Publius explains, a superb post. And, despite all the high-powered endorsements, one is pretty confident most of the major media will manage to ignore the book under consideration–the Globe and Mail’s “Report on Business” an exception.
Publius explains, a superb post. And, despite all the high-powered endorsements, one is pretty confident most of the major media will manage to ignore the book under consideration–the Globe and Mail’s “Report on Business” an exception.
One of the more positive developments is that of blogs such as this which get the “news” out that major media found convenient to ignore. This sounds like a book well worth reading. Thanks.
It took a life time, but it is all starting to happen.
I hope I live long enough to see the day Canada’s bloggers receive the recognition they deserve for saving democracy – saving democracy from the media’s Pravda bent.
A very interesting view of how things may pan out in Canada. Stuck at 75 Quebec? How will the Liberals see to repairing that low birth rate?
This is a basic and accurate analysis of Canada, which remained frozen in a WWII view of Canada with a total population of 11 million, which was focused in Ontario-Quebec, each with an equivalent population of about 4 million – with the rest of that 11 million deemed irrelevant in ‘the peripheries’.
Canada was, at this time, essentially governed AS those two provinces. The emergence of Quebec nationalism in this same post WWII era moved the dominance of governance into Quebec, particularly with the Charter, which is primarily about the introduction of bilingualism into our government. This set up a governing infrastructure that established an Ottawa-Montreal elite, for government was out of the linguistic reach of the over 80% of the population who were not bilingual.
That was the infrastructure that was set up. Then, reality moved in. The West opened up economically and demographically. The population shifted. Ontario moved to a population of over 12 million while Quebec remained at 7 million. And the West moved to over 7 million. But, Ottawa continued to govern AS IF the old Ontario-Quebec centrality was the reality, and as a bilingual nation when, in reality, we are not bilingual.
Quebec does not like losing its dominant role in Ottawa politics; it will fight the 2011 distribution of seats which will see the West getting at least 11 more House seats because of its population. Quebec’s seat numbers, 75 guaranteed in the Constitution, will no longer function as the key-to-a-majority.
Guess we will have to read his book to find out more about his take on the socialised medicine factor in Big Government. Canadians are too comfortable with the government taking care of them.
In the vid at the link he refers to the shift from founding principles and ethics, similar to Gairdner’s book “The Trouble With Canada”.I see Gairdner is on board in recommending his book.That gets my attention.
Is it possible to swing back to a truly libertarian-conservative Canada?
The Party of “I” If-fy said:
>>> “*If you put the party first, you never lose,” he told reporters.”
Iggy’s advice to Canada and Canadians: forget Canada.
Put your loyalty in “I”-If-fy and his Liberal Party.
…-
*”Key to beating Tories is loyalty, Ignatieff tells Liberals”
urlm.in/ddnb
ET:
Your analysis is correct in a qualitative sense. The data indicates why there are stresses in the Federation that is based upon the old model. However, your quantitative data is a little off; the data does not invalidate your analysis – it amplifies it.
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm
Quebec 7.8m
Ontario 12.9m
West 10.1m all 4 provinces
AB/BC 7.9m
Now consider the distribution of Parliamentary seats
Quebec 75
Ontario 106
West 92
AB/BC 64
So AB/BC with slightly more population than Quebec has 15% fewer seats.
Brent:
Beat me to it. Quebec’s self-important stance and its domination of national politics is diminishing and one of the reasons is its low birth rate.
Even with the planned redistribution, AB/BC will still be under-represented. That’s because the 2011 census will show an even larger population shift.
It’s only a matter of time before Quebec will make itself irrelevant.
That was a very informative read. Puts a little more meat on my bones of contention, so to speak.
I had to leave Canada and live in the USA before I really appreciated the extent to which the game is rigged in this country. You really can’t get anything going without buddies in high places around here.
Witness Canada’s only big time international success story created in the last 20 years is RIM. They were a little geeky gadget company that snuck under the radar long enough to get big. The Americans spin one of those off every year or two.
Not the the USA doesn’t have its problems for sure, but having your entrepreneurs and businesses deliberately and systematically SQUASHED by all levels of government isn’t one of them.
This is why I always say “tax cut now please!” There’s really nothing wrong with this country that couldn’t be solved by cutting total tax levels back to 15% of gross income. Currently we run about 50% to 60% on average, according to the Frazer Inst.
Because you know, at 15% tax rates you can afford insurance. And food!
I will be looking for this book at the local Chapters; that’s if Heather doesn’t ban it.
Anyone think that either of the two major parties might attempt to institute footdragging to chronically delay the adding of new parliamentary seats in the west and non-GTA Ontario? All to appease Quebec separatists? Norman Spector recently proposed this very thing on his blog.
Being from Alberta I won’t attempt to prognosticate on the reaction in Ontario. But out here western separatists and semi-separatists would be doing backflips.
The book seems to be approaching the things from purely economic POV, discounting the role of criminal gang of socialists, who ran the country ever since, doing nothing but lining their pockets.
I don’t know Bart. Toronto has been publicly asking for more seats. It may have escaped them that would also mean more seats somewhere else. It also would mean the choice of where the ridings go would not be theirs but rather of the Federal Government. It would turn into a Lib vs Lib situation.
How to set it right? Like I tell my kids, don’t dwell on the problem, work toward a solution.
A more reasonable representation by population would be a good start.
There are disparities in other parts of this country, notably PEI, which has the population of West Edmonton Mall on a busy day.
syf:
That’s because the 2011 census will show an even larger population shift.
Agreed. The numbers I cited are from the 2001 census. We all have a general idea how populations have changed since then.
As far as Quebec making itself irrelevant, it need not be so. However, as long as the Bloc remains a contender, Quebec will become more irrelevant. The math is simple: Quebec has about 24% of the seats in Parliament. Let’s say that the Bloc takes 2/3 of the seats in an average election. That leaves 1/3 of the Quebec seats or 8% of the national total up for grabs. It seems to me that there is much too much political investment in Quebec considering the potential returns.
I suppose some of that political investment is spent in the hopes of eating into the Bloc support. However, I think that Mr. Manning was correct (once again) when he said that Quebec first needs to decide what kind of relationship it wants with Canada rather than the other way around.
The author was on rutherford (radio show in AB) a couple of weeks ago and I called and got into it a bit on some of his assertions – nothing major.
He does however miss a very big part of the appeasement of Que in the sixties – supply management in Dairy, poultry and Eggs. Without SM all of those sectors would have been decimated in quebec with the advent of mechanization putting them at a huge competitieve disadvantage compared to lower feed cost Western Canada. Displaced farm workers were already moving to Montreal and becoming radicalized, if SM had not happened the flow would have turned into a torrent with – in the eyes of the politicians at the time – disastrous social upheaval and an even stronger separatist movement. Krowley apparently says nothing about this in his book.
SM is also a big part of the reason behind the separatists insisting on Sovereignty Association rather than outright separation as they argue that under SA they will be able to maintain SM sales to the ROC. Perhaps ironically the SM lobby groups in Que are some of the most vociferous SA supporteres in all of Que.
set you free – as you say, yet again we see the consequences of not replenishing a population. Chretien himself was 18th of 19 kids(!) – although ten didn’t survive infancy.
Looking around my neighbourhood, I don’t see too much of that, and I’m sure those large families aren’t that common in Quebec anymore
What Gord T said.
Brent – yes, you are right. I was, with my 7 million (and I couldn’t find my stats sheet) referring to only the prairie provinces. Not including BC.
The point is that the West – prairies and BC – have been underrepresented in parliament. The 2011 distribution will change that. And Quebec is not going to like losing its lynch-pin status.
It has, however, already lost it, with the insane and inane introduction of the Bloc. How anyone could be so utterly stupid as to allow a province to have their own confined-to-that-province federal political party – well, it’s beyond me. Naturally that party irrespective of its ideology, becomes the default party of the province.
And yes, Gord Tulk, the ‘favoured-province’ introduction of ‘supply management’ which enabled Quebec to have dairy farms and other provinces to be disallowed such industries – is another important issue.
I suspect the argument of “IF we don’t do this for Quebec, THEN, they’ll separate’ was and remains a totally false argument economically and ideologically– but it enabled the political elite in Ottawa to maintain Quebecers in its voting block. It’s called Pork Politics as I’m sure you know.
But, the demographic reality trumps ideology, and Quebec is going to lose that status. I’m speculating but I think that this will actually lead to the gradual demise of the Bloc.
Quebec will have to be part of the federation, rather than the federation being part of Quebec.
The theft of jobs and $$$$$ from the ROC by quebec using the dairy marketing boards is the same as the CWB, scum stealing from hard working people so there buddies make extra $$$$.
If the dairy farms in quebec couldn’t make it on there own why does the ROC have to suffer for it?
As one of the resident Christians here, I notice that the role of faith and the Church — specifically, Canadians’ mass abandonment of the foundational faith of our forefathers and mothers — seem to have been glossed over.
While I totally agree that the breakdown of the family is a number-one factor in how and why Canada has gone wrong, one of the most salient underlying reasons for the epidemic of family breakdowns is the rejection in our secular society of the Judeo-Christian faith which was the underpinning of Canada’s “traditional” and foundational values.
It’s a point that most Canadians don’t want to deal with — but just because it’s unpalatable, and doesn’t sit well with many Canadians, that doesn’t mean it can be swept under the carpet. Failure to deal with first things usually means a faulty diagnosis and an incomplete prescription for wellness.
Gord Tulk & FREE,
A small point re: the definition of ROC: this has always stuck in my craw. IMO, Quebec is the ROC and we are Canada. ROC was born out of a political agenda described in Jock V. Andrew’s 1977 book “Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow: Trudeau’s Master Plan and How It Can Be Stopped”. English Canada was marginalized and was to bend over and take it.
My time, today, doesn’t allow me to follow-up (in depth) regarding this book but it sounds like a winner! I will follow this thread with interest. The excellent points are decribing the results of and the effects of the new reality on this devisive Trudeau/Liberal policy…a path which was paved by the “Quiet Revolution” so many years ago. How blind we all were (at least most of us).
BTW, Jock’s book was slowly removed from library shelves (many years ago) but, in the 1990’s I obtained 1 of 2 copies (left in Ontario libraries) and photocopied it. Haven’t read it recently but time to dig it out again.
I am also putting in an request (at my local library) to see if it is available through the Inter-Library Loan process.
Cheers.
…role of faith and the Church — specifically, Canadians’ mass abandonment of the foundational faith of our forefathers and mothers — seem to have been glossed over…rejection in our secular society of the Judeo-Christian faith… ~batb
It’s a point that most Canadians don’t want to deal with…~batb
With respect, I would suggest that it was Judeo-Christian “faith” rather than Judeo-Christian “values” that has been rejected by those that have pushed the pendulum to the left. Most Canadians, even lefties, are cultural Christians and hence live voluntarily and happily according to the Judeo-Christian values that enabled western society. The disconnect happens when those of “faith” are not satisfied with others who merely live their lives according to the “values”; instead it becomes important, and required for everyone to espouse the “faith”.
I believe it is now important to encourage a more inclusive understanding of the term Christian which will allow cultural Christians, who are in fact the large majority of our citizens, to identify with a set of cultural values and behaviors rather than a body of dogma.
In other words, why not allow people to call themselves moderate or even secular Christians?
I’m speculating but I think that this will actually lead to the gradual demise of the Bloc.
Yes, it is a possibility. The other possibility is the increasing irrelevance of Quebec, as has already been mentioned.
I believe it is now important to encourage a more inclusive understanding of the term Christian which will allow cultural Christians, who are in fact the large majority of our citizens, to identify with a set of cultural values and behaviors rather than a body of dogma.
In other words, why not allow people to call themselves moderate or even secular Christians?
Well, one could certainly write quite a response to comments like the above. … Where does one begin?
Oriana Fallaci called herself a Christian atheist – believing firmly that her Judeo-Christian culture was superior to others. You could put me and probably some of the other SDA resident atheists in that camp.
Oh and another point that I am not sure is made in the book and I did not get a clear answr when I talked to him is that the old/dawning Canada of which he speaks never went away in pockets of western Canada. They were just overlooked or ignored or considered redneck out-of-touch types who weren’t enlightened enough to get with the chic progressive agenda. Cowleys eastern residence may have had an impact on his minimizing of the influence these vestiges had on its resurgence. It is worth noting that most eastern canadians have heard of Tommy Douglas but far fewer have heard of WAC Bennett and almost no one has heard of Ernest Manning – the greatest premier in Canadian history.
Well, one could certainly write quite a response to comments like the above. … Where does one begin? ~ Brent Weston
Is that your passive-aggressive persona?
With respect to seat “redistribution”, there are already so many expensive MP’s and most are way too fickle. Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc want Cap and Trade? We should cap and trade MP’s… oh, wait! That convenient unmandated Constitution is there once again.
Thanks for your comment, glasnost. Brent Weston stole my thoughts on reading it, however, right out of my head.
You’ve articulated so many radically opposing ideas, that one doesn’t know where to start. Essentially, you can’t have the values without the faith.
We, in North America, have been living off the capital of the Judeo-Christian faith and the values it espouses for a very long time, and soon the account’s going to be empty. Most young people today do NOT live according to J-C values and wouldn’t know one if it hit them between the eyes. They’ve been brainwashed into thinking that the Christian Church is utterly passe and, not only that, that it is evil and somehow responsible for a lot of the bad stuff in the world. They have no idea of the moral and ethical underpinnings, bequeathed by the Christian faith, of our Western democracies and think that democratic freedoms “just happened.”
“Secular Christians”? Now, what would they be? To be a Christian means that you believe in the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that He is the Son of God. There is a Creed that can’t be ignored, downplayed, or watered down (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html).
“Moderate Christians”? You know what Jesus had to say about them in Revelation 3:
“I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. … Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. … He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
Christian faith and Judeo-Christian values are like love and marriage: You can’t have one without the other. To think that you can is delusional and dishonest, wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. ‘Can’t happen.
It hasn’t been completely ignored by the National Post either. They excerpted it about two weeks ago. There was an op-ed challenging challenging part of the author’s thesis in today’s post.
Christian faith and Judeo-Christian values are like love and marriage: You can’t have one without the other. To think that you can is delusional and dishonest, wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. ‘Can’t happen.
Marriage without love and love without marriage are both easy to imagine. As many Christian writers and theologians have observed, ‘Judeo-Christian values’ aren’t unique to Christianity. It’s the solution Christianity offers to the problem that nobody, Christians included, actually lives up to those ‘values’ that sets Christianity apart. But that doesn’t lend itself to a political program.
Jared: “Marriage without love and love without marriage are both easy to imagine.” Yes, sin is always easy, too easy, to imagine let alone commit.
Jared, are you old enough to remember the song “Love and Marriage”?
Love and marriage,
Love and marriage,
Go together like a horse and carriage.
Dad was told by mother,
“You can’t have one without the other.”
Christian “values” set a standard which, even if none of us can live up to or practise them 100%, create an environment which respects and gives dignity to others and in which service to others is at the forefront of our activities. Christian values do not place the individual at the centre of the universe, a modern curse which has become epidemic, but operate from the maxim that “I am third”: God is first, my neighbour is second, and I am third.”
batb ~ Christian faith and Judeo-Christian values are like love and marriage: You can’t have one without the other. To think that you can is delusional and dishonest, wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. ‘Can’t happen.
I respect your commitment to that particular doctrine, and I for one am not threatened by it, nor do see any particular harm in exposing children to it, with moderation, in the public school system for instance. But you should understand that many people do feel threatened and even insulted by attempts to indoctrinate them or their children, hence the secularization of our institutions. I despise the anti-Christian sentiment of many lefties, but I believe that they’re not rejecting Christian values; they are rejecting “resident Christians” who call them delusional and dishonest for not ascribing to the “faith”.
we must reform and change some thing about our health care as well
limit the private insurace like car who bother disable people and increase more complet care since seeing doctor and not able to pay drug fees is half medical health for canadaian and
we have 30 million canadain and we can guess
how many doctore we need to take care of all population and put limite of money for them and if they can get extra tehy can now some doctore help illegally to private car insurace by receiving too money per each visit to tell care insurace company aer ok and person is not disable nd this method is illegal way doctor gain money to proof disable is not real diable by ask under table fees from private insurece such as car insurance
therfoer all must be review and limte of complain
I saw yesterday “ Sicko “ documentary movie in CBC, About the same Michael Moore
Showed about how American comes to Canada to use illegal medical health here freeevery time some one ask for we gain economic then American get mad of start gossip that country like US think Canadian must work free like salve for them not any more
Canada must find out their american name and ban them to use expense of tax payer in Canada used health care free here by American here in Canada to use medical expense for them be free by knowing where they resident are even citizen of Canada who live aboard must ban used free medical if they are not live in Canada only can buy outside insurance travel.
eye check up for Canadian fees must get free and cost of ambulance must get free too cost of drugs must get free too if government pay doctored for 1 million dollar fees for their see patient free and if person need drug then drug must be get free too.
health care system must get start sooner since these gossip of socialist are on for so long since Reagan time when I saw Michael Moore movie similar like capitalism last night about health care system in USA only slander, by made one id card with look like driving license but can swipe like credit care and has code that each payment to doctor can be send by different origination when you go to doctor and show your care the money can be send to doctor either by government health care or by nonprofit origination helping poor, or by co-op group or by private sectors but al must mandatory has only that id and should stop fraud and fine if used in misleading
====
some non profit can work better than goverment and but they pay their employee nothing thsi is more volteer or some pay less or they can creat job for unemployment like orginzed group
then later goverment can hire tehm with more money and then private can hierd goverment employee with more money too
this circle can be work to made more people to work and has embition to made more money as well
by allow number of unemployment to divided among sectore by creat job and market new itesm and new needs for country
What’s that old expression?….”no new is good news”?
Excuse me, glasnost: “they are rejecting ‘resident Christians’ who call them delusional and dishonest for not ascribing to the ‘faith’”.
When did I say that? You seem to be deliberately misquoting me — or taking what I said about being delusional and dishonest out of context.
What IS delusional and dishonest is to ascribe to the view that Christian values can be held to and followed without acknowledging the importance of the foundational faith upon which those values are built. Like you, it’s not such a stretch to value the faith, which you don’t hold, because you understand the importance of the societal precepts it advocates.
In no way do I suggest that those who do not ascribe to the Christian faith are delusional or dishonest.
I appreciate an honest and straightforward debate but not one in which one of the debaters baits the other by taking their quotes out of context.
batb ~ Thanks for your comment, glasnost…You’ve articulated so many radically opposing ideas, that one doesn’t know where to start. Essentially, you can’t have the values without the faith…Christian faith and Judeo-Christian values are like love and marriage: You can’t have one without the other. To think that you can is delusional and dishonest, wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. ‘Can’t happen.
I don’t see how you were quoted out of context; it certainly wasn’t my intention to do so. It seems pretty clear; you’re saying that someone who believes in the moral of the story but doesn’t buy in to the whole fable is being delusional and dishonest. This is not an unusual stance for some “resident Christians” to take, and I realize it’s important for them to openly declare a commitment to their faith. There are people, however, who contribute to the Judeo-Christian “capital”, as you put it, without feeling a need for such declaration; I don’t know what they believe and neither do you, nor should we care so long as they’re good citizens. Most importantly they should not be called non-Christians and told that they’ll never go to heaven unless they believe in your particular version of Christian mythology. If you want people to acknowledge and be proud that we live in a Judeo-Christian country as part of western Judeo-Christian society and culture, then you need to be more inclusive and perhaps even tolerate the notion that there just might be more than one path to heaven.
Hey, glasnost! Pax.
In no way do I believe, as you seem to think, that non-Christians will “never go to heaven unless they believe in [my] particular version of Christian mythology.” I’m not quite sure how you have made this leap of illogic — and I’m sorry that you have more or less accused me of bigotry and intolerance.
Only G*d knows who will go to heaven and I would never, ever presume to judge anyone’s eternal life destination. I in no way believe that only Christians do good things or contribute to our civil society.
As a practising Christian, however, I’ve been subject to extremely negative judgments about my faith and my Church — which seem to be acceptable to a growing number of Canadians. I’m just saying that our secular society, so caught up in me, me, me, likes the fruits of the sacrifices made by Christians over the past few hundred years (who, pretty much, founded the public school system, our universities and health institutions for everyone, not just fellow believers) while, at the same time, taking great delight in bashing the Christian Church and our faith (just take a look at who the CHRC tribunals have gone after in the past 10 years or the treatment of the Church in our media).
As one of the resident Christians here, I notice that the role of faith and the Church — specifically, Canadians’ mass abandonment of the foundational faith of our forefathers and mothers — seem to have been glossed over. ~ batb
It’s a point that most Canadians don’t want to deal with — but just because it’s unpalatable, and doesn’t sit well with many Canadians, that doesn’t mean it can be swept under the carpet. Failure to deal with first things usually means a faulty diagnosis and an incomplete prescription for wellness. ~ batb
With respect, I think that you are making a leap in logic to infer my comments as personal accusations of bigotry and intolerance. As you recall, it was your lament that the subject deserves more discussion than it’s getting; I agree with you, and this is my meager contribution. As you know the written word, particularly in a forum such as this, is not the richest communication medium, and perhaps that’s why you perceived an unintended harshness in my comments. Nonetheless, sensitive topics will almost surely ruffle some feathers, and that’s not a bad thing.
Now, having said that, I’ll quote you again (in context I hope):
As a practicing Christian, however, I’ve been subject to extremely negative judgments about my faith and my Church…
Canadians’ mass abandonment of the foundational faith…
Did you ever ask yourself what your part was in that movement, or did you assume that it had nothing to do with you? Did you ever consider the possibility that it was not abandonment but instead a feeling of rejection that drove people away? Let me give you a hypothetical example:
Shortly after moving into a new residence in Canada, one of my new neighbours pays a welcoming visit. During the visit, my new neighbor asks, “glasnost, are you a Christian?”
Therein lies the rub batb. How does a moral, patriotic, law-abiding, citizen of the Judeo-Christian culture, answer that question?
glasnost: “How does a moral, patriotic, law-abiding, citizen of the Judeo-Christian culture, answer that question?”
Presumably, with a yes or a no.
I don’t ask people questions like that. As for possibly driving people away from the Christian Church/faith: If my witnessing to my faith does that, so be it. Jesus told his disciples that “the world will hate you,” but that they are to preach the Gospel in season and out of season, nonetheless. If my clothing and feeding the poor (I’ll be cooking a stuffed turkey and serving it to the homeless on Monday) causes others to reject my faith, then so be it. God will deal with it and it’s not my responsibility: I didn’t create the world, therefore I don’t have to fix everything, especially if others take offence at my convictions and lifestyle.
I’m a great believer, glasnost, in taking personal responsibility for my own behaviour, not blaming others. I used to point at Christians and the Church as hypocritical and irrelevant, both reasons I stopped participating in any Christian community for 15 years — that is, until I realized that it was ME and MY wounds and prejudices that were at the root of MY rejection of the Church and faith. That was an epiphany for me.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I appreciate your observations, glasnost. Pax again!
Presumably, with a yes or a no.
My point exactly.
glanost,
Having followed this thread I would have thought you should answer “Yes AND no”…..
Cheers.
Garry, glad to see somebody’s getting my point.
glasnost, I get your point, I just don’t agree with it.
My final post on this: Scripture says let your yes be yes and your no be no. There ain’t no yes AND no.
– =http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/conservatives-force-team-canada-to-use-tory-party-logo/comment-page-1/#comment-11694
-http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/who-are-canadas-most-important-progressive-muslims/
glasnost,
I re-read your articulate, non-attacking comments and can’t disagree with what you said. I, as well, do not agree with batb’s statement “Essentially, you can’t have the values without the faith”. I see this as a self-anointing statement with which I cannot agree.
It’s appears that batb felt you were attacking her…you weren’t (IMO)..merely asking questions and generating discussion. batb felt she had to defend herself, not because of how you were discussing the issue but, because “As a practising Christian, however, I’ve been subject to extremely negative judgments about my faith and my Church….”. IMO, glasnost, you were neither judgmental nor negative.
Cheers.