six or seven different elements, not even counting the FNs. It's expensive, and it still hasn't worked.

And worse yet, it's usually cheesy as hell. As well as full of lies.

Newsworld and OKA

Didn't know that - or at least if I knew it, I'd forgotten....details????

I was in the midst of a huge project that summer and 16 hour days 6 or 7 days a week just kind of wiped everything else out of the picture.

I do remember I had some friends from Montréal (French) who told me that they were really pleased when the police and the army stepped in...

It would be wrong to think that all the rednecks live on the west side of the Ontario-Quebec border.

Mainly I agree that we could use more Websters and Frums....but then, I try to figure out where the hell David came from too.

CBC is a God-awful mess although I still think some of their international news coverage has credibility while the local stuff is just awful and getting worse.

Quote:Didn't know that - or

Which: the HRE/Austro-Hungarian thing (also the Ottomans, in a way, and very succesfully - until recently anyway - the Spanish). Or do you mean the cultural subsidy; or, oh I get it. The military blackout of the media during Oka. Don't you remember? I was shocked....still trying to dig up the date, interestingly missing from Wiki articles and other online sources. More later if that's what it is you're curious about. Yeah, and Barbara and Jack are sorely missed; Rafe's about all that's left, although others have their moments. But only moments.

I do like the idea of civilian reporters, though....note that news that's current in blogspace is absent from the networks; that alone is to the latter's complete and utter folly and eventual loss of market IMO i.e. blognews is gaining credibility by the day, partly because of the lack of credibility of the Big Media, here and anywhere....

I'll be waiting - you figured it out.

I'm gonna have a look at Somena.

Lots of citizen journos around these days.

reply to Newsworld and Oka

OK, I don't remember the date; I don't think it was on the date of the final ultimatum from the army, as it seems to me that was after the news blackout began. Before the Oka Crisis Newsworld, bona fide based out of Calgary and already with a different "feel" from the main network, was mostly live coverage of nearly anything around the country that was life; as-you-watch live feeds of all kinds. And so when Oka began, and the cameras were all there on all sides and in between, it was a "natch" and made for some of the most gripping TV I've ever seen. Talk about "reality TV"....I can never forget Jenny Jack running around on her atv/scooter or the Mohawk women's press conferences; so many images like the rock-throwing gauntlet during the evacuation of Kahnawake (yeah, Quebeckers are rednecks alright....and remember my comments about the Billy Bartholomew case elsewhere....).....

So finally, long after the transition between the initial excuse of peacekeeping deployment between the SQ and the Mohawks, and how the army became the besieging force and all the various people were interned yada yada etc....there came an evening when a senior general; not Lewis Mackenzie, someone I can't remember and hadn't seen before, came on at like 6pm or so (our time) and read a terse statement that the military, in anticipation of news reportage affecting its deployment/action about to take place, invoking the CBC charter's mandate for national unity as the principal reason, the corollary being the prevention of the growth of local regions, i.e. centrifugal political forces leading to dissolution.

Here's the deal: if the hard-line Haudenosaunee had its way (and I'm not saying it shouldn't) the boundaries of the Iroquois Confederacy as it was until the Durham Report, and as affirmed by no less than the Congress of Vienna, would be fully reasserted and you'd have a Ganienkehaka microstate scattered across the St. Lawrence basin, and the Oneidas and Senecas and others all following suit; it would set a precedent for local self-government/idependence/sovereignty across Canada, especially in BC (Seton Portage was only one of several occasions out here...remebmer Green Mountain Road?). So the implication of a Mohawk splinter state, which was definitely the agenda of the Mohawk Nation as well as Mohawk Warriors, would be the devolution of First Nations across the country. Politically there was no choice, from a unitary/central government point of view....

Oka/Newsworld continued

From that moment/speech onwards, there were only talking heads, interviews by phone, selected clips, comments by military offices and what few politicians could be found (other than Svend, who had been arrested, most were nowhere near all this, especially anyone from the government; apparently it was Claude Ryan pulling the strings, but I got the impression with the military that it was pulling the Tories' strings - who was defence minister right then anyway?). Live feeds on newsworld were over, no matter what it was, and the new format was all these documentary and panel shows they now excel at and pitch excellence in, with all that national mythology I was talking about getting pitched within the programming, by definition.

The livefeed thing was extraordinary; in a way youtube has begun to provide that alternative again; the trick is to get civilian broadcast reporters active. But as with other attempts at completely open media, like that People Talking Back experiment back in the '07s, such openness is way too successful at open political discussions; much better to have selected pols and pundits all talking about what the public is thinking rather than to observe the public actually thinking for themselves...

There's all kinds of questions connected with Oka that have never been answered and which I'd say are difficult to ask too loudly. One has to do with who gave the OK to override the charter and suspend freedom of the press - by unilateral action on the part of the military, it seems, as part of tactical operations. But there was no state of emergency declared....so exactly what went on there anyway? But it's hardly the biggest of all the strange questions around Oka, that the media pretends was just a conflict between bandits and our oh-so-noble military....

The information village vs the controlled media mindscape. Take your pic. Hopefully the tyranny of network boardrooms and their masters if finally being permanently eroded by the web, despite all the garbage you have to pick through.

Similarly there remain questions about our media's blanket of silence about what went on at Seton Portage; why it took the Seattle papers to report it correctly, and why it was pretended nothing serious happened.....until that tape came out, although it seems the Americans would have covered it anyway. I've often mused that it may take the American media to dig into the corruption of Canadian politics without the political baggage a Canadian reporter generally has to carry; as with Ledgegate/Omnitrax and wherever that might lead us in the Denver and Seattle papers....

Back to Quebec...

Somehow as I expected of him, by way of his apparent inventiveness and openness, Mario Dumont's statements tonight he'd be prepared to work on negotiations to bring Quebed into the constitution, saying "mistakes were made in 1982" is a shock to the national political system. If successful, it directly undermines the whole rationale for Liberal power, even minority power, in Quebec; it might also on the other hand free up the bloquiste vote to other parties if the "national question" were resolved at last.

Dumont's a clever boy, and I can see him as Premier yet, especially with bold moves like this. And also especially, because he can sell it to Quebeckers as a way to get things done. The other provinces - the Premiers - will like the boy for bringing this up (and it may well succeed).

He'd be an interesting player in federal politics, I'd say.

Hmmm. Now if only Elizabeth May could cut a deal with him....nah, it would never go over with Quebec Greens, who are their own particular shade of jade, that's for sure - les vertes are radically sovereigntist in my experience; they may have mellowed, but it seems unlikely given the way they were, and the way Quebec still is....

I should also add, tangentially of course, that I think the lack of cogent Green policy on First Nations, especially on treaty issues as well as in aligning First Nations governments to the "earth agenda" (many are resource-oriented as you know), is a major hole not just in their platform but also in electoral opportunity and also in membership. They talk sovereignty for FNs but their policies still aren't in line with what the native leadership and rank-and-file would like; if they could be....but this was also a "tactic" sought, largely unsuccesfully, by the NDP. But it's still an interesting "if"....but as with foreign policy it's an area the Greens talk a big talk but don't have much walk. Not yet anyway.

Quote:I don't see why

Lots of political structures would answer that the "why" is just because that's the way they want it. You mentioned Austria. Okay, so what was their "why" to add Hungary and become the Dual Monarchy? After all, Austria already controlled Hungary, the Emperor was already the king of Hungary as well as Bohemia and so on. One of the reasons WW1 started was because it was feared Ferdinand would make it a Tri-Monarchy by adding the Slavs and prevent Serbia championship of the Slavs.

I would suggest that A-H was a failure because the elements were too disparate. That if they had been united by language and religion that A-H might still exist today.

To look at an example that did work, look at France. Why did "France" have to take over Burgundy. Why isn't Burgundy fighting for independence? Or Gascony? Its because over time those cheesy nationalistic myths have taken root.

Same with Germany. Why didn't Germany break up into its pre-1866 parts in 1945 with the separation of Prussia from the rest? Its because even in that short time of 1866-1945 German nationhood had taken root. When Hanoverians, Wurtemburgers, Bavarians, Saxons etc die together on French or Russian soil it created bonds. Helped obviously by a common language which overcame religous and historical divisions.

The Russian empire on the other hand, broke up into its component parts.

So why did the Ukrainians, the Scots and the Basques want independence and not Burgundy and Bavaria? Its not like Bavaria and Burgundy had never existed independently etc.

Now in the case of Canada, only Quebec and to a lesser extent, Newfoundland, strike me as places that could go their own way. I don't believe FNs would make viable states, the population of some being little more than villages.

Quote:You have to remember,

They do? If BC became independent tomorrow I think that "Canadian nationalism", although myths and cheese it may be, would carry the day and bring BC back into Confederation. I simply don't detect any appreciable amount of BC nationalism here. Except perhaps for hating the Leafs which the people of BC share even with the city of Ottawa.

The veterans of WW2 and so on are all suddenly going to turn their backs on their fellow vets from the rest of Canada? BCers are going to happily cheer against the Maple Leaf at the Olympics and World Cup etc? I don't think there's a chance of that happening. If, when I drive around, I was seeing houses with BC flags all over the place, I might believe that.

And yet, much more stirring than American myths about Washington crossing the Delaware standing up in a boat. Or their Founding Fathers being the 2nd coming of the great Athenian orators. There's a lot of nations on this planet and I don't think the founding myths of any of them stand up to close scrutiny.

People from all across Canada want a new electoral system and a new political system that is more representative and more accountable. Our failure to so far achieve that doesn't impinge on our nationalism however.

Quote:That's what the Vimy

You mentioned universal healthcare and being cooperative etc. Those things are too political. Too many people don't want those things representing Canada because it doesn't reflect their own attitudes. However, this goes back to my earlier point that casualties in war, shared "glory" on battlefields transcend politics and appeal to a much greater audience. Most people aren't cynical about things like Vimy the way many are about healthcare. Without Vimy and Dieppe etc there is no shared vision for things like healthcare. First we build the bonds across the country and then we add the meat.

I disagree. Most nations are made, they don't spring naturally from the ground or the heart. Stories passed down is what creates nations, its what connects one family to the next. Stories create culture, which creates art which in turn is used to reinforce the differences between people. None of it is organic. Its all myth.

Founding myths

I don't think that Canadian history actually supports this dichotomy.

My sense is that this place was probably most united in the period immediately after both wars where there was a sense of shared experience but that that petered out with time and that - especially in the Depression - it was local experience and the sense of local problems requiring national assistance for their solution that really brought the country together.

Anybody who had relatives who lived through the Depression is cognizant of the value of a wider vision of country to provide the armature upon which local and provincial difference can thrive and survive. Which is, in my view, why concrete things like equalization payments, a fair and equitable tax system and universal health care are so vital to our continued existence as a nation. I certainly don't think the current involvement in Afghanistan is bringing the country together very fast. In fact, of late I've been hearing more and more complaints from the East Coast that the Atlantic Provinces and Newfoundland are shouldering far more of the personnel burden than they ought - proportionally.

The problem of Canada is, as I see it, too much emphasis upon trumped-up canned patriotism from the past (of the Vimyfest variety) and too little competent political leadership - most of what we do have beholden to commercial capitalist interests or, as has often been in the Liberal example to a deep seated sense of entitlement. I have to mention of course the ties between labour and the NDP although I think in practice those connections have not proved to be very effective.

Fix the electoral system and the country will fix itself without resorting to canned emotion from Brian and Terrence McKenna that seems purpose-built to conform to someone else's vision more than it does to the actual history. Even to the point of soliciting Justin Trudeau to play the Talbot Papineau character.

I meant, really! When has the CBC ever stooped so low?

real myth vs synthtic myth

But this new-era mythology is cheap, it's cheesy, it's false-sounding, it's concocted more by marketing people than poets. That's not the case with the mythologies of Europe and other countries, false though they also are. "Organic" is not a bunch of CBC writers or government consultants sitting around screwing with semantics and deciding who people should be.

and....

Again, you're presupposing that I think the creation of a Canadian nationality is a desirable thing.....Canadian citizenship is one thing, but being expected to homogenize with the Canadian Tire man and an endless stream of stepdancers from Cape Breton is asking too much....

huh?

Vimy and Dieppe are why we have healthcare? How's that again?

actually....

Now that I think of it, veterans' politicking were what brought on all kinds of social advances, notably through the efforts of the Legion. But this wasn't in memory of the battles, but to serve the discharged and make sure social services were available, which of course weren't to any degree at all before WWII. The flip side is New Deal economics, which brough in health care to forestall revolution; and one reason revolution was in the offing at the turn of the '10s-'20s and esp. in the '30s was because of the experienced horror and stupidity of the First War and a complete lack of faith in the system which had sent men into the mechanized killing machine of trench warfare. Glory was scarcely on men's minds when they came home, hungry and unemployed and without medical support; even after WWII housing was not available and the old Hotel Vancouver (where the Black Tower of Toronto Dominion is now) was occupied by a few hundred of them for a number of years.

What gave Canadians common cause from the wars was government inaction; the battles are sold with all this flummery, but they are only symbols; it's the experience of government inaction and corporate lassitude that brought on social reforms, not flag-waving hype over a battle or two.

In a sense

In a sense, yes. G West says that Canada will become a real country based on shared experiences such as universal healthcare, equalization payments and a fair tax system. In other words, good government will mean we're a real country with no need for myths.

I disagree. I don't think government policies build nations. If you want to build a nation then there has to be a reason why you'd care about your neighbours. It won't be because of any government policy.

It is the same as the French and others. Their governments and media don't promote provincialism either. And I'm sure France has its version of the Canadian Tire man from Paris or someplace that Normans and Bretons and Gascons etc don't think represents them.

Again, its all myth. French and German and Russian and Spanish myths (and by extension Manitoban, British Columbian etc) are no more authentic than Canadian.

Quote:Now that I think of

Actually this supports my point that it was shared experience that brought them together, made them care, got them to support each other by giving them the feeling they belonged to a bigger group that spanned regions.

The flag-waving is immaterial, no one is selling Canada to the veterans. They're not the target audience, the ones being sold are the ones that don't have that shared experience.

Actual history

Actual history would be a nice way to build a country. But its naive. It only lasts for a generation. You have to package and sell that history to each succeeding generation or it falls apart. Same with every country. You have to control the school system and push your myths, whether they be the Depression or Vimy or Napoleon or Bismarck or whatever, or the new generation will move on and there won't be any Canada, any France, any BC or anything else.

The CBC

As for the CBC, that's why it exists. To reflect our history, culture and myths back to us. Make us feel like we're part of something bigger and better.

Much as I'd like to believe, like you guys, that humans don't need anyone to reflect myths and history onto them and that nations should simply happen, it doesn't.

Quote:As for the CBC, that's

However, it ought to be truthful and honest 'real' history, not idealized imagined stuff.

Even calling the PPCLI (which was really just a private militia regiment raised by a Montreal businessman called Hamilton Gault with $100G of his own money) Canadian at the time the war began was a polite fiction. The original draft consisted of ex-regulars or S African War ninety percent were British born.
I think the best analysis I've read of the CBC thing was in the Hill Times. I’ll see if I can find it.

Further, I think it was the shared experience of the Depression and the wars that created the realization that there was a universal 'need' to which astute politicians and real 'leaders' like Tommy Douglas had enough sense to respond.
Again, I'd refer back to the difference between top-down and bottom-up change.

In the end

In the end, there are no nations. BC and Canada are nothing more than geography with a border and the population inside can decide to declare themselves as a nation or not. No nations are "real". Every one of them is built on myths because their real history doesn't stand up to even casual skepticism.

Quote:I certainly don't

Doesn't matter. Myths will trounce the reality over time.

Look at England, do you think the act of Parliament beheading the King had unanimous support? Or that the French populace were united in their decision to behead Louis? Or that the Paris Commune had total French support?

Yet, their histories paper over the fact that not only were they not united, the acts probably would have failed to even garner a majority if a referendum had been held. Yet no one is questioning those myths or whether England and France are real countries.

England and France are geographic expressions wrapped in comfy myths that mean nothing in this day and age but have produced nations that have broad popular support. Looking closely at their respective histories is not recommended.

France is a bad example (for you)

Oh yeah, the Ile de France, for a good few hundred years, has worked hard to extinguish local cultures and languages throughout the former kingdom; worse under Napoleon and the later Republics than under the Bourbons, in fact. And you've picked a bad case, as l'Academie Francaise is as noxious as l'Office de la langue francaise in Quebec (the notorious "language police"); the difference with l'Academie is it's been at its nastiest a lot longer. And backed up by violent repression on the part of the French state - notably de Gaulle against the Bretons, although Breton culture has since recouped political ground and you're no longer beaten and jailed for speaking it. France is the epitome of the viciousness of official language laws - and in its case it also established the dominance of the Parisian/Ile de France dialect over all other forms of French, including Provencal/Gascogne, otherwise known as Occitan, which is one of the loveliest and most poetic of all romance languages and a great literary language in its own right. Almost extinguished through official policies of the French state, but survived in spite of it and now is in a modern reflowering alongside its sisters Catalan and Savoyard (Catalan is virtually the same language, Savoyard a bit more like Italian).

cont.

And those cultures survived NOT from official spending and policy to preserve or cultivate them, rather the opposite. Mind you, they had lifespans behind them. Here our cultures didn't get a chance to fully evolve before we were all put into cardigans and earmuffs and told we loved this and believed in that. I know in BC there were emergent local identities, and still some of that flavour survives in spite of the sell-sell-sell-homogenize-homogenize-homogenize ethic of the modern age.

I don't want to have to like hockey, maple syrup, mounties or curling in order to be Canadian; I don't want to be told I should like those things; I don't want the government most of all deciding what it is for us to be. That's for us to decide ...... if only they'd give us a chance. But we can't be allowed to speak for ourselves, which is why we have talking heads and pollsters do it for us...

In all cases there's more meat in the myths, more non-official design; here it's all official design. A contrivance. That's my objection. As is the minted nationality that's produced doesn't have much to do with the part of the country I'm from, or the kind of people I know who lived and live there. British Columbia's official myths are as tawdry and misleading and cooptive as the Canadian ones, but there is a deeper mythology of characters and local lore that's largely un-mined and not very much known about, except thanks to the effort of a few dedicated writers like G. Basque and T.W. Paterson.

But I'm not talking about a "British Columbian national mythology" either, especially if it's a branding-image and sloganeering - y'know, all those Liberal-tainted government ads (or during NDP years, pinko-tained government ads) that we got for six months before actual election ads came into play, and dang I hate those Heritage Minutes things and their preachiness. Their sop. Their treacle....maple treacle....

Oh, and about their Canadian Tire Man - theirs is worse; the Michelin Man. At least they put him on a diet recently; but he's a good example of the corporatism of the French identity, which is a side topic I guess...(Citroen, Peugeot, Chanel, Dior et al.)

France

Is France really a bad example for me? I was just trying to get across the point that countries that the average guy thinks of as a monolithic culture, aren't. And that their central government enforces "nationhood" as much as Canada. I think France is a good example, and I should have brought up your language example myself.

But I don't think you should have to either. I'm a little bit enough of an anarchist to agree with that.

Well, I disagree because you used the word "all". I don't believe it is all official design. I think Canada has become as much a real country as those other places I listed. If we were to break up I think there's enough Canadianness out there to pull most of us back together. If we really were a North American Yugoslavia ready to split at the first opportunity you'd see it on the unofficial street.

well...

I got no problem with being a Canadian as a result of having been raised in British Columbia, but I have a problem being a Canadian who's inundated with cheap advertising/brainwashing that's not real heritage, and like I said soppy to boot (it's even worse than CBC Olympics coverage, that's how bad it is).

I don't think we ''need'' standardized national myths; we need our own, wherever we are Centralized culture is centralized thought and centralized identity. And we're far from ever being able to be that. BC's lost mining towns don't get the press time that Newfoundland's outports do, hou learn all about Louisbourg and the Plains of Abraham here but I guarantee you they know piss-all about the Nootka Conventions or Fort Langley in other parts of Canada (well, Fort Langley maybe, but only in the most kitsch kind of way).

As typical with Canadian unitarianists, you apposite the worst possible case - here Yugoslavia - for anything that seems to threatend national unity. In my view forcing a unified identity is counterproductive; it's produced resistant types like me who are intent on shuck it off, and all traces of teh stock Canadian stereotypes. An Anti-Canadian as it were; forelock-tugging and the middle road obviously ain't for me......and funny, that's areal trait of British Columbians since the earliest times that also doesn't show up in the national myths you think are a good thing. Maybe if they were built more with who we are, rather than what they want us to be, I wouldn't be so put off by them.

Myths

Well, don't presuppose that I am against BC myths. I'm not. As I said to you before, I'm one of the few guys on here that would pay to hear you lecture on them, I find them interesting and I feel a connection to them. And like you say we have myths about Newfie outports and Cape Breton miners and they don't tarnish the fabric of the country.

I can honestly say I don't care which myths Canada uses but we have to use something. Because you're right about the Chrysler's Farm thing. Nobody cares. The past is a different country. All our myths will suffer from that.

So the country simply needs to pick some standardized myths, which I understand you don't want, and run with them. Teach them to every school kid, bring them up on national holidays and so on. But its hard to pick myths people won't scoff at a hundred years from now so we better pick ones where lots of Canadians died and that the casualties touch as many towns and hamlets across the country as possible. Battles qualify.

And I didn't bring up Yugoslavia to use as a stay-united-or-look-what-happens cudgel. I could have used Slovakia as the example. My only point being that outside of Quebec, no streets in Canada are full of provincial or regional symbols voluntarily displayed by the citizens as a slap in the face to the central government. I think that suggests that Canadian myth-making has been pretty successful although it still has a long way to go when you're bringing hundreds of thousands of newcomers into the country every year.

But teach the truth about the whole country

And not just a Brian McKenna soap-saturated mythos pitched to advancing a particular political agenda...

That's what annoys me. And especially about the CBC of late.

The Hill-Times wades in

G's Hill-Times article. Or at least the 2nd half of it. I don't have a problem with anything in the first half.

The weirdest attempt to seek meaning in the war is CBC TV's Great War Project, a reality show now being filmed with performers and veterans' descendants at St. Bruno, Que. It aims to capture the trauma of WWI by faking it. In a website appeal for volunteers the network explained, "Like your great-grandfathers and grandmothers, you'll answer the call, board a train with other descendants and travel to a battleground. You'll be outfitted, trained, fed and marched into a battle re-enactment to learn firsthand the horrific sights, sounds and smells of trench life."

Is that possible? Can the reality of war be depicted by having actors wear helmets and eat with a spoon?

As historian Jack Granatstein dryly remarked to the National Post, "It'll be interesting to see how much attention they pay to details."

A CBC letter to participants, published in the Oakville Beaver, said the TV show "will awaken the country to the severe suffering and immense rite of passage Canada endured during the Great War"–and warned no iPods would be allowed on the set.

In an apparent bid to boost ratings, Justin Trudeau was hired to play real-life WWI hero Talbot Papineau, the son of a famous Quebec family killed at Passchendaele in 1917.

Papineau was a rarity in the First World War–a Quebecer eulogized by the Times of London as a man who "had the imagination to feel the magic of the Imperial idea." Papineau had once remarked Canada 's first line of defence was in Belgium .

In 1917 The Globe and Mail wrote he was "saddened and perplexed" by fellow Quebecers' lack of enthusiasm for the war.

The spectre of Justin Trudeau posing as Papineau in contrived combat scenes for CBC cameras provoked some media eye-rolling.

"Trudeau Lands Soldier Gig," headlined The Ottawa Citizen. But other journalists expressed enthusiasm that the true meaning of WWI was captured at last.

Wrote the Globe's Ingrid Peritz, "Papineau was a dashing Quebecer who was bicultural, bilingual, charismatic, a foe to Quebec nationalism and a visionary for Canada . In fact, he's been dubbed the Pierre Trudeau of his time."

CBC producer Brian McKenna wrote the Globe that Pierre Trudeau, "like Papineau," was "a champion of a bilingual Canada and an enemy of narrow Quebec nationalism."

"We cast Justin Trudeau to play the soldier-hero Papineau because he embodies the dreams and ideals of his father who, by creating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, renounced his past and remains a political hero to a multitude of Canadians."

So that is what the war was about–not tears, but the Trudeaus, or free parking, or the right to smoke at the legion.

My rebuttal

That's unfair of Jack if he really did react "dryly". Because when I read his and Morton's books "Marching to Armageddon" and "Bloody Victory" I read how they wanted to do justice to those who fell. Nobody quoted some wag saying something to the effect of "I hope the profits from their book sales are going to the vets" or "I doubt all those Canadians died so that Jack and Desmond could make some bucks listing their names".

Its easy to be sarcastic, scornful and pompous. I would know.

So a guy that makes money off selling the stories of our dead puts down a CBC production on the same topic? Is it just me that finds that reprehensible?

Would Jack like the CBC to react to his books in the same manner? Because we already have Colonel Stacey's official history, so why do we need more books?

I don't think Justin Trudeau should be portrayed as the saviour of Canada either. He seems to be popping up a lot lately for a guy that did some school teaching.

But then CBC thinks we all care about him so he was added to the production. My only comment is that we don't and he doesn't add anything to the production, he takes away from it.

The right to smoke and park

As for the first half of the article, the right of vets to smoke and get free parking because they fought for us. I'm all for vets getting some perks.

But its silly to say the dead at Vimy were there to protect Canadian's right to smoke in coffee shops.

Quote:But teach the truth

The truth? Vimy was a real battle. It might get a little polished but its not fiction. Certainly no more than all those other countries' myths I listed.

Which agenda?

This one

In 1917 The Globe and Mail wrote he was "saddened and perplexed" by fellow Quebecers' lack of enthusiasm for the war.

As I pointed out earlier, the idea that Quebecers were the only ones who weren't exactly enthusiastic (circa 1917) with the idea of having their guts spilled in Flanders is nonsense. Was then, still is now.

The whole production was based on ideas that can't stand the light of day and the 'idea' of using Justin Trudeau in the role of Papineau is equally problematic (given McKenna's statement(s) in the column).

As for Jack Granatstein, he was all in favour of Martin and/or Chretien coming out in favour of Bush's war project in Iraq. I think he's into myths of another maker.

Adding

But what you're saying is you want more stuff included, not that the existing stuff is wrong. You want to show all the warts, although I don't know why. Other countries don't.

Then we shouldn't put the too much light on them. There's no reason to tell Canadians anything about their history at all unless it serves the nationalist purpose. Any details they want to know they can find out in a library.

Regardless, he doesn't mind milking WW1 and 2 for his own gain. Just gets all pompous when someone else does it.

Frank, you're missing my point...

...which, granted, I guess I was skirting around: I consider Canada a synthetic "nation"; it's a nation-state, but without an underlying common, dominant nationality as in the case of the standard European model (Belgium and other dual states are also "treaty creations" as opposed to "organic" in origin; the exception is the Swiss). There might have been, one supposes, if the Brits had anglicized their canadien colonists-by-conquest, but they didn't, and also if the West had been entirely settled by Brits and maybe canadiens, and the native peoples totally assimilated, and other groups not admitted. "Nation", in the French sense and in the normal "nationalist" sense, is an ethnic term, "being from which one is born"; it became blurred in the post-imperial era as the nation-state model was applied to former colonies and the name "nation" became synonymous with "state", but there remains an obvious and confusing distinction, as Canadians are all too well, either from the Quebec thing or from how the word is variously used in First Nations contexts.

I'm fine on there being a federal state - so long as it's more democratic, less centralizing, and more responsive to local self-rule anywhere (not just Quebec) and also reforms within self-ruled regions (BC is in need of even deeper democratic reforms than Canada already is). One of the myths I find so nauseating, by the way, is the superiority of our parliamentary system and how it "serves us so well" ("us" = politicians). But I don't see the point in trying to create a nationality, especially when there are no common inherited legacies, especially with as you note the hundreds of thousands of newcomers each year, who point-blank are more interested in their own heritages than in even giving credit to the idea that there's a worthwhile Canadian one. As noted often before, some groups are only interested in Canadian history in its relation to their own group, whether on a redress/apology campaign or not; they care about little else, and new-Europeans and Asians alike will say "Canada has no culture". No, not a real one, but local areas do, and obviously certain provinces stick out as distinct in character; and nobody can tell me that Yukoners are "just like other Canadians", or Hamiltonians for that matter....

Frank/point cont.

But down to the nitty-gritty: you should know by know I'm something of a "separatist" for BC; I don't see the point of allowing voters 2500 miles and more away to decide the fate of policies in BC on concerns that don't have anything to do with BC. I believe Canada (government and media/corporate organism) has deliberately manipulated and obscured BC's history in order to foist this "national myth" you seem so fond of. I oppose being subjugated to overtly false histories and overblown resellings of things in a weirdly iconic, almost personality-cultish kind of way; the religiosity of Canadian-nationalist hype, whether Vimy tributes/memorials or the Heritage Minutes twaddle, is mind-numbing.

It's not an overt conspiracy either; it's a mind-set. One quip I know of that irked me was a summation of Canadian character by Katherine Monk, cited in a review of her book on Canadian film Weird Sex and Snowshoes, where she talks about Canadians being inward and stoic and not extroverted characters and so on, because of the dark and the cold and extreme climate forcing us inwards, and forcing us to be humble. Humble? Inward? A good chunk of the characters I know of in BC history don't fit that one little bit; but as they don't fit the paradigm in question, which is a "Canadian norm/myth", they just seem invisible in the landscape of national myth; they don't fit, so they're passed over. Or treated as yet another example of cutely eccentric and sometimes evilly wacky British Columbians, which is the one part of the national myth where we do get some airtime....

Barry Cooper is one of those neocon shills who masquerades as an academic (Fraser Institute, too, I think; but he and Paul Bercuson had a joint column about Western affairs, written from Calgary by two transplanted Torontonians reporting to the imperial seat via, I believe it was, the early National Post. In a course at SFU on Western identity in pol.sci I guess, a couple of years ago (I dropped out, but more from frustration with the materials used than anything else), a paper by Cooper went on about the Canadian voice, and mentioning British Columbia he said we'd never had our "own voice", the "authentic" voice like Mitchell or Laurence are for the Prairies or Leacock or Davies are for Ontario.

Frank/point cont.2

All I could do was shake my head; the roster of names is long and I've gone into it elsewhere so not today, but what struck me is that archetypal British Columbian writers and artists/performers don't fit the Canadian archetype, so aren't recognized as "Canadian voices", and so therefore not as "voices". This is a long side-discussion which I'll stop in its tracks, but it has to do with our vision or ourselves not being recognizable as anything but variously weird; but to me there's a consistency in Lowry's October Ferry to Gabriola, Carusoe of Lonesome Lake, and the writings of Bruce Hutchison, Emily Carr, Timothy Findlay and any number of others even bill bissett (and I don't even read a lot of fiction; more history and poetry, though I can't stand bissett) all different, no consistency; but all definitely and identifiably British Columbian in character, and all departures from the Canadian norm/myth.

We do have a voice and identity; but there's Cooper sitting in Edmonton opining (without obviosly knowing actually very much about BC's history or literary/artistic roster either) telling us we don't, with all the authority of a national columnist and a paid think-tank hack. Because we don't address national issues, or the national paradigm, we don't have a voice, we're not Canadian. That was the logic underlying this perspective, and I've seen it before; just like the "Canadians don't have culture/history" like you'll hear so often from (new) immigrants, you hear too from eastern Canadians that BC doesn't have a history, that they have history.

Yet more and more people are telling me the more they find out about BC history, the more they realize it's the most fascinating story in Canada (and it's still happening IMO; we're obviously still the boondocks/frontier, especially in politics....).

I'm not into having my brain washed by a national soft-soaping and dye job. And I'm not a believer in a Canadian nationality as serving any useful purpose, not in the way it's being pitched, the whole campaign but also the video/film pieces like a b-grade version of American patriotism, only with our iconic sitcoms and soaps set up with Canadian actors and CBC-style narration, and as before "cheesy as hell".

also....

...all this national iconography takes up airtime, I think deliberately like other "soft news", to keep from covering the real dirt, like Ledgegate or so much more that's not covered in the media; even by the CBC, as you'd expect. But the focus is anywhere but on BC; as noted elsewhere there's been more coverage of the sponsorship scandal nationally in recent weeks than the unfolding drama in BC Supreme Court, even though ours is a much bigger scandal than simply some party hacks/backers writing scam invoices on the public budget. What's going on in BC Supreme Court concerns the way our whole patronage-and-pork-barrel system runs; not just sloppy paperwork and cheating/graft, as with the sponsorship scandal - but abuse of power overall, and the bought-and-paid-for basis of government in BC.

Since colonial times it's been this way, granted, but it's still no excuse for it to continue. And masking it all in mystery is the sanctity of a dim association of the case with parliamentary privilege (which still didn't make the A-G immune from surveillance) and the power and mystique of the slowly unboxing court ban; part of our national myths that "we have a better system". Like hell we do. Better than what, again? And exactly who's accountable for what in the parliamentary system that we're supposed to be so hot to trot about? In a parliamentary system, as practiced in Britain, even a cabinet minister only imputed or otherwise tainted must resign - optics is everything. Here they won't, but they do talk a lot about how much they like our system; even though they won't respect it. ("They" = politicians)

also, too....

Y'see - the national myths are only invoked when they're not to be taken seriously; they talk the big talk on how great the system is, but invariably refuse to live by it (well, with very rare exceptions like Chuck Cadman); likewise the accountability and good-guy dudley do-right image of your national-icon-type Mountie, able to do the musical ride and out-sing Nelson Eddy. The Mounties, good guys that they're supposed to be, should voluntarily submit their members to the public courts in the interest of civic equality and good-guy-ness, bonhomerie and bein' good dudes and all. Not.

Canada's this, Canada's that, Canadians are so-and-so and aren't Canadians so great? Makes me friggin' sick. Sporting maple leafs while travelling so as to get better table service; to expect better service, as I've seen in my travels, the height of national-ego boorishness....ick.

Back to the original point of this post; all the national-history docs and heritage minutes and the way CBC News obsesses over this and that subject (war, FN, struggling farmer, handicapped minority person achieving somethign etc) is to me entirely a way to avoid assigning reporters and writers to the really big news; everything from Ledgegate to the mineral lease sell-off and the offshore oil agenda and all the other stuff that's on a roll everywhere but in the papers or, pointedly, on [i]CBC - where you'd expect it to be. Easier to get reportage of a mayoralty scandal in Taipei than someone digging around in the quagmire of BC politics and business, huh?

nutshell

I already know you're a BC separatist skookum1. I have generally always assumed you're a pro-BC guy, not an anti-Canada guy.

Is Canada a synthetic nation (using your terms)? Perhaps. In fact I would probably agree at least for the present. Canada is a work-in-progress, moreso than some other nations I consider to be no better but have had a longer go at it. If immigration had come to a halt 30 years ago I think we'd be further along but that statement assumes the be-all end-all of Canada is to assimilate newcomers. And of course it isn't.

And I agree with you on the parliamentary system too. I didn't always but the last 20 years has convinced me otherwise. As my discussion with GWest about STV probably demonstrated.

I admit to being a small bit confused as to why you don't see the point in trying to create a nationality. If its because you don't want it, okay. If its because you think its doomed to fail anyway due to immigration I can see that point too. But I consider the creation of a nationality, or at least the bonding together of different elements within a border, to be of utmost importance.

However, yes, I'm fond of the Canadian myth. How could I not be what with my family history? I do indeed find the idea of everything between Prince Edward and Vancouver Islands to be a single state somewhat of a comfort and I believe there are sincere bonds between different parts of the country. Especially nowadays. Whether it be due to movement of labour, marriages or common symbols such as hockey, I think Canada has moved towards a greater unity.

As for there being a single Canadian character, well I don't buy that either. I would agree our characters are more shaped by our regions. But regional differences doesn't mean Canada has no culture.

Its like the old question about how are Canadians and Americans different. Its like trying to describe how Ontarians and Albertans are different. They just are and the differences are there. Language aside I'm sure these days its getting more difficult to describe how the Germans, French and Poles are different from each other too.

The BC past is still a different country that has little bearing on the present day population.

As for the airtime the whole Canadian thing takes up. I disagree, I think that's an illustration of the problems with how our country is run and who runs it. I don't think its an attempt to push Canada and ignore BC.

Evidence of an agenda

I think at bottom my problem is mostly with the way the myth is 'sold' and not so much with the myth itself.

Whatever the past is, and when we get down to details there's no doubt that the dimensions and details of our history have tended to be marginalized by American and European history at the academic level, the thing that bothers me is the way those details are being woven into an historical myth designed by a cultural 'elite' that has become associated with one particular idea of what it is to be 'Canadian.' I'd call this the STAROWICZ/ Trudeau school of Canadian history with chapters written by Brian McKenna

I mean, look at this answer McKenna gave to an interviewer from CBC about the choice of Justin Trudeau as an ‘actor’ to portray Talbot Papineau. I mean, really, how’d you like to be a real actor trying to make a decent career in this country?

I mean, really, what do you make of that?

I think the story of Canada in the Great War is as much about the guys who didn’t want to go to Flanders, the guys who applied for and mostly got exemptions from the draft after 1917 and the fellas who stayed home and took advantage of the fact they didn’t go.

And the fact that honouring a list of names on a monument at Vimy 90 years after the fact doesn’t make up for the lifetimes of a whole generation of veterans who were forgotten long before they died. A lot of staged tearfulness generated for questionable motives – and something that's going to be replicated in a few months when the last Canadian 'veteran' (one of the two left lives in the States and has for years) dies and his passing is noted with a massive 'state' funeral.

My view.

Quote:I mean, really, what

You know what I think of that, its slimey 6 ways to sunday.

Your last point about instead of shining the light on sacrifice, shining it on how we've treated all our veterans though gives me pause.

I know you don't want us to end up like the US where veterans are revered and if you want to run for public office you had better have served in the military.

I'm more for "revering" the act of sacrifice in the name of the nation than I am the veterans as individuals. That may make me sound callous but I would hope that knowing I was in the military myself and support social programs up the wazoo, which would help veterans, would alleviate that.

I understand why you'd want to concentrate more on the individual, hope you understand why I don't. Perhaps I'm being paranoid but some days I think the Spartans are taking over the US. "300" is just a movie but sometimes I wonder if people are as bright as they think they are. Brainwashing at work.

Try again

Hmm, not exactly what I was trying to get across. You'd no doubt state your concern that raising a battle like Vimy to myth status is more dangerous than raising the individuals.

Its a fine line I admit. But raising the battle to myth status in the name of nationalism while at the same time getting across the point that battlefields are not glorious, they're chaotic and the resulting deaths are sad not glorious is in my opinion the better way to go. Otherwise aren't we raising the "soldier" up while tearing down the fabric of national sacrifice and public service?

In other words I don't want the message, soldiers good, but soldiering bad, war bad, national sacrifice useless, governments bad to be pumped into the youth.

I want more of a government good, public service good, national sacrifice good, a just cause good, war bad.

In the US the last one has become a good and all causes are just if the government says so.

Again, I didn't see more than an hour of the thing but one thing I would have liked included is soldiers coming home and returning to normal life. A Cincinnati type of thing. Soldiers getting off the boat in Halifax, saying goodbye as the trains take them home to different parts of the country. A sort of, we may be 3000 miles apart but we join together when threatened type of thing.

I'm sure that's cheesy but I don't care. If you're going to have a nation that wants to remain one its necessary to hammer that myth home.

I just want people like the CBC to tell the truth

I think that's a myth we can build a nation on. I knew a lot of old guys from the First World War - unlike the stereotype many of them loved to talk about their experiences, and a lot of them weren't afraid to make the point that when they got back home after the unpleasantness in Europe was over that the only thing that they got out of the experience was their name on a scroll in the wall of the foyer of the local church.

All this later day stuff is way to late for my taste and it, like McKenna's justification, stinks to high heaven.

It's just too American for me Frank. Too much Dan'l Boone and Davy Crockett for my taste. I'm just afraid that what I saw was in the way of turning into that kind of crap and the current variety of canned BS about our 'heroes' in Afghanistan in their soon-to-be air-conditioned tanks just underlines it for me. [$189 million in cartage costs already blown notwithstanding.]

We're a small country with a lot of land and resources and plenty of problems to solve here and in the here and now.

Lets get busy and deal with them and stop exaggerating the past.

My view.

errata

That's 'too' late - blush

Myths

Let's assume healthcare is under discussion, or equalization or whatever. Arguments will rage back and forth across the political spectrum, but at 4am when everyone is mad at each other and its time to go home its important to know that in the end we're all on the same side based on our "cherished" national myths. At the end of the day there has to be a reason we stay together that transcends politics. Otherwise our political and regional differences will split us apart.

And those myths have to be bedrock. They can't be something as illusory as a #1 ranking by the UN or a low poverty number. It'll take 5 minutes for someone to look beneath the numbers and raise objections to how its compiled. Whether it be Vimy, the War of 1812, the Depression, the Cincinatti thing or whatever, there has to be something that isn't political that keeps us together.

Skookum1 is right, get rid of the myths and breaking into your smaller units will follow shortly after.

Anyway

Well, you can respond to my last entry on this. Pretty much said all I can on this subject. The "two-front war" with 2 people whose own opinions diverge was fun :-) And it was nice to have an actual conversation.

I agree with that completely

I think we actually agree on most of this but sometimes the most pleasant debates - done in a civil way - are about small distinctions. I even welcome Justin Trudeau to do something worthwhile (on his own) for the good of the country.

In truth I'm more worried about losing the argument about universal health care before a real debate has even been joined. I'm all for rescuing realities that are in danger and then paying more attention to the myths.

Well Frank

I didn't really expect to find myself (and you I guess because he mentions Ireland too) finding an ally in Andrew Coyne.

Have a look:
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/04/post-is-wrong-on-pr.php