GG, Martin, PMO and Canada

[August1991]

Say what you will, Canadian domestic politics have been interesting for the past few decades, filled with complexity and drama. Most other countries can only boast about Left and Right wrangling. Ordinary Canadians may be boring, but our politics are not.

This GG nominee is another chapter in the saga. What do I think?

Well, first, there's Jean and her husband. He strikes me as a standard 1960s intellectual lefty, unreformed incarnation. He's probably an interesting person to talk to, but somewhat all over the map. I have no doubt that he supported intellectually Quebec independance (but did anyone else notice, in that now infamous quote, an ironic tone - "both hands raised, every St-Jean Baptiste parade".)

As for Jean, I suspect she too sympathized with Quebec independance. In the now infamous written denial, she included a special paragraph about her attachment to Quebec.

Why did she accept this GG proposal? She is an ambitious woman, and perhaps vain.

----

The real story though is what this nomination means about Martin, and about Canada.

I can see that Martin is trying to name someone who is "different", although in many respects Jean's another Adrienne Clarkson. Jean from Haiti met her husband from France, in Canada. They travel and feel comfortable in different milieux. Such people are rather common in Montreal. They are truly cosmopolitan. Fifty years ago, a mixed-race couple would turn heads. Now, it's not even mentioned - even when the couple might go to Rideau Hall. There is something wonderful about that, and it is true that Canada is one of the few places in the world where it is possible.

In addition, Martin is clearly trying to move Canada towards a Meech Lake accommodation with Quebec. Jean is a symbol of Quebec's distinctness. There is no question in my mind that Martin, Lapierre and Scherrer told Jean that she will represent Canada, but she is free to do it with a Quebecois flair.

I have often argued here that an autonomous or sovereign Quebec inside a united or confederal Canada is a viable solution to Canada's ongoing "crisis". So, in some ways, I think Jean is a good nominee.

At the same time, I don't know if this is the best way to go about solving Canada's problems. For one, there is too much hypocrisy in this nomination. I am disheartened to read that Jean dismissed her past views, and those of her husband, so curtly.

More seriously though, I agree too with Andrew Coyne. There should be no ambiguity about the loyalty of Canada's head of state. I think it is unfair and dishonest to English Canada to sneak this one through this way. In any case, a GG who went to a PQ rally in the past is one thing. It is quite another to have one whose husband made "objective" movies about the FLQ.

If there is to be any lasting understanding between English-speaking and French-speaking people in Canada, it must be based on honesty and trust - and a frank presentation of opinions.

Ultimately, Paul Martin has never plainly explained his view of Canada, and this is what bothers me. When Brian Mulroney brought Lucien Bouchard into his government, it was part of a transparent policy negotiated with Robert Bourassa.

William Johnson's favourable book about Stephen Harper turned on the same point of clarity.

----

The PMO is wrong to attack so virulently the people who started this story - the so-called "hard-line separatists". In a democracy, people have the obligation to question authority. Does a hard-line separatist not have the right to ask questions? Of course, they want to embarrass the Liberals by their questions. I sense too that they feel offended.

I am surprised that English Canada's Left is largely silent about these revelations, easily dismissing them. It seems that English Canada's so-called progressives are essentially a branch-plant of American "progressives". Anyone from an oppressed minority who speaks about oppressed minorities deserves support, regardless.

And lastly, I miss people like Pierre Trudeau and Rene Levesque. Canada no longer has forthright politicians who play hardball but do so intelligently, coherently and clearly. There was never any question about Trudeau's or Levesque's fundamental beliefs.

I came across this clip recently, and Trudeau's manner in explaining what the government was doing impressed me. It's somehow germane.

[crazymf]

If there is to be any lasting understanding between English-speaking and French-speaking people in Canada, it must be based on honesty and trust - and a frank presentation of opinions.

Yes. I don't speak any French, but didn't have one single problem with anyone last year travelling through Quebec.

The problem is we are 3000 miles away and it's easier to concentrate on media induced differences than to reassure each other we're the same face to face. I think that is human nature and is part of the Canadian problem.

[mirror]

The War Measures Act was overkill. I am not too sure what the alternatives were but we didn't need to have army personnel standing with their guns on street corners all over Montreal. A lot of innocent people got rounded up and held without being allowed to communicate. Why is it always the people on the left that get rounded up by the police? And then you wonder why there is little respect for the police. You shouldn't wonder, as it is pretty obvious why.

And what were the results of the WMA - Laporte was killed anyways.

[August1991]

The War Measures Act was overkill.

In hindsight, yes. But watching that speech, there is no question about Trudeau's conviction. And that was my point.

Pierre Trudeau would never have named Jean to be GG, point final.

----

There are other aspects of this nomination that bother me and they concern the reaction to questions about the nomination. Dany Laferriere wrote an opinion piece to La Presse that threatened violence in Montreal from the Haitian community if Jean was forced to withdraw her name. Alain Dubuc today claimed that a groupuscule of extreme separatists, ex-felquistes, had incited English red-necks, Legionnaires, to embarrass Jean, an honourable woman.

As to Laferriere, I don't like being forced to have an opinion. As to Dubuc, it is ironic that he declares marginal the critics of someone who makes documentaries about marginal critics.

End result? All Canadians are afraid to say anything. Legitimate debate is forbidden. To question or criticize this nomination is to conduct a witch hunt, un procès d'intention. A columnist or politician risks accusations of racism, of being unCanadian. What a curious term given that all the pequistes fell into line, from Harel to Boisclair, and said nothing about what had happened.

In fact, Martin and his office, Lapierre and Scherrer have made an absolute mess of this. Canada's GG is supposed to be an important figurehead for English Canada, acceptable to Quebec. With luck, the GG should make Canadians feel good about Canada. Audacity should be the only controversy in the nomination but an original audacity. English Canada so desperately needs legitimate symbols.

Instead, this nomination has simply provoked ugly controversy. Haitians in Montreal are angry. The Legion is angry. Trudeau Canadian federalists are angry. Many, many Canadians are upset, have an opinion, want to say something. Even English Canadian "progressives" wonder secretly. The nomination of a GG should not provoke such debate. It's supposed to be "feel-good".

Mess? It is truly ugly.

I have seen argued that Martin's true reason in this nomination is an astute move to split the sovereignists. Jean's nomination will provoke a divide between the "soft nationalists" and the "hard core separatists", les purzédurs. I think not. Does anyone believe that to get the support of ordinary Quebecers, the best way is to choose immigrants with European accents? (Don't get me wrong. I disagree completely with Louise Harel's economic opinions, but of all people, she is no racist.)

This nomination will simply re-affirm Parizeau's comment on the referendum night. The ethnic vote can apparently be bought.

For his own ambition, or perhaps his own vanity - a wish that he is somehow original - PM PM is not merely putting in peril Canada, he is putting in peril the good relations between ordinary Canadians.

For heaven's sakes, why didn't PM PM choose Jean Beliveau to be GG? As my grandmother would have said, now is not the time to go galavanting.

[Toro]

It seems that English Canada's so-called progressives are essentially a branch-plant of American "progressives". 

Well, Lefties, what do you think of this line? I think its great. The irony is beautiful. That goes in my sig.

I am amazed at how politically tone deaf Martin is. This is a bad political move. What did he gain, exactly? He appointed an immigrant - and immigrants are usually Liberal voters - from Montreal - who are also usually Liberal voters. What is the point? Did he think it would win him back some of the Quebecois vote? I have no idea, but aren't the Liberals way, way behind off the island of Montreal? Was he trying to win soft NDPers, the type who live in the Beaches area of Toronto? How many of those urban progressivers are there up for grabs anyways? The Tories, if they're smart - and they often aren't - should find a way to use this in the rural areas of Ontario and the Maritimes, the 905 belt and out West to batter Martin.

[newbie]

The War Measures Act was overkill.

End result? All Canadians are afraid to say anything. Legitimate debate is forbidden. To question or criticize this nomination is to conduct a witch hunt, un procès d'intention. A columnist or politician risks accusations of racism, of being unCanadian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what do you think should happen? Have Canadians publicly debate every appointment, every decision the PM makes? We'd get a lot of governing done that way. There has to come a point where discussion is over, where rumours and speculation cease. Where do you want to draw the line? I fear it is some people's hatred of this government that is clouding their minds and judgement. Michaelle Jean has made her statement. All leaders of all parties (correct me if I'm wrong) are okay with this recommendation. I see this as nothing but an anti-PM smear, clear and simple.

[shoop]

So what do you think should happen? Have Canadians publicly debate every appointment, every decision the PM makes? We'd get a lot of governing done that way. There has to come a point where discussion is over, where rumours and speculation cease. Where do you want to draw the line?  I fear it is some people's hatred of this government that is clouding their minds and judgement. Michaelle Jean has made her statement.  All leaders of all parties (correct me if I'm wrong) are okay with this recommendation. I see this as nothing but an anti-PM smear, clear and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There should be debate (parliamentary reveiw perhaps?) for ALL high level nominees.

This particular nomination was rushed and the process flawed.

It is clear that Martin picked her on a whim. For that reason the nomination should never have happened and it illustrates the need to change the process.

[Guest eureka]

There was more than your usual passion in tah, August. There was a lot less of your usual cool reasoning. There is no stifling of debate and no one is afraid to speak. The debate is going on visibly at every level of society. And, as Newbie says, it is not reasonable. There need be none and what there is, is nothing more than that fomented by some anti-Canadians.

I agree with you that Trudeau would never have made this appointment. He would have been far more provocative and would have been far more "in the Sovereignists face." I believe that this was an astute appointment and should not have been controversial. It is in the great tradition of compromise and the binding of communities.

[Guest eureka]

Toro, I would suggest that you give a little more consideration to the meaning of August's "great line" August does come up with many good lines, just not that one.

If this does have any effect on "progreesives," it will be a bonus. That bonus could translate into electorl benefit for the Liberals largely at the expense of the NDP. It does not require much of a shift in many ridings.

The Liberals do not have a stranglehold on Montreal either and this appointment could help in two or three ridings where brinkmanship is the game.

[Argus]

End result? All Canadians are afraid to say anything.  Legitimate debate is forbidden.  To question or criticize this nomination is to conduct a witch hunt, un procès d'intention. A columnist or politician risks accusations of racism, of being unCanadian.

But that is the liberal way, or at least it has been for some years. If you start with the assumption that everything done by liberals is for our own good, is done nobly and with the intention of making society better, freeing us of racism, sexism, and various other "isms", eliminating poverty, making all people equal, and all those other "feel good" notions, then any oposition, any questioning has to arise out of a hate of Canada, out of racism, bigotry, sexism, out of hatred for the poor, for immigrants, for women, etc. etc. We've seen this parotted repeatedly, to a greater or lessor extent, by the media, through academia and the chattering classes, for at least the last quarter century.

In fact, Martin and his office, Lapierre and Scherrer have made an absolute mess of this.  Canada's GG is supposed to be an important figurehead for English Canada, acceptable to Quebec.  With luck, the GG should make Canadians feel good about Canada.  Audacity should be the only controversy in the nomination but an original audacity. English Canada so desperately needs legitimate symbols.

Unfortunately, most of English Canada's symbols have come down through a history of our relationship with the UK and the British Crown, and so successive governments over the past quarter century have done everything in their power to eliminate them. Everything from the national flag to the national anthem to our national holiday have been changed to eliminate any reference to the Crown or to Canadian traditions. Go to a federal web site, look for the proper name of a department. You won't find it. They are never referenced as "minstry" any more. Now they are "departments", and referred to such throughout the media, as well. And royal crests are nowhere to be seen. All to appease Quebec. The whole idea for bringing our Constitution home was to appease Quebec and French Canadians who disliked the fact it still shackled us to the British.

And, of course, over the last 25 years there's been a whole new crowd to appease - immigrants. How can the federal govenrment of "all" Canadians, support those uniquely Canadian traditions which "new Canadians" have no attachment to? Especially when those "new Canadians" were, by government policy, being encouraged to retain their old cultural identities, symbols and behaviour? The cultural dictates of the liberals, small and large, over the past quarter century was that anything too traditional was chauvenistic. Besides, how could we take pride in them without suggesting they were better than someone else's traditions? And to suggest they were better would be a terrible insult to the "new Canadians" who were being told to continue to embrace those other traditions. Canadians aren't allowed to think their traditions and culture is better than anyone elses - except, of course, Americans.

For his own ambition, or perhaps his own vanity - a wish that he is somehow original - PM PM is not merely putting in peril Canada, he is putting in peril the good relations between ordinary Canadians.

I do not think Paul Martin either knows anything or cares anything about Canadians, no more than his predecessor. He is in it for personal power and ambition and glory and he cares not a whit about Canada or the "little people" who live here. I don't think Paul Martin even has any particular attachment to Canada. Ie, if Canada sank beneath the waves tomorrow with every Canadian aboard, Paul Martin wouldn't shed a tear - so long as he and his family could sale off to Bermuda on his fleet of foreign registered ships with his money intact. He would be greatly unhappy that he would not longer be known as the great man, no longer be greeted with fanfares around the world, no longer be able to strut, but that would be the level of his unhappiness.

For heaven's sakes, why didn't PM PM choose Jean Beliveau to be GG?  As my grandmother would have said, now is not the time to go galavanting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because if it comes to a question of what will be better for Canada and what will be better for Paul Martin Junior, it really isn't a question. Any more than it was with Jean Chretien.

[Leader Circle]

At least he didn't appoint Belinda Stronach! LOL Can she speak french?

Nothing would surprise me with this dumbass!

Waiting for the election!

[shoop]

At least he didn't appoint Belinda Stronach! LOL Can she speak french?

Nothing would surprise me with this dumbass!

Waiting for the election!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stronach was terrible. Goodbye and good riddance.

[mirror]

Actually considering her position now as a cabinet minister Belinda is probably killing herself laughing at poor Stevie's problems these days, don'tcha think!

[shoop]

Actually considering her position now as a cabinet minister Belinda is probably killing herself laughing at poor Stevie's problems these days, don'tcha think! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, not at all. There was no reason for her to give up millions of dollars a year as

head of Magna unless she was going to become PM.

She'll never do that with the Liberals. Woo hoo, her best case will be to get another portfolio for six months or so IF PM Dithers squeaks out another minority.

Once a leadership review is held she'll be swept outta cabinet by the unlucky sap who replaces Martin.

Worst case for poor Belinda, Harper wins and she gets to pine across the aisle at former love, current Deputy PM Peter....

[mirror]

Stronach leaving the Conervatives is one of Harper's biggest failures as leader, because Belinda was one of the few people in the Conservative caucus that gave the party credibility with middle of the road Canadians, and I'm sure is responsible for some of the loss of support for the Conservatives in the polls.

[August1991]

Getting back to this thread title (I suspect some people still care but no-one risks saying anything), R-C had Pratte (La Presse) and Laferriere on this morning to discuss the aftermath of this nomination. (That's like inviting Albright and Gore to talk about Bill Clinton's scandals.)

Surprisingly, much of the discussion concerned how English-Canada (Canada) would perceive Jean and this controversy.

In addition, Laferriere explained the context of the famous dinner party (where he also was a guest). At the time, Lafrerriere advanced that there are three ways to obtain independence: the Martinique way, the Haitian way and the Quebec way. The Martinique way is to infiltrate the metropole and insinuate one's way into power. The Haitian way is to take it and run. And the Quebec way is to negotiate.

Hearing this, Jean gave the quote heard on the documentary, «l'indépendance, ça ne se donne pas, ça se prend».

[shoop]

Getting back to this thread title (I suspect some people still care but no-one risks saying anything), R-C had Pratte (La Presse) and Laferriere on this morning to discuss the aftermath of this nomination.  (That's like inviting Albright and Gore to talk about Bill Clinton's scandals.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry for getting sucked into Mirror's thread hijack.

Must admit I have basically no knowledge of French-Canadian political commentators. Would Pratte and LaFerriere be apologists for Martin or for the Sovereigntist side?

[mirror]

This GG issue is dead and burried.

What the Cons need to do is focus on what they can do for Canadians in the future. The rest of Canada can figure out on their own when and where the Liberals are screwing up, and we don't need the Cons to tell us.

Conservatives still haven't quite got it. Negative politcs may sell in the big ole fundementalist Christian USA, but they come across as anti-Canadian and just turn people off in Canada.

I remember when Trudeau was in power. Canada was ALIVE! Canadians are longing for some kind of positive excitement from their politicians. Why don't the Cons trying suggesting some?

I think if you asked people in Canada what the Cons meant to them they would respond by saying:

They don't like SSM

They don't like gun protection

They don't like Canda but they like the US

They don't like any religions except fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

They don't like Canada's health care system

They don't like teachers NOR the public school system

They don't like the poor

Get it!

[August1991]

This GG issue is dead and burried.

Then why did Radio-Canada have a 45 minute discussion about it this morning? (Oh right. R-C is not commercial... )

I remember when Trudeau was in power. Canada was ALIVE! Canadians are longing for some kind of positive excitement from their politicians. Why don't the Cons trying suggesting some?

And the way to change the current situation is to appoint someone whom Trudeau would never have appointed.

They don't like SSM

They don't like gun protection

They don't like Canda but they like the US

They don't like any religions except fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

They don't like Canada's health care system

They don't like teachers NOR the public school system

They don't like the poor

All those points concern image or impressions. Perception.

In the context of Quebec, Pierre Trudeau wrote about La nouvelle trahison des clercs (or how ordinary people often know better than the elites). He certainly used this principle in politics.

IME too, Canadians can see beyond facile image and impressions.

[mirror]

What woul Harper do if he gets into the position that Martin is presently in?

Fire the GG.

I doubt it very much and he certainly hasn't suggested otherwise.

Come off it.

All I'm say is if they the Cons don't latch onto something positive soon which is going to appeal to, not you August, but the average Canadian, they are going to smoked so badly, it will make your head spin.

Canadians are looking for policies that are going to help the average Canadian, not the me, me, me of the rich, who don't need any financial help whatosever from our governments.

[mirror]

RC Media. From what I understand RC is filled with separatists so who cares what their negative opinions about Canada are.

Hearing this, Jean gave the quote heard on the documentary, «l'indépendance, ça ne se donne pas, ça se prend».

I thought it was her husband who said that, whatever.

That quote reminds of the flag burning incident in Brockville. I think it was played thousands of times over Quebec media to incite the people into voting for sovereignty. Really sick stuff and that quote above I have heard so many times it is beginning to remind me of those sick flag tactics used by, was it Levesque?

We really need to lose the paranoia going on in this country about a terrorist around every corner. We haven't been attacked and we probably won't be. How many billions, is it $10 billion, we have already spent for some BS security? If we get attacked we'll deal with it like we deal with every other crisis we have.

Chill man.

[August1991]

Must admit I have basically no knowledge of French-Canadian political commentators. Would Pratte and LaFerriere be apologists for Martin or for the Sovereigntist side?

Pratte is a good journalist and a slippery federalist. Laferriere is just a good writer. Pratte is the Editor-in-Chief of a newspaper owned by Power Corporation. I think he is sympathetic to PM PM, but very intelligent in his sympathies. (My call.) Laferriere is a good writer - and he probably knows that he writes best, as Twain said, when he tells the truth - and not what he thinks the truth should be. (Laferriere is funny, and entertaining in an intelligent way. Pratte's style also invites.)

I think Pratte is helping Dithers professionally; I suspect Laferriere is helping Jean personally.

----

As to your knowledge of French-Canadian commentators, don't be ashamed. I'm confused (and astonished) that editorials in English language newspapers are not signed. I prefer to see how the editorial board divides - like a Supreme Court.

[shoop]

Pratte is a good journalist and a slippery federalist.  Laferriere is just a good writer.  Pratte is the Editor-in-Chief of a newspaper owned by Power Corporation.  I think he is sympathetic to PM PM, but very intelligent in his sympathies. (My call.)  Laferriere is a good writer - and he probably knows that he writes best, as Twain said, when he tells the truth - and not what he thinks the truth should be.  (Laferriere is funny, and entertaining in an intelligent way. Pratte's style also invites.)

I think Pratte is helping Dithers professionally; I suspect Laferriere is helping Jean personally.

----

As to your knowledge of French-Canadian commentators, don't be ashamed.  I'm confused (and astonished) that editorials in English language newspapers are not signed.  I prefer to see how the editorial board divides - like a Supreme Court.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I see where you are coming from. From your description I don't really know if the analogy it Albright-Gore-Clinton is really apt.

ps, the issue is alive for many people. Just because certain posters attack, attack, attack there is no reason to pay heed to their negativity if they aren't going ot make rational comments or respect the rules of the forum. A PM to Greg over the "chill man" attack/post could be in order.

[mirror]

A PM to Greg over the "chill man" attack/post could be in order.

How many times do you need to be told?:

MYOB!