"Heads will roll...just watch me"

[notyoueither]

However, the real point is keeping Quebec, and the Cree, as happy parts of Canada. Not dealing with what would be a very messy situation should seperation ever win a vote.

Language rights are an ever present issue in various parts of Canada, and have been since the Conquest.

[Wezil]

Well.

Three pages now and still no defense of Mr Martin (although the political debate was entertaining it was somewhat OT for the thread).

Since no Liberal apparently wants to defend the man, how about telling me why you plan to vote for him anyway?

A lack of alternatives was mentioned earlier. To me, any party caught with both hands in the till CAN NOT be voted for. Any alternative seems better.

The poll says 39% of Cdns support the Liberals (still). So where are you all?

[Wezil]

btw Canadians - Mr Martin will be on Rex Murphy's radio program this afternoon (Sunday).

Two hours of calls from listeners. Desperation move? You bet.

[notyoueither]

Thanks, Wezil.

That should be good so I will look for it.

[joncha]

I think most people who vote Liberal do so because they view the alternative as being worse. The Liberals came to power as a vote against the Tories, and stayed in power to keep the Reform/Alliance out. For most people in Eastern and Central Canada, a corrupt centerist party is a lesser evil than a bigoted hard-right party. A re-founded right wing party has a chance, if it can distance itself from the worse aspects of its Reform heritage. As the Liberals move right under Martin, the NDP has a chance as moderates and disenchanted Liberals jump ship and, paradoxically, as the new Conservatives are seen as less of a hard-right threat.

The end result is Martin's Liberals are hemorraging on both sides of the political spectrum. The only thing holding them together is the dislike/distrust of the parties on either side.

jon.

[Wezil]

I agree with the analysis Joncha. Except for the no alternative angle. How much of YOUR money do they have to STEAL before the Liberals are put into the 'no alternative' category?

I'd like the party (if the convictions come through as expected) to be disbanded as a criminal organization/conspiracy. Liquidate the assets to repay the taxpayers and call the remainder punative damages.

Note - Rex's show will also be carried live on Newsworld (you Yanks can watch too)

[Odin]

at Canadian politics.

[FS*]

I'm not sure there's much to be said in defense of Martin. However, as has been said, who else is there, in any of the parties?

Oh, for a king! A leader of men... a fearless man of valor!

(Sit down, Svend.)

Do I hear laughter from the land of the ex-wrestler?

[Fake Boris]

Since the thread has just bumped, I'd like to mention that the idea of Quebecois racism towards the Crees and Inuits is ridiculous.

First, I don't see why Native authorities wouldn't deal with a Quebecois Republic, if it promises to uphold the agreements concluded with the federal government.

Second, there is absolutely no evidence that an independant Quebec would not uphold those agreements.

Third, Bernard Landry (former separatist PM of Quebec) was perfectly aware of the delicate nature of the issue: that's why he was keen on offering very generous partnerships with the natives (esp. those in the north). In doing this, he's sending a clear message: you've got no interest in dealing with the federal anyway, because we'll be more generous than they have been.

Parizeau and Landry are clever guys. I think most people underestimate them.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Odin
at Canadian politics.

The constitutional disputes can get interesting, at times.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

The constitutional disputes can get interesting, at times.

I wish it was that interesting here. more interest would stop the voter apathy BS here, as would a PR system.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Odin


I wish it was that interesting here. more interest would stop the voter apathy BS here, as would a PR system.

At least, the stakes are important.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Since the thread has just bumped, I'd like to mention that the idea of Quebecois racism towards the Crees and Inuits is ridiculous.

Bulllllllllllllllllll****.

The Natives signed a treaty with Canada/"The Crown", not Quebec. They are not toys of the French, to be used and moved about as the PQ wishes.

I'm not saying that all seperatists are anti-First-Nations, but I do think that the majority of them think of the Natives' concerns as secondary to their glorious revolution. I've seen too many separatists, when interviewed, say simply that the Natives "must come along" when the separation occurs. But that's just not good enough, I'm afraid.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by cinch

The Natives signed a treaty with Canada/"The Crown", not Quebec. They are not toys of the French, to be used and moved about as the PQ wishes.

And they are not toys of the federal neither. What they want is their rights to be recognized. They don't care much about who will be recognizing them, especially if the PQ shows willingness to discuss with them on good terms (BTW, the agreement concluded in 2003 is by far the most favorable one granted by a provincial government). Natives feel 'native', not Quebecois or Canadian. They aren't any more loyal to the crown than they would be to a Republic.

I'm not saying that all seperatists are anti-First-Nations, but I do think that the majority of them think of the Natives' concerns as secondary to their glorious revolution.

The separatist leaders know how delicate the issue is. You can't judge them from the herd's opinion.

I've seen too many separatists, when interviewed, say simply that the Natives "must come along" when the separation occurs. But that's just not good enough, I'm afraid.

As citizens of the Province of Quebec, I'm afraid they are subject to the authority of a referendum. I'm confident they can be convinced to come along willingly. They won't fight to be part of Canada, that's for sure. Maybe some kind of affiliation with Nunavut could be thought of.

The problem is, the land officially belongs to the 'State', who is in turn recognizing some ancestral rights to the natives- but the natives, themselves, are not part of the constitutional federation. They are forced to deal with whatever national entity will be holding the land they are cccupying. Quebec could even innovate on this, by recognizing the natives' rights in its new Constitution.

[joncha]

The national question is the key to understanding Canadian politics. From a Quebec point of view, Canada has two founding nations, french and english. Thus Quebec should get 50% of the pie. Most english canadians (especially "Westerners") view every province as being equal, meaning Quebec = Alberta and should get a 10% share of confederation. The result is an ugly compromise which neither side can accept, with Quebec generally recieving about one third (roughly matching its population).

Add to this mix the question of Native rights (which the courts have consistently upheld), and you begin to get an idea of the political dynamics.

Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party were creations of this conflict. The Bloc explicitly came together after the failure of the Charlottetown Accord, and Reform was an implicit reaction against both the spirit of Meech Lake and Charlottetown and against the increased Native militancy as symbolised by the military confrontation at Oka.

The "hardline" stance of Reform against these perceived threats attracted a disproportionate amount of bigots with other agendas (anti-gay, anti-immigration, etc.) to the party. The new Conservatives (and the Alliance before them) are still trying to shake that stink off as they become more and more mainstream.

For many on the left, the Liberals, although distasteful, provided a bulwark against the right wing. If 1993 election was about destroying the Progressive Conservatives (from all sides), 1997 was about keeping Reform out.

Canadian politics are only now shaking themselves out of the aftermath of the failed attempts of national reconciliation of the 1980s. From this point of view, the 2004/05 election should end up looking a lot like the 1988 election, but with the Liberals on top (and the Bloc with 20 or 30-odd seats).

The solution? Good question. The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that was struck after Oka called for a third house of parliament: a House of Nations. Add that to a triple-E senate and you've got the beginnings of a plan. But given the results of the last attempt at fixing the constitution, I doubt any politician would be willing to go near it any time in the next 20 years.

[/essay mode]

jon.