[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

The anti-Quebec animus was also not so superficial as BB recalls, the major policy issue of the day that drove a lot of Western PC members into the arms of the Reform party was the strong stand the Reform party took against the Meech Lake accords.

During the Meech Lake debate Reform was pretty fringe, but growing.

What drove Reform though was taking a strong view against Charlottetown, and actively campaigning for the "No" side in the subsequent referendum.  I think it's hard to say that being against Charlottetown was anti-Quebec however - the no side won pretty decidedly across Canada.

You could be anti-Charlottetown without being anti-Quebec, sure. But if you were anti-Quebec, you threw your you voice in with the anti-Charlottetown voices. And being anti-Quebec was absolutely a significant feature of the political landscape at the time. That the "No to Charlottetown" side won doesn't show that there was no anti-Quebec sentiment.

[Jacob]

No, that's what it means & shows. A fuck ton of hypocrites that voted against us & then show up to beg us to stay in their country and, years later, have a RoC party pull out ads where they Xed Quebec politicians.

This fuckin' country. 

I have to agree with your take here.

[viper37]

The opposition parties were highly critical of the ad, enough so that Reform stopped running it.

Here's the thing though - it was factually true.  All those politicians were from Quebec, and Quebec had dominated the federal scene for a long time.  Heck out of the last 50 years, how many years have we had a non-Quebec Prime Minister?   Other than Harper's time (9 years), all we have are the very brief times of Joe Clark and Kim Campbell.  I was going to add Paul Martin, but remembered he was from Quebec as well.  Heck even John Turner - probably not a "Quebec politician", but he was an MP from Montreal earlier in his career.

Paul Martin is Ontarian.
I count 6 PM out of 12 from Quebec since 1948.

MacKenzie-King was elected PM because he promised to oppose conscription than double back on it and severely repressed any opposition to it in Quebec.

Then it was St-Laurent's turn to patch things up.  He was Canada's second French Prime Minister after Wilfrid Laurier.  Clearly too many French politicians.  Got to keep 'em in their place, as the Reform said.  Can't have the Frenchies develop any ideas, or next thing you know, they'll rule the country as equal.  Can't have that, now?

Diefenbaker.  Not from Quebec, not francophone.

Lester B. Pearson.  Not from Quebec, not francophone. Loyal subject of her Majesty.

Pierre Trudeau.  From Quebec and French speaking.  Hated his fellow Québécois, considered them small people, worthless.  Qualified Robert Bourassa, former Quebec Premier, mostly seen as the architect of James Bay development and a man of culture of "hot dog eater".

Joe Clark.  Francophile, but not from Quebec.  Hard to argue he would qualify for the list as in "too many from Quebec, or too many French speaking politicians".

John Turner.  Liberal politician from English Canada.

Brian Mulroney.  From Quebec, but anglophone politician.  The Conservative Party never elected a French Canadian as its leader.

Kim Campbell, not from Quebec.

Jean Chrétien.  Spiritual son of Pierre-Elliot Trudeau.  Hated Quebec.  Got elected in New Brunswick for his first election for fear of losing.  Only once the CPC got ridden with scandals (mostly overblown), the unpopular GST, the anti-FTA propaganda from the union and the sabotage of the Lake Meech accord from the Libs did Chrétien was able to come back in his own Shawinigan riding to get elected.  Oh, did I mention he hated Quebec and its people?  He considered us inferiors, worthless, just like Trudeau.

Paul Martin.  Franco-Ontarian.  He was a lawyer, so one of the good guys, I guess?

Stephen Harper.  Smart & ruthless politician.  I liked him.  Originally from Quebec, I think?  Or he studied in Montreal?  Does it count in the list even though he spent most of his career in Alberta? :roll:

Justin Trudeau.  Hates Quebec as much as his father.  Considers us inferior to the Anglo-Saxon elites.  Is elected in Quebec because he's in a safe riding in Montreal where a pig in a red tie could get elected.  Has nothing but contempt for the French speakers.  Considers official bilinguism to be tribalism and believes assimilation is a way to elevate the French populace to its superior destiny.  has benefited from its father shady deals to acquire public lands for 1$ that has been resold for millions of $$$.  Close to the Desmarais family of Power Corp that also hates Quebecers and consider them inferior, but less so than the now deceased Ontarian patriarch.


All of the Prime Ministers before them, save for Laurier were from English Canada.

I don't know where that too "many politicians from Quebec" or "too many prime ministers from Quebec" comes from".  It's a very selective reading of Canadian history.  It's like saying in 2015 that there's been "too many Conservative Prime Ministers in Canada".

[Barrister]

The anti-Quebec animus was also not so superficial as BB recalls, the major policy issue of the day that drove a lot of Western PC members into the arms of the Reform party was the strong stand the Reform party took against the Meech Lake accords.

During the Meech Lake debate Reform was pretty fringe, but growing.

What drove Reform though was taking a strong view against Charlottetown, and actively campaigning for the "No" side in the subsequent referendum.  I think it's hard to say that being against Charlottetown was anti-Quebec however - the no side won pretty decidedly across Canada.

You could be anti-Charlottetown without being anti-Quebec, sure. But if you were anti-Quebec, you threw your you voice in with the anti-Charlottetown voices. And being anti-Quebec was absolutely a significant feature of the political landscape at the time. That the "No to Charlottetown" side won doesn't show that there was no anti-Quebec sentiment.

I didn't expect to get into a debate on 1992 Canadian politics, but here we go...

Looking at Wiki to remember some of the details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottetown_Accord

Reform's opposition to Charlottetown is summarized here as being

-opposition to special status for Quebec
-opposition to a 25% guarantee for seats in Quebec
-senate reform didn't go far enough

As I recall there was more to it than just that, but that's good enough shorthand.

I think you can make a principled argument against special status for Quebec, and against guaranteeing seats for Quebec even if that doesn't reflect population, without being "anti-Quebec".

And for what it's worth - Quebec itself voted against Charlottetown as well, with a 56% no vote.

[Barrister]

And Viper - I don't know what to make of your assessment where you A: write off anglo-Quebecers like Mulroney and Martin as not being francophone, then B: say that all the francophone Quebecers secretly all hate french speakers.

[Barrister]

Amusing or offensive - you be the judge.

The other day in Parliament, Pierre Poilievre asks a question about ArriveScan - and uses the phrase "WTF".  The Speaker calls him on it, Poilievre says it stands for "Where's the Funds".  Speaker still says it's unparliamentary.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2309035587862

Conservatives are now selling Poilievre "Where's the Funds" t-shirts.

[HVC]

No true quebecer

[HVC]

Amusing or offensive - you be the judge.

Trump of the North

[crazy canuck]

Amusing or offensive - you be the judge.

The other day in Parliament, Pierre Poilievre asks a question about ArriveScan - and uses the phrase "WTF".  The Speaker calls him on it, Poilievre says it stands for "Where's the Funds".  Speaker still says it's unparliamentary.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2309035587862

Conservatives are now selling Poilievre "Where's the Funds" t-shirts.

Its this childish bullshit that might undue him. 

[Oexmelin]

And for what it's worth - Quebec itself voted against Charlottetown as well, with a 56% no vote.

Quebec rejected it because it wasn't going far enough. The RoC rejected it because it went too far.

[Jacob]

Amusing or offensive - you be the judge.

The other day in Parliament, Pierre Poilievre asks a question about ArriveScan - and uses the phrase "WTF".  The Speaker calls him on it, Poilievre says it stands for "Where's the Funds".  Speaker still says it's unparliamentary.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2309035587862

Conservatives are now selling Poilievre "Where's the Funds" t-shirts.

It's "cute". Whether you like it or not depends on whether you're inclined to like Poilievre in the first place, I expect.

[Barrister]

Amusing or offensive - you be the judge.

The other day in Parliament, Pierre Poilievre asks a question about ArriveScan - and uses the phrase "WTF".  The Speaker calls him on it, Poilievre says it stands for "Where's the Funds".  Speaker still says it's unparliamentary.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2309035587862

Conservatives are now selling Poilievre "Where's the Funds" t-shirts.

It's "cute". Whether you like it or not depends on whether you're inclined to like Poilievre in the first place, I expect.

So I mean I don't really love it.  Poilievre clearly knew what he was doing and it was a prepared line.  I'd prefer leaders carried themselves with a bit more dignity.

But I also suspect it will go over pretty well.  It's that idea of "Trump without Trump".  People liked how Trump "didn't talk like a politician", and a little bit of profanity is seen as almost amusing.  So in this I disagree with CC - stunts like this will almost certainly not undo Poilievre.

[crazy canuck]

It reminds people that the Conservatives are led by people who have never done anything in life other than being politicians.  That sort of behaviour would not be acceptable in any board room, factory floor or office space.  But for some reason the Conservatives think this kind of juvenile behaviour makes them look good.

Got to question the maturity of the person who says he is ready to be the Prime Minister when he does something a high school student should be ashamed of.

[Jacob]

But I also suspect it will go over pretty well.  It's that idea of "Trump without Trump".  People liked how Trump "didn't talk like a politician", and a little bit of profanity is seen as almost amusing.  So in this I disagree with CC - stunts like this will almost certainly not undo Poilievre.

I think you're right that this is a calculated strategy to be "Trump without Trump."

[Barrister]

It reminds people that the Conservatives are led by people who have never done anything in life other than being politicians.  That sort of behaviour would not be acceptable in any board room, factory floor or office space.  But for some reason the Conservatives think this kind of juvenile behaviour makes them look good.

Got to question the maturity of the person who says he is ready to be the Prime Minister when he does something a high school student should be ashamed of.

I think you're holding Poilievre to some kind of impossible standard.

Even well before Trump - people don't want a politician who is at home in a board room.  They want someone who acts like they do.  Think why Doug Ford is popular, or Ralph Klein before him.  I think even Trudeau had a kind of easy charm about him early on (and one I think he's lost, by the way).