Pierre Elliott Trudeau: a man who was ahead of his time

[Yeah_Baby]

I think I might go as far to say that the struggle to define federalism in the Canadian context predates Confederation.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by redforever

Sorry, that is simply the state of world politics. This is nothing new and certainly can not be attributed to PET.

How many countries, including Canada, are presently friends with Saudi Arabia and other countries where it is common knowledge that women simply do not count in society, or are friends of countries where honor killings are still accepted, and the list goes on?

If you go by your standards, we would have diplomatic relations with very few countries in this world.

Do you understand what agree to disagree means?

Btw I was referring to a personal friendship that Trudeau had with Castro that went beyond his duties as a PM.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Dion

Do you understand what agree to disagree means?

Absolutely.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by redforever

Absolutely.

Then why continue the debate?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

Trudeau was absolutely hated around my house growing up; looking back he isn't as big a villain as I thought at the time, but his flaw was always that he thought he was smarter than everybody else. His vision of a more centralized Canada was never a workable one, but he was unable to see that his continual drive to increase the power of the federal government would eventually end up bringing the nation to the brink of dissolution. His arrogance nearly cost the nation its very existence and that is what is truly unforgivable.

Wow.

You're like me.....with bigger words.

[Cactus Jack]

Robert Borden was also one of Canada's most divisive PMs. He furthered our profile of independence in the first world war with our great battles (Vimy Ridge, Belgium, etc), demanded respect from the English and under him Canada had its own seat at the league of nations. However, he fought under obligation from Britain at the beginning of WW1, organized most of the military only in English, brought in conscription which raised the ire of the French Canadians and cracked down hard on demonstrations.

[Cactus Jack]

People don't realize how similar Alberta and Quebec are politically. They are Canada's extreme right, Alberta is Canada's Republican heartland. Look at Canada's history, the French were repressed and denied basic civil freedoms and liberties for hundreds of years by the english that wouldn't fly today. Don't you think that causes resentment? As bad as the NEP was, imagine living with that for centuries. If that made Alberta so bitter, you can begin to understand the French. And I'm a proud Calgarian but I am a Canadian first and foremost.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day, he gave the province of Quebec its sense of entitlement, the sovereignty question was never solved, and to an extent was accelerated thanks to Trudeau.

Perhaps he did but he fought fire with fire and despite rocky relations Canada still stands as it always has.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I'll play the devil's advocate - What would this country be like without Quebec? Would it really be all that bad?

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

1. This country would be fine without Quebec.
2. No it would not.

Canada would be a brutal place without Quebec. The French were the only ones with balls to brave the winters and start colonies here. The vikings and English didn't want to. Without the French, we're Americans and Canada doens't exist.

Without Quebec, nature aside, how interesting is Canada? Apart from Toronto and perhaps Vancouver, you have average cities like Cgy, Edm, Ott, Win, Halifax and a million small towns. Quebec is the most politically active, vibrant, educated and multicultural city in Canada.

Look at all the cultural icons that have come from Quebec (Bombardier, Air Canada, Molson, Cirque do Soleil, the Habs, the world's largest winter carnival, the Just for Laughs Festival, the Montreal Jazz festival, etc).

They have far and away the best night life, the most intersting and historic cities, the hottest girls and most cosmopolitan life.

People that on Quebec hate Quebec for the same reason people hate Alberta. The sooner we realize that, the more unified Canada will become.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The funny thing about Alberta and Quebec, is that they both play up the victim as much as possible. When talking about dislike for the Liberal party, many older people in Alberta (or their kids) will mention how they can't forget what happened in the 70s with Trudeau. People in Quebec love to point out how before the 1970s, Quebec was dominated by the English and were 2nd class in their own province. Quebec was essentially a conquered territory and as such, was treated with a colonial attitude until Trudeau came to power.

If Alberta still has a case for being distrustful of the Liberals and feel alienated by the party, then Quebec still has a case to made when taking extremes to protect their culture. Personally, I think both are living in the past and believe in conspiracies that no longer exist (if they ever really did).

Originally Posted by flamesfever

No.

IMO the way the metric system was brought in in Canada is, and always will be, a huge pain in the a$$ for Canadians as long as the US keeps using the imperial system.

I believe there should have been much more effort to coordinate the move from imperial to metric with the US. However, Trudeau and the Liberals were much more inclined to go it alone.

I wonder what the cost has been, and continues to be, in terms of money, time, and human effort to convert back and forth from metric to imperial. As a geologist, I know what it has meant for me.

And I am not debating what is the better system. Obviously metric makes more sense in the long run, but let's face it, the imperial system will always be with us to some degree.

Originally Posted by Lchoy

It's interesting how we have the metric system in Canada, but when asked how much you weigh or how tall you are, most people reply back in lbs and feet/inches. My European friends always thought that was weird when I was over there

If the US is stupid enough to continue using the Imperial system that is their problem. While it is a good point that the US influence makes us measure personal weight and height in the old system, most Canadians don't use ounces, miles, yards, quarts, gallons, furlongs, etc. I make a concerted effort to use the metric system because it is the only logical system. We Canadians are bilingual when it comes to both systems.

I guess what I am trying to say is I am a proud Canadian first and Calgarian second.

[Royal Eagle]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I think I might go as far to say that the struggle to define federalism in the Canadian context predates Confederation.

Modern federalism in most countries, in general, is not all that far from the imperial federalism of ancient Rome, which imposed the empire’s hegemony on conquered cities while leaving them with a respectable degree of internal autonomy. Our idea of federal equilibrium fails to capture that disiquilibria are common, especially financial/economical balance between the provinces.

Our Constitution was made more than 140 years ago, during the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences in the mid-1860s. The main purpose of that agreement was to build one country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and compete against the United States. Healthcare and Education were provided by the nuns, whereas building railrods were one of the main priorities of a central state. Canada would be consitued later, in 1867, as a dominion of the British Empire, a state with complete autonomy in internal affairs but with limited autonomy in foreign relations, as London would legislate international treaties for Canada and other similar dominions.

The founding fathers of Canada(John Macdonald, George Brown, etc)believed that the Canadian constitution of 1867 would carry forward the progress of the Glorious Revolution of 1688
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
It can be argued that James's overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: never again would the monarch hold absolute power, and the Bill of Rights became one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain. The deposition of the Roman Catholic James II ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England, and also led to limited toleration for nonconformist Protestants—it would be some time before they had full political rights. For Catholics, however, it was disastrous both socially and politically. Catholics were denied the right to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament for over 100 years afterwards. They were also denied commissions in the British army and the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or marry a Catholic, thus ensuring the Protestant succession.

[...]

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is considered by some as being one of the most important events in the long evolution of the respective powers of Parliament and the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights, it stamped out once and for all any possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms by circumscribing the monarch's powers. These powers were greatly restricted; he or she could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's permission. Since 1689, government under a system of constitutional monarchy in England, and later the United Kingdom, has been uninterrupted. Since then, Parliament's power has steadily increased while the Crown's has steadily declined.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The founding fathers wanted to grant to Quebec and other provinces who would join the Confederation later, a status similar to that of Scotland in the United Kingdom (Treaty of Union of 1706 and Acts of Union of 1707, c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707). Full text of the act here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707) Even John A. Macdonald, from Scottish descent, thought that was the way to do it.
Lower Canada (Quebec) saw Confederation as an act of secession/retrocession that would free Quebec from the overarching union of 1840, not the contrary. They agreed to Confederation provided that Legislatures would be as large as possible.


I've recently read a book of that who discussed this aspect in school. It's in french though:

Quote:
Il va sans dire que toujours, lorsque nous parlons des diverses provinces, nous séparons le Haut-Canada du Bas-Canada et que nous les comptons comme deux provinces entièrement distinctes : dans la question actuelle il est évident que l’Union des deux Canadas est et demeure comme non avenue.

[...]

Par la distribution des pouvoirs que nous avons proposée, les législatures séparées seraient du coup aussi indépendantes que si elles faisaient parties (sic) d’un état constitué à part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This context is perhaps favourable to implement a nationalist/separatist discourse. In Quebec, autonomy is more important than interdependence.


And then, since 1950s, you have views of a centralized government bore by the Trudeauists... I'm not debating here whether that view is right or wrong (well, I think that if Canada was only one nation, with one language, with one united culture, and without the actual Constitution Act of 1867, Trudeau's views were great. But since he did not considered those elements in his theory... FAIL), but doing something you can't "legally" do although it might be morally good for the majority can certainly awake a "We want the control of our province" dream for Albertans, Quebeckers, and other inhabitants of any provinces.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're like me.....with bigger words.

And taller!

Originally Posted by Royal Eagle

(Big block of text)

I read it and find it interesting, but if you keep it under 4 paragraphs it'll generate more interest. Many people here are easily distracted by shiny things.

[Resolute 14]

tl;dr

(just to prove jammies' point)

[bcb]

Royal Eagle, you newbie! You shouldn't assume folks on here understand french or any other international language.

We're not cosmopolitan, you know