Topic: Quebeckers have a mental Bloc

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an insightful column by Lysiane Gagnon:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lysiane-gagnon/quebeckers-have-a-mental-bloc/article2021790/

Quebeckers have a mental Bloc

LYSIANE GAGNON
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, May. 15, 2011

The Bloc Québécois might be near-extinct, but its philosophy is still very much alive in Quebec. It is striking to see how many people naively assume that the NDP, because the majority of its caucus comes from Quebec, will take up the role of the Bloc and “defend first and foremost” the interests of Quebec.

At her first press conference, last Wednesday, Nycole Turmel, the new MP for Hull-Aylmer, was asked by reporters whether Quebec would be her party’s “first priority.” A seasoned public figure (she was a labour leader for years), Ms. Turmel calmly explained that yes, Quebec would be a priority but not the only one, and that the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians are not contradictory. Mind you, she was talking to reporters who cover politics and who should know that the NDP is a federal party that can’t speak for just one province.

Shortly after the vote, NDP Leader Jack Layton was interviewed (for the second time in a month) on the popular Radio-Canada talk show Tout le monde en parle. Host Guy A. Lepage, a former stand-up comic who thinks of himself as a connoisseur of politics, asked whether he would be Quebec’s point man in Ottawa. Mr. Layton evaded the question.

During a radio panel on the election, Christiane Charette, the host of another Radio-Canada talk show, joyously exclaimed that “the NDP will be another Bloc Québécois!” And La Presse ran this headline: “Layton, the new strong man of Quebec” – in other words, the new Gilles Duceppe. These reactions are symptomatic of the way many francophone Quebeckers have internalized the Bloc’s mentality. After having lived for 20 years inside a Bloc bubble, they’ve lost any understanding of what a federation is and how federal parties work.

Another symptom of this “Bloc philosophy” is that, judging by the blogs and the commentaries in the media, few seem to mind that Quebec is virtually shut out of government since the Conservatives won just six seats (out of 75) in the province. Indeed, for 20 years, the Bloc kept repeating that in federal politics, it’s better to be in the opposition, since all governments (according to the Bloc) fail Quebec.

Quebeckers now expect that the NDP will morph into a clone of the Bloc. Because he owes part of his victory to Quebec, it is expected that Mr. Layton will forget his real ambition, which is to become prime minister of Canada, and will be happy to serve as the full-time champion of Quebec. If these foolish expectations don’t diminish with time, Quebeckers’ disappointment with the NDP will be huge – and the big bubbling orange wave will quickly dissolve before the next election.

This misunderstanding of federal politics is the legacy of the Bloc Québécois. Its goal was not to achieve sovereignty, something that can only be done at the provincial level. It was to pave the way for sovereignty by loosening Quebec’s ties with the rest of Canada, by convincing Quebeckers that Canada is a foreign if not hostile entity and by provoking resentment toward Quebec in the rest of Canada.

By focusing exclusively on Quebec’s “interests” and acting as if the province was constantly under threat, the Bloc killed all the reflexes that help sustain a federation: the will to exchange, negotiate and compromise, the capacity to understand other people’s viewpoints, the capacity to give and take.

In this sense, the Bloc can proudly say: Mission accomplished! Whether Quebec becomes independent or not, for the time being, federalism is dead in Quebec.

I think Mlle Gagnon is quite correct: many (probably most) Quebecers are no longer Canadians; they have become Québécois, a distinct, separate and, in most respects, a sovereign people. They recognize that we, not they, voted for 'fiscal federalism' and 'sovereignty association' and allowed them to separate at almost no cost to themselves – how many Nova Scotians or Albertans know anything about Canada in the United Nations? Quickly: does Canada have diplomatic missions in the capitals of Afghanistan, Bahamas, Cameroon, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Fiji? (To save you the Googling the answers are Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes and No.) How much 'real' sovereignty are Quebecers missing?

When, not if, Jack Layton disappoints the already sovereign majority (which will happen before 2015)  Québec's vote will swing, wildly, again, towards a party that will represent its special, separate and sovereign interests.

Canada will remain wilfully oblivious to the fact that we have lost a province and gained an 'associate state.'

[GAP]

Especially since Harper has proven that the adage of "You Can't get a Majority without Quebec" has been put to rest.....

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is more on this topic:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/nation+divided+election/4788152/story.html

A nation divided by an election

BY DESMOND MORTON, OTTAWA CITIZEN

MAY 16, 2011

The May 2 general election had more surprises than most voters realized. In our democracy, most Canadians voted to deny Prime Minister Stephen Harper a majority? No one warned that the Liberal party faced abject humiliation and imminent bankruptcy? Can New Democrats really rejoice at promotion to official Opposition? Can they possibly retain close to a million Quebec voters?

For Canadians as a whole, that may turn out to be the most risky issue of the latest general election.

If Quebec had embraced the NDP in 1962 or 1963 when the rest of Canada was trying to preserve or remove John Diefenbaker's Quebec sweep of 1958, fewer people would have been surprised. After all, the most surprising feature of the New Party's founding convention in Ottawa in August 1961 was the astonishing turnout of hundreds of Quebec delegates. For most Canadians it was their first notice of the political ferment that Quebec politicians soon christened the Quiet Revolution. For old CCFers who had organized the New Party movement, crossing the Ottawa River had seemed an impossible dream.

Now, it seemed, Quebecers had come to Ottawa to embrace social democracy.

One consequence was that the New Party's program was amended to include ideas that would become a Quebec program for the next generations, from official federal bilingualism to the notion of Canada as a country of two nations. The most radical break with the CCF's Regina Manifesto was recognition of the major provincial role in socialist reform, though that was what the CCF itself had done during its 20-year rule in Saskatchewan. Conventions end. Quebec delegates went home and things began to change. A Liberal government finished nationalizing privately owned hydro-electricity and started secularizing a church-controlled education system. In the excitement of its Quiet Revolution, Quebec discovered the appeal of achieving its own national sovereignty. In this excitement, the pro-federalist NDP seemed irrelevant to potential Quebec supporters, though the party attracted brilliant individuals like philosopher Charles Taylor and lawyer Robert Cliche. In all the years from 1961 to 2011, the NDP elected only two MPs in Quebec, ex-cabinet minister Thomas Mulcair and automobile critic Phil Edmonston, though thousands more ran as token candidates, confident they would be back at their old jobs after election day.

In 2011, that expectation turned out to be wrong. Though no one outside Quebec seemed to notice, and few Quebecers admit it, the Bloc campaign was an utter failure. A flood of signs depicting a grumpy looking Gilles Duceppe claiming to speak for "Qc" seemed a little arrogant and underlined a suspicion that talk is cheap. NDP leader Jack Layton sounded cheerful and eager to get some good things done. The NDP candidates looked much as they always had been: invisible.

No one believed the polls. As Mulcair commented, he had never seen a poll vote, a joke about the utility poles that, in Quebec, bear the bulk of candidates' signs. The polls turned out, on the whole, to be right. Layton swept the province, much as Brian Mulroney had in 1984. It was election night's biggest surprise.

The hard news, of course, was that Harper had finally won a majority, though, in a Canada of two nations, he had swept English Canada and been thumped in French Canada. For Conservatives, this was historically unprecedented. John A. Macdonald, R.B. Bennett, Brian Mulroney, even Robert Borden, had formidable backing from Quebec. In his 1958 landslide, Quebec was delivered wholesale by then premier Maurice Duplessis. Harper's campaign in Quebec was a massive rejection by voters of his appeal for a majority government.

In federal politics, the two cultural nations are now split by the carpet running through the House of Commons. Close to a million Quebecers abandoned the sovereignist Bloc Québécois and took their votes to Layton and a federalist party. Stephen Harper now faces a hard choice. Can he suppress his own resentment at rejection and risk annoying his triumphant followers by giving Layton some tangible rewards for winning Quebec's support away from the Bloc? Or will his ego and his ideology take pride of place?

Quebecers will eagerly await the results of their May 2 votes. Like Harper, they have a choice. If NDP voters in Quebec feel disillusioned by their votes, they will cheerfully return to Pauline Marois's Parti Québécois, already primed to sweep Jean Charest's Liberals from office. In the process, returning NDPers will give the PQ some of that youthful demographic it has been losing in recent years, as well as the clear majority the Clarity Act now requires from any sovereignty referendum.

Harper and many of his voters may want to forget about Quebec and its demands. His postelection pledge to remember all Canadians, including those who voted against him, may, for the sake of Canada, be the most important words he has ever uttered.

Desmond Morton is an emeritus professor of history at McGill University and founding director of McGill's Institute for the Study of Canada.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

I disagree with Morton on a couple of points:

1. While it is true that a majority government with so little Québec 'bench strength' is, indeed, unprecedented, it is something with which we had best grow accustomed. As I have said, several times in these fora, those who want to lead Canada must learn to govern without Québec; not against Québec, just without much representation from it; and

2. The big challenge has nothing to do with Mr. Harper's perceived resentment, it has everything to do with the direction in which Quebecers next turn when, not if, the NDP fails to satisfy them.

[Dennis Ruhl]

I would recommend Harper to appoint every Quebec member to cabinet with Maxime Bernier pretty close to him in the front row. 

[Inky]

I disagree with the idead that sovereignty is a done deal. The make-up of Quebec is dramatically changing with immigration as the previous Péquistes governnment's failure at social engineering is becoming more apparent. Immigrants aren't buying the salad and neither are the more industrious Québécois. The proof of this is in the Beauce region which remains in conservative hands after this election.

Furthermore, nothing guarantees that we lose all of Quebec the referendum go through, I for one, am for partition. Most of Quebec's territory was acquired post-confederation, I don't see why the feds couldn't take back the territory that was given along with federalist enclaves like Montreal.

[E.R. Campbell]

...
Furthermore, nothing guarantees that we lose all of Quebec the referendum go through, I for one, am for partition. Most of Quebec's territory was acquired post-confederation, I don't see why the feds couldn't take back the territory that was given along with federalist enclaves like Montreal.

Drifting off topic ...

I agree with you.

What's the first problem facing an independent Québec? Sepratrism and potentially violent separatists.

My first – and I think pretty good - guess is that if a free and fair (clear question) referendum passed, province wide, it would fail in some regions, most notably: the North (James Bay and the Ungava Peninsula) the Pontiac/West Québec and the Eastern Townships. Separatist movements would quickly develop and agitate very strongly in those regions.

The aboriginal separatists in the North have the only valid case for separation – more valid in the eyes of the United Nations than Québec's case – because those aboriginals can, fairly, claim to be a colonized people.

But the substantial English minorities in some regions will be constant thorns in the side of a new aggressively French government – the Anglais will bring out the worst in the French nationalists and many 'soft nationalists' will leave the movement, à la Lucien Bouchard after l'Affaire Michaud in 2000/2001, thus weakening the legitimacy of the new national government.

My second guess is that any separation would, eventually, be settled through a multi-national panel that would partition Québec and allow some regions to rejoin Canada.

[Baden Guy]

Which reminds me of being in Bagotville in the 1970's and being concerned about the strong regional separatist sentiment.
 The Lac St.Jean area had no love for the feds and as a member of the distinct minority Anglais I was quite happy when I packed my bags and left

[57Chevy]

But the substantial English minorities in some regions will be constant thorns in the side of a new aggressively French government – the Anglais will bring out the worst in the French nationalists

I pity the English speaking French Canadian or any other minority who may someday have to deal with any of the Federal Agencies owned and operated by those same biased individuals.

Which reminds me of being in Bagotville in the 1970's and being concerned about the strong regional separatist sentiment.
The Lac St.Jean area had no love for the feds and as a member of the distinct minority Anglais I was quite happy when I packed my bags and left

House for sale may be coming !

[xo31@711ret]

My wife, a NB Acadain was posted to Sept-Iles, on the lower north shore ( I left the regs & went reserves to serve at that unit). I speak little to no french myself. And anyone who's been to the lower north shore knows it is very franco with a spattering of some anlgos - though not much. Sept-Iles for example has a population of about 27,000 with about 700 bilingual anglo-phones. My point is, I went to Sept Iles very ignorant & bias thinking I was going into 'the dragon's den' of separatism. What I learned after 4 years there is yes, there are a few folks who are die-hard separatists. But most I found were proud Quebecois first and Canadians second.  Especially after the last provincial election a few years ago when the media & especially the PQ were surprised when the riding I lived in (Dupleessi) must of gotten sick of being ignored by the PQ & went red.

[Rifleman62]

They can afford to be

proud Quebecois first and Canadians second.

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!

Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library. 

To those who will:  Enjoy

[milnews.ca]

If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!

Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library. 

To those who will:  Enjoy

There are actually a few copies still kicking around out there:
Amazon.ca
Amazon.com

[MrsAlex]

Alright. As a Quebecker, I have to admit the "Bloc" mentality is definitely a reality. That "Bloc bubble" has kept Quebec population from really experiencing federal politic. And that most definitely has played into the last election. However, I don't think the NPD wave in Quebec is explainable by that alone. In the last few years, the separatist movement has lost a lot of ground. The arguments used to sell the independence to the Quebeckers are dated and do not appeal to the majority of the younger generation. Of course, all the rest of the Canada hear from us comes out of the mouth of Duceppe and the like. The truth is the PQ is also loosing ground in Quebec. I sincerely think many Quebeckers want to finally experience a federalist party. And, the way things were on the political field during the elections, the NPD was the logical choice for most of them.



PS: the book sounds interesting, might give it a look 

[Thucydides]

Quebec voters might have much reason to regret their embrace of the BQ; if this is correct the Maritimes and Quebec are facing the "New Canada" of Ontario + the West as the base of political and economic power in Confederation:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/995231--harper-s-conservatives-here-to-stay

Harper’s Conservatives here to stay?
Published On Sat May 21 2011

JONATHAN HAYWARD/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Susan Delacourt
Ottawa Bureau
WATERLOO—Prime Minister Stephen Harper is building a Conservative coalition in Canada that will probably be more enduring than Brian Mulroney’s conservatism of the 1980s, according to Ipsos pollster Darrell Bricker.

Bricker, delivering his election analysis to a Canadian political scientists’ convention last week, said he believes Harper’s brand of conservatism is built on a stronger base than Mulroney’s.

The big difference, says Bricker, is that Mulroney built his Conservative party out of regional grievances, while Harper is forming a Conservative party around individual voters’ values.

“The interesting thing about what happened in this (May 2) election . . . is that they actually put together a values-based national coalition of Tories — the first time we’ve had it in this country,” Bricker said at a luncheon session of the Canadian Political Science Association, which held its annual meeting at Wilfrid Laurier University last week.

Bricker, who worked in the Prime Minister’s Office during Mulroney’s reign, said Conservatives were united in the 1980s largely around their disaffection with Liberal rule. The West, outraged over the Liberals’ national energy program, came together with Quebec, aggrieved over Pierre Trudeau’s patriation of the Constitution.

But according to Bricker, Harper is building his Conservative base on stronger stuff.

He rattled off the typical values of a Harper Conservative voter: “smaller government, law and order, pro-military, pro-trade, pro-U.S., economically focused and fiscally prudent.”

Bricker said: “It is essentially a coalition of taxpayers . . . They’re demographically older, the mean age is 50. They’re more male, they’re more affluent, they’re less educated, they own guns — higher than the rest of the voters — they’re churchgoers, they’re more rural but increasingly suburban.”

Bricker says Harper may become a modern-day Mackenzie King — Canada’s longest-serving prime minister, a Liberal who dominated Canadian politics from the 1920s into the 1940s.

It is, however, Mulroney who holds the record for the biggest-ever majority in Canadian history. In 1984, his party won 211 out of 282 seats.

Mulroney, in fact, is one of the few Canadian prime ministers in recent decades to have won with more than 50 per cent of the popular vote. He went on to win a second majority in 1988.

Harper, meanwhile, has three election victories, but only one majority to his credit now. Though his 167 seats don’t come close to Mulroney’s majority in 1984, Bricker believes Harper’s Conservative base is in less danger of blowing apart, as Mulroney’s did in the 1990s.

In 1993, angry Westerners, former Conservatives largely, banded together behind the fledgling Reform Party, while former Quebec Conservatives migrated to the new Bloc Québécois. Mulroney’s old Conservatives were reduced to two seats in that election.

“Brian Mulroney’s Tory coalition was never united on values, . . . never got along,” Bricker said. “It was an impossible coalition to hold together.”

“But Harper now has a coalition that is possible to hold together because they’re united by values, not just by geography or just by hatred of the Liberal party.”

The challenge now in Canadian politics, according to many attendees at last week’s conference, is to assess what’s going to happen on the left of Canada’s political spectrum.

The once-dominant Liberals have been reduced to third-party status, with only 34 seats and small pockets of strength, mainly in Ontario and the Atlantic region. The New Democratic Party is on the rise, but with a new, untested base in Quebec, whose MPs form nearly half of the 102-member official Opposition.

Very few academics attending last week’s conference were willing to forecast whether the NDP’s new strength would hold. Bricker believes this Liberal-NDP fight for the left will be the political story to watch in coming years. And like the Conservatives, the trick will be in finding values around which to unite a base of support.

“I would say that, through this election, the right side of the dialectic has been sorted out,” Bricker said. “The battle is now actually for what I would say is the progressive side of the agenda.”

[E.R. Campbell]

Rather than start a new thread ...

I found this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act interesting, to say the least, and, maybe, even a little thought provoking:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/would-justin-trudeau-separate-from-stephen-harpers-canada-maybe/article2337672/

Would Justin Trudeau separate from Stephen Harper’s Canada? ‘Maybe’

TAMARA BALUJA AND BILL CURRY

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Did Justin Trudeau really say he would support Quebec separating from Canada? Maybe, in the most hypothetical of hypothetical situations.

During a 16 minute radio interview in French with Radio-Canada broadcast Sunday, the Montreal Liberal MP was asked if he currently recognizes Canada under Stephen Harper. Mr. Trudeau’s answer clearly caught the host off guard.

“I always say, if at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper – that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways – maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country.”

The blogsphere and Twitterverse is exploding with shocked comments, with many wondering how the MP could go against his father Pierre Trudeau’s vision of federalism.

Although he refused an interview with The Globe, he tweeted Tuesday that “Canada needs Qc to balance out Harper's vision that I (and many) just don't support.”

Earlier in the interview, Mr. Trudeau restated his view that he is not interested in the Liberal leadership at this point in his life because he isn’t sure if he could balance his leadership duties with being a good father to his two children.

He also bristled at questions comparing him to his father, the former prime minister.

“We’ll see when I’m 80, maybe then we can do comparisons,” he said. “He was an intellectual. Me, I’m a bit less intellectual. I’m still a person who has very strong opinions.”

First, a quibble: Pierre Trudeau was not an intellectual, not unless that term has lost all meaning. He was a law professor, a job which is about as intellectual as being, say, a professor of engineering. He had one big idea - he was an anti-nationalist and he found only one way to express that sentiment: by being anti Maurice Duplessis. That was all he was - for heaven's sake my great aunt's cat was anti Duplessis and made almost as much sense as Trudeau did in Cité Libre, a journal that had several hundren readers.

"If at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper – that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways – maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country.” That seems pretty clear to me; if a majority of Canadians turned very, very socially conservative - something that would make me unhappy and uncomfortable - then I would, likely, quit the Conservative Party and support a party that opposed the Canada that was going backwards in 10,000 ways, while Justin Trudeau woud become a separatist.

Good luck with that Liberals.

[Danjanou]

If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!

Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library. 

To those who will:  Enjoy

The fun part was trying to figure out the pseudonyms of the main and supporting characters from the different Regiments. Having just been posted to one of the units in the book, it was interesting to note how accurate he was in their descriptions and persona. Not a bad read and one of the better in this rather limited genre. Far superior to Rohmers efforts and the 1970's Killing Ground (IIRC the name)

[milnews.ca]

If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!

Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library. 

That one is still available to buy (used) if one hurries
http://www.amazon.ca/Victory-Novel-Civil-War-Canada/dp/0969629605/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329250216&sr=8-1
Never heard of this one - may order one of the used ones up myself.

The fun part was trying to figure out the pseudonyms of the main and supporting characters from the different Regiments. Having just been posted to one of the units in the book, it was interesting to note how accurate he was in their descriptions and persona. Not a bad read and one of the better in this rather limited genre. Far superior to Rohmers efforts and the 1970's Killing Ground (IIRC the name)

Maybe you mean "Separation"?

[Thucydides]

The reality, of course, is that Western Canada is evolving and in terms of economics and demographics leaving Quebec and Eastern Canada behind. As well, there is a very large and growing population of immigrants from socially "conservative" cultures who are very much against gay marrage and other progressive tropes (an unintended consequence of multiculturalism, to be sure). It is already possible to generate a majority without Quebec, and with the new seat distribution, the ability of Quebec to influence events will be even smaller.

The real question might not be "will Quebec separate?", but rather will they be shown the door.

[57Chevy]

The reality, of course, is that Western Canada is evolving and in terms of economics and demographics leaving Quebec and Eastern Canada behind. As well, there is a very large and growing population of immigrants from socially "conservative" cultures who are very much against gay marrage and other progressive tropes (an unintended consequence of multiculturalism, to be sure). It is already possible to generate a majority without Quebec, and with the new seat distribution, the ability of Quebec to influence events will be even smaller.

The real question might not be "will Quebec separate?", but rather will they be shown the door.

Eastern Canada and especially Quebec is evolving proportionately with the rest of Canada.
As for the real question
IMO, Quebec will never separate for that reason exactly.
"The Growing population of immigrants in all regions accross the country."

The other reason ( I think ) is bilingualism.
No separation without bilingualism.... but that's my opinion.

[a78jumper]

One thing for certain, Justin Trudeau is a featherweight in the brains department....takes after his Mom.

[Bird_Gunner45]

So Justin Trudeau's criteria for leaving the country is not getting exactly what he wants?  On a serious note, I thought that Harper had made it pretty clear that the abortion issue wasn't being raised again, nor the gay marriage one. 

I hope that JTs tactics aren't that of the Liberal party as a whole... Canada needs to have a legitimate second party and left alternative to the NDP.

[ModlrMike]

So Justin Trudeau's criteria for leaving the country is not getting exactly what he wants?  On a serious note, I thought that Harper had made it pretty clear that the abortion issue wasn't being raised again, nor the gay marriage one. 

I hope that JTs tactics aren't that of the Liberal party as a whole... Canada needs to have a legitimate second party and left alternative to the NDP

No matter  how many times Mr Harper says it, nor how many backbench motions are quashed by the PM, the Liberals will persist in dragging out this tired trope.

[FSTO]

The only thing that JT has going for him is good hair. But most of it grows inward and tickles his brain.

How dare that ignorant twerp think that his values are Canadian values. I have listened to the likes of Trudeau, Rae, Axworthy, Lalonde, Whelan et al spout their crap for 30 years. I have felt their disdain and outright hatred towards western Canadians as they did everything in their power to limit our growth and foster their pandering to Quebec. So now the shoe is on the other foot and they don't like the feel of it. Well you reap what you sow *** clowns.  Let us hope that a few years in the wilderness teaches them some humility, but the actions of JT today show that they have a long way to go.

[Jim Seggie]

First of all, I am a Canadian, a western Canadian.  The way the "East" (Ontario and Quebec) treated the West in the past was disgraceful at times.
JT is a spoiled brat who is reopening old wounds that have not healed over. In fact, many westerners say " you want to go? Then go!"
Be careful what you wish for JT.

[RDJP]

First of all, I am a Canadian, a western Canadian.  The way the "East" (Ontario and Quebec) treated the West in the past was disgraceful at times.

I'm an Easterner....and I'll agree with everything you've said above.

[Jim Seggie]

I'm an Easterner....and I'll agree with everything you've said above.

And the Atlantic provinces were screwed over as well.

[RDJP]

And the Atlantic provinces were screwed over as well.

You bet they were. 

[Larry Strong]

And the Atlantic provinces were screwed over as well.

What comes to mind instantly....Quebec......Power/Electricity....Newfoundland.

[E.R. Campbell]

The fun part was trying to figure out the pseudonyms of the main and supporting characters from the different Regiments. Having just been posted to one of the units in the book, it was interesting to note how accurate he was in their descriptions and persona. Not a bad read and one of the better in this rather limited genre. Far superior to Rohmers efforts and the 1970's Killing Ground (IIRC the name)

Reactions to the Dauphin's musings are in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Separatist+comments+reveal+real+Justin+Trudeau+analysts/6153616/story.html

Separatist comments reveal the real Justin Trudeau, analysts say
 
By Robert Sibley

The Ottawa Citizen
February 15, 2012

Justin Trudeau betrays his political immaturity and narcissism in suggesting that his commitment to a united Canada is dependent on whether the Conservative government validates his personal values, say prominent political analysts.

“This guy is clearly self-indulgent; he really does think everything is about him and his feelings,” Barry Cooper, a political theorist at the University of Calgary, said Tuesday in commenting on statements Trudeau made in a recent French-language interview. “That’s a measure of his lightweight status in the firmament of deep-thinking Liberals.”

On Sunday, Trudeau, a Montreal MP, told his Radio-Canada host: “I always say, if at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper — that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage, and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways — maybe I would think about making Quebec a country.”

The remarks have generated a furor this week. The blogosphere and the twitterverse went into hyperdrive, with commentators stunned that the 40-year-old son of Pierre Trudeau could so readily offend his father’s federalist vision. The politicians weren’t far behind. Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois interpreted Trudeau’s remarks as an endorsement for their own opposition to the Conservative government. A Tory MP, Merv Tweed, taunted Trudeau, saying “while our Conservative government is committed to keeping Canada strong, united and free, the member opposite is contemplating reasons for Quebec to separate from Canada.’’

Such remarks forced Trudeau to beat a hasty retreat on Tuesday, clearing the air with a three-minute address in front of a mob of reporters and cameras on Parliament Hill. “The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country, because the question is ridiculous,’’ Trudeau said. “I live this country in my bones every breath I take, and I’m not going to stand here and somehow defend that I actually do love Canada because we know I love Canada.’’

Regardless of Trudeau’s rhetorical retrenchment, some observers said his original remarks revealed a great deal about his character, as well as his incoherence as a politician.

“If had read the quote and not known who said it, I would have attributed it to an adolescent,” said Tom Darby, a political philosopher at Carleton University. “It does not matter what party or even what policies one favours, the quote is factually untrue, irresponsible, and even treasonous. He (Trudeau) says that his father was an intellectual and that he is not. About this he is correct, which his childish statement proves.”

Robert Asselin, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Canada-Quebec affairs, noted the inherent narcissism of Trudeau’s attitude. “That’s the first observation I would make. But also, government policy should not dictate one’s preference for secession or not. Secession is a very grave action and you don’t even suggest it (as a possibility) because you don’t share certain beliefs or values of the government of the moment.”

“Politics is not about personal feelings,” said Cooper. “It’s about the ethics of responsibility. He was elected as a member of Parliament from a particular constituency. He was not elected in his own right because he has these sensitive feelings about various things. Whether he likes it or not, he’s supposed to be a responsible political leader, and he’s clearly incapable of understanding what his job is.”

Trudeau has, in fact, been stepping in it regularly of late. In December, he referred to Environment Minister Peter Kent as a “piece of sh--.” He was taken to task for wrongly claiming that there would be no way to track firearms after the registry’s disappearance when he tweeted his opposition to the Conservative government’s plans to scrap the gun registry. And he was much criticized when he told a reporter he was “uncomfortable” with the use of the phrase “honour killings” because he thought it was “pejorative.”

Political analysts such as Darby and Cooper question whether Trudeau has taken his dislike of Harper’s policies to an imprudent extreme that says more about himself than about the policies he supposedly opposes.

“Young Trudeau is living out the consequences of his father’s vision of what the country should look like, that the state exists to compel us to like one another, to think alike, that we all have to have the same values,” said Cooper. “You’ve got this kind of narcissistic response that the state only exists to reflect your values. There’s nothing to be patriotic about (and) so you can indulge whatever idiosyncratic policy preferences you might have. Trudeau Junior reflects this attitude, and for a lot of people his age and younger, they probably think this is a perfectly legitimate way of looking at politics.”

Trudeau’s statement reflected the “incredible notion” that loyalty to one’s country is predicated on whether that country lived up to your personal sentiments, said Darby. It is quite legitimate to oppose the policies of a particular government, he said, but Trudeau showed no sense of what Canadians have in common, no sense of shared citizenship and the responsibilities that come with citizenship. “The problem with that is he’s not thinking beyond his own self-interest. He’s like a kid who says, ‘I don’t like what’s happening in this game, so I’m going to take my stuff and go home.’”

Asselin, meanwhile, speculated that Trudeau reflected the sentiments of many Quebecers who feel they don’t share the values of the Conservative government. Nevertheless, that’s no excuse to indulge in imprudent hints about supporting separatism. “That’s the line he crossed. That’s why it’s dangerous.”

Trudeau’s behaviour raises questions about his political intelligence, and his potential as a future Liberal leader, Asselin said. “I’m always surprised to see his name as a potential candidate (for the Liberal leadership) because I’ve never seen anything substantive from him that would make me believe he would be a good leader. What is his vision of Canada? I would not be able to tell you what it is. I know what his father stood for, but I don’t know what Justin Trudeau’s is.”

And what might Pierre Trudeau have thought of his son’s statement? “I don’t think his father would have been happy at all to read it. He would probably spank him on his behind, and say, ‘What have you said? This is not right.’”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

I think it is true that "Trudeau reflected the sentiments of many Quebecers who feel they don’t share the values of the Conservative government," but that's neither here nor there. Québec isn't going anywhere because there's no place to go, nationhood, as envisioned by a majority of Québecers is impossible, even if they can win a referendum.

Trudeau has already excused himself from this leadership race ~ it looks, to me, as if he's disqualified himself from the next one, too.

Can you just imagine the even bigger smile on this guys' face?


Dominic LeBlanc — Beauséjour
Franco, 45 years old, fluently bilingual, electable, smart ...

[Rifleman62]

Inherent narcissism does not stop a person,  massively supported by a bias, (malevolent to me; benevolent to Redeye) media, from being elected by people to be the head of a country.
 
His father did his very best to tear apart Canada.

[Colin P]

Quebec separatism suffers from some reality issues. First thee is the issue of First Nations. The FN will know they have the Quebecers by the short and curlies and will make them pay dearly for any support. Where will this money and future monies come from?
2nd I suspect that the GDP of Quebec likely outstrips the rest of the Francophone world not counting France, so who are they going to trade with purely in French?
3rd Most of the immigrants in the francophone world are not white and come from very poor countries. So if Quebec need immigrants the pool they have to draw upon will significantly change Quebec culture and they will not have the education to quickly start contributing to the Quebec economy.
4th They are going to have to deal with a significant backlash by the rest of Canada, including boycotts of their goods
5th They are going to lose out on any more transfer payments and I doubt many politicians are going feel any political pressure to bow to Quebec’s demands for  payouts and transfers of funds
6th What happens to all Federal lands within Quebec? Who pays for the transfers, cleanups? Again the average English-Canadian (or recent immigrant) is going to tell the politicians “I ain’t paying no blackmail monies” 

[E.R. Campbell]

Inherent narcissism does not stop a person,  massively supported by a bias, (malevolent to me; benevolent to Redeye) media, from being elected by people to be the head of a country.
 
His father did his very best to tear apart Canada.

While I agree that the Trudeau era was bad, even very bad for national unity it was not, I believe that Pierre Trudeau retained any of his youthful separatist/fascist/Abbé Lionel Groulx fantasies. It was, I think more the unintended consequences of his approach. It was hard for Trudeau, who promoted the "French fact" in Canada, to appear as anything other than anti-English, thereby simultaneously fueling Franco animosity and Anglo mistrust. Additionally, his evident disdain for Québec's popular leaders (political and social) stoked the flames of Franco humiliation without earning any "respect" in English Canada. Trudeau (mistakenly) thought he was the smartest kid in the room; in fact others, including René Lévesque and Peter Lougheed, had a much better understanding of Québec and Canada.

In my opinion Pierre Trudeau's main problem was that he was not, in his heart or his mind, a Canadian or a Québecer; he was a European and he was never "at home" in the country of his birth, not even when he was leading its government.

[Rifleman62]

I did not mean it was his intent, but it was the result produced. He was not smart enough to figure out for ever action there is a reaction.

But, look at some of the kiddy antics which did not exactly enhance unity: fingers, fuddle duddle, pirouetting, sell your own wheat, etc, etc, etc.

[E.R. Campbell]

The Good Grey Globe's Jeffrey Simpson tries to square the circle in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/canadas-political-reversal-is-complete/article2391100/

Canada’s political reversal is complete

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 04, 2012

Montrealer Thomas Mulcair’s election as NDP leader completes the reversal of the fundamental dynamics of Canadian politics that have prevailed for more than two decades.

Since the late 1980s, Canadian politics has been shaped, more than anything else, by the dialectics between Montreal and Calgary or, more broadly, between Quebec and Western Canada, whose political centre is Calgary.

Since the 1960s, when the Quiet Revolution changed Quebec politics, the aspirations of that province dominated federal politics until the end of the Jean Chrétien era. Under both Liberals and Conservatives, Ottawa struggled to deal with Quebec’s restlessness.

Quebec was always in power in Ottawa (except for the Joe Clark interregnum). It drove decisions and shaped events. Its priorities were usually those of the federal government. All those constitutional and federal-provincial conferences were, more than anything, about Quebec.

Quebec’s ideas about constitutional change, the role of the state, social policy, even international relations – most of which were incubated in Montreal – influenced every federal government. Clearly, Quebec provincial governments and the more nationalist elements in the province did not always get what they sought, but their pressure was always felt in Ottawa.

In the late 1980s, a reaction began against some of those Quebec ideas. Intellectually and politically, the reaction began and flourished in Calgary, epicentre of the Reform Party, the Canada West Foundation, the oil business, the University of Calgary’s social sciences departments, and some contributors to the magazine Alberta Report.

To Montreal’s demands for special status for Quebec, Calgary replied that all provinces should be equal. To Montreal’s preference for constitutional changes giving more power to provinces, Calgary replied with a Triple-E Senate. To Montreal’s preference for a providential state, Calgary favoured a diminished one. To Montreal’s belief that the state should guide the economy, Calgary preferred laissez faire. To Montreal’s belief that climate change was a real and pressing danger, Calgary replied with indifference.

The Mulroney government broke apart because of the political and intellectual gap between the ideas of Montreal and Calgary, with parts of his coalition becoming the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois.

It also fractured because, after the failures of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional reform efforts, the rest of Canada grew tired of Quebec’s agenda and was no longer scared by its threat to secede. In Quebec, it became clear that constitutional reform was at a dead end, so, after a last shot at seceding in the referendum of 1995, the province’s politics settled into a less existential mode. Quebec would stop trying to change Canada, or break it up, but withdraw into a de facto special status.

Quebec remained central to the Chrétien thinking, led by a Quebecker. But when Stephen Harper, a transplanted Calgarian and former Reform MP, created today’s Conservative Party, Calgary shoved Montreal out of the driver’s seat.

From being the intellectual and political centre of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Calgary’s vision (and, more generally, Western Canada’s) became ascendant in Ottawa – lower taxes, smaller government, no special status, indifference to constitutional reform, conservative social policy, little interest in the environment.

In Mr. Harper’s first years, there was muted dissatisfaction in Calgary with their prime minister (who, if truth be told, knew very few big hitters in the city). But the disillusioned bit their tongues because their boy and party had arrived in office and one day, they prayed, the Conservatives would form a majority government.

Quebec had put itself on the political sidelines by voting Bloc Québécois, a party with no interest in governing Canada and no interest in Canada as a whole.

Quebeckers finally tired of this political futility but couldn’t vote for a Calgary-dominated government whose vision was so different from their own. They voted to put themselves into Official Opposition status by supporting the NDP. With Mr. Mulcair’s election, in no small part due to his support in Quebec and the sense in the party that he could hold that support, Quebec’s interests will daily shape the NDP.

So the Calgary-Montreal dialectics that dominated Canadian public life remain, but in a different relationship. After being in opposition for so long, Calgary is now in power – and after having been in power for so long, Montreal is now in opposition.

This is Simpson's own mini "lament for a nation" - the "nation" in which he believes has its intellectual soul in Montreal and its economic heart in Toronto and those red-necked Westerners and provincial Maritimers are to consider themselves lucky to be guided by the Montreal-Toronto (Liberal) axis.


Change is good, Donkey Jeffrey

[Infanteer]

The Calgary:Montreal dichotomy is interesting.  I shall also be interested to see how the Vancouver:Calgary dichotomy evolves in Western Canadian politics - the greater Vancouver metro area has about half the population of Western Canada.  Having lived in BC and Alberta for most of my life, I can say that BC outside of Vancouver is very similar to rural Alberta, except that the NDP has a traditional level of support in much of the BC interior based upon forestry/mining union support.  In Vancouver however, anything goes politically, with much of the outlying municipalities going Conservative while the urban core splits between NDP and Liberal.