h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just a little note about the American Declaration of Independence's importance to Canada. The twentieth grievance establishes at the very foundation of the United States a fundamental difference between it and Canada: in that grievance the U. S. rejects multiculturalism, a fundamental principle of Canadian society and culture. Where Canada has from before Confederation strived (with mixed results) legally, constitutionally, and in common parlance to accomodate all aspects of the various cultures that make up our society, the U. S. from its initial conception (in the Declaration of Independence) has rejected the concept of legally or constitutionally mandated support for different cultures and has opted instead for what is commonly described as "the melting pot".

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are certainly fundamentally different concepts of what a state should be. This fundamental difference certainly goes a long way to explain why the two countries are so different.

The twentieth grievance? You mean this one?

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies"

This is a protest against the Quebec Act, which reset the borders of the Canadian province to stretch south, absorbing the western claims of several US colonies and restricting them from further expansion. I see nothing in here about cultural acceptance.

I'm not sure what you mean in any of this, anyway. Canada is overwhelmingly white European in population, and the only cultural support needed is for the French language, as the Quebecois are the only "minority" of significant size. And I don't see how any of this "cultural support" is really any different from the "melting pot" concept, so you'll have to explain yourself further.

The reason there is no "cultural acceptance" language in the Constitution is because there is no need for any. The government has no business regulating culture (if such a thing can be regulated), so it falls under the 10th Amendment as falling under the jurisdiction of the people.

The Quebec Act also established a separate legal code within the province, laying the ground work for the language provisions. Similar provisions have since been extended to most of Canada's territory in which a number of aboriginal languages are the official language of government and the everyday language of the people. As well, the public schools teach in a multitude of languages (European, Asian, Aboriginal). It is the policy of the National Government to foster immigrant cultural groups that people can retain their language and culture. Somehow that doesn't seem to be the same thing as a melting pot to me.

In any case, I'm not clear about what you're saying. I pointed out a difference between Canada and the US that in fact goes back to the Declaration of Independence (and beyond). I wasn't making a moral judgement, just pointing out a difference. Are you suggesting that there isn't a fundamental difference between Canada and the US? I can't imagine that you would suggest that.

'the Quebecois are the only "minority" of significant size' I guess that could be another big difference: We consider any "minority" to be of significance and of great value to our society.

'The government has no business regulating culture' Who said anything about 'regulating'? I guess that's another difference: we see one of government's roles as being to facilitate activities that are benificial to society, whereas you seem to be implying (perhaps I'm misunderstanding) that government has only a restrictive ability.

Again, I wasn't meaning to say there was anything wrong with the 'melting pot'; I was only saying that it isn't Canada.


Just a small historical footnote: The plan that lay behind the Quebec Act and other provisions of the time also included a very large Aboriginal nation located in central North America which was expected to remain an ally of the Crown. With the American Revolution, of course, this Aborignal homeland was replaced in Canada with the Treaty negotiation system (a process which is still ongoing, again with mixed results) and in the US by the Indian Wars and . . . well, I'm not really sure what else.

The Quebec Act may have laid the "groundwork" for such language provisions, but it did not establish them. The signers of the Declaration cannot be held accountable for protesting against future, unknowable consequences. To them, the Quebec Act summarily dismissed the pre-existing Canadian government, and extended it into lands previously claimed by other colonies, cutting them off completely from future growth. In that, it was an act of tyranny.

"We consider any 'minority' to be of significance and of great value to our society." - I refer to political significance. There is not another minority in Canada of sufficient size to influence the outcome of a national (or even regional) election. Therefore, cultural differences are moot... the overall political climate of Canada is dominated by culture of the white majority.

"It is the policy of the National Government to foster immigrant cultural groups that people can retain their language and culture." - I'm sorry, but this sounds like nonsense to me. What does this actually mean? And how is this different to the US? American minorities keep their own culture and language. Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick's Day are both celebrated more extravagantly here than they are in their native countries. The 'melting pot' concept only refers to what happens when all these people with their own cultures mix them with the surrounding culture... the individual pieces contribute to and influence the whole.

"'The government has no business regulating culture' Who said anything about 'regulating'? I guess that's another difference: we see one of government's roles as being to facilitate activities that are benificial to society, whereas you seem to be implying (perhaps I'm misunderstanding) that government has only a restrictive ability."

I'm a libertarian, remember. We believe the government's sole purpose is to protect people, and other than that it should mind its own business. It's up to the people to foster their own cultural activities, as it should be. We don't need to spend our tax dollars for the government to arrange picnics and potato sack races. It has better things to do.

Okay. In the threads attached to the entry you've pointed out how important the Declaration and other associated documents are to the world. I tried to add a Canadian perspective on the Declaration and an associated document, the Quebec Act. I mention that "the U. S. from its initial conception . . . has rejected the concept of legally or constitutionally mandated support for different cultures". You mention that "The government has no business regulating culture . . . so it falls under the 10th Amendment." As I understand it, the 10th Amendment would provide for the State governments to "regulate" culture. But, in all, you seem to be agreeing with me that the U.S. does not provide government mandated or constitutional support for a policy of multiculturalism.

You mention that "Canada is overwhelmingly white European in population, and the only cultural support needed is for the French language". Well, yes, Canada remains primarily white European in population. Unless you happen to live in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, etc. Yes, if you live in Viking, Alberta, you will find yourself surrounded by a sea of white faces. If you live in Saskatchewan, it's a toss up whether the population is overwhelmingly White or Cree. And, of course, the only white thing in the North (most of the country) is the snow in the winter. The way we see it, the various south asian cultures need cultural support just as much as the French language. As do the Haitian culture in Montreal, Black Acadian culture in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the Chinese communities in every Canadian city, and the century old Muslim community in the century old city I live in (isn't that interesting? The city is about to celebrate it's centenial and one of the founding communities is the Muslim one. It certainly is overwhelmingly white European, isn't it?) All these and the hundreds of other languages and cultures that are part of Canada need "cultural support" in our view.

I'm not saying we have more or less cultural diversity that the U.S. I'm just saying that our society feels that the cultural diversity is worthy of government fostering. And, as you have suggested, that your society feels that "the government has no business" doing such a thing. That's all. We're different.

Now, to post number 4:

The signers of the Declaration explicitly protested the "abolishing [of] the free System of English Laws" in Quebec, which I assume refers to the Quebec civil law code which was preserved by the Quebec Act and which is a brick in the foundation of the present Canada. I'm not holding the signers "accountable for protesting against future, unknowable consequences"; I'm suggesting that they meant what they said: that they were pissed off that Quebec had a different law code.

"There is not another minority in Canada of sufficient size to influence the outcome of a national (or even regional) election." Well. Just blatantly incorrect, as evidenced by, for example, my own riding, both provincially and federally. Yes, perhaps the overall political climate of Canada is dominated by the culture of the white majority. Interestingly, the political culture of Canada, whatever its colour, says "let's do everything we can to ensure that our country's demographic comes to match the demographic of the world as quickly as we can (as we've already done in Toronto)."

As for what the Government does, I will refer you to http://culturecanada.gc.ca/chdt/interface/interface2.nsf/engdocBasic/12.html You decide for yourself if it's picnics and potato sack races (no need to be insulting, by the way: I really was trying to offer a little additional information to your entry).

I'm a Canadian, remember. We believe the government does have other purposes than just protecting the citizens. Sometimes protection is more than just physical. I guess we just have different ideas of what is important, Which, of course, was my point. We're different. And one of the roots of the difference is expressed in the Declaration and in the Quebec Act.

I wasn't looking for a fight.

What bothers me about this conversation is two things.

1) This notion of "supporting" other cultures. Forgive me for saying this, but it sounds like a bunch of political buzz and nonsense to me. What, in concrete terms, does this mean? And in what way does the US not do this?

2) This assumption that the US is somehow hostile to the cultures of immigrants.

And actually, you could make a very strong case that the Constitution does protect individual cultures. Specifically, the 1st Amendment protection of speech and the press can easily be seen to extend to different languages, and there certainly are a lot of languages spoken and written here. The 1st Amendment protects another aspect of foreign cultures in the case of religion. The right to free assembly, again in the 1st Amendment, could also be interpreted to protect foreign cultures in their ability to congregate and celebrate their heritage.

A third problem with this conversation I have is that, based on your earlier posts and the language of that 20th grievance, I interpreted that the Quebec Act usurped the existing government of Canada. Now you say that the Quebec Act "preserved" it. Which is it?

"People of non-European descent accounted for 13% of the population aged 15 and over, or 2.9 million. The most frequent origins were Chinese and East Indian. (Non-Europeans have origins in places such as Asia, Africa, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Australia and Oceania.)" http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030929/d030929a.htm

With only 13% of your population originating outside of Europe (and some of those coming from places like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa), it's understandable why the Canadian government would feel the need to foster multiculturalism. One of the great strengths of the British Empire, and then the United States, was the rapid growth of ideas and change. There is no question that a lot of this was inspired by the many cultures that they were in contact with (the British abroad, the US at home). In fact, you can look back at the Roman Empire and see that their acceptance of the cultures they conquered was the greatest reason their empire lasted as long as it did. The Canadian government doesn't have a large ethnic community to draw on, so it makes a big deal out of the little it does have.

Looking at that link you provided, I don't see anything there we don't have here in the US. We have a Black History Month and a Hispanic Heritage Month. We have cities that put on parades for Chinese New Year. These are just a few examples. We have non-profit organizations promoting the welfare and culture of every race, color, nationality, and religion.

Hell, we even tolerate La Raza, and they're the Hispanic equivalent of the Aryan Nation... who, so long as they remain peaceful, are also tolerated. Multiculturalism means respecting the rights of cultures you don't like.

Anyway, I still don't see how Canada is doing anything different from the US. Nor do I see what impact the Quebec Act had on any such differences.

"Anyway, I still don't see how Canada is doing anything different from the US. Nor do I see what impact the Quebec Act had on any such differences."


Okay. But I do.

" I interpreted that the Quebec Act usurped the existing government of Canada. Now you say that the Quebec Act "preserved" it. Which is it?"

Sorry, I should clarify that for you as you don't seem to know the history. The Quebec Act preserved the legal code of New France in the new province of Quebec. This was allowing a conquered people to live under their own laws rather than the laws of the dominant people. This was, in part, what the writers of the Declaration objected to. So, the Quebec act preserved pre-existing aspects of the government of New France. Upper Canada continued on as it had before. The Declaration may imply that the Quebec act usurped the existing government, but the Quebec act makes no such implication.

But, again, I didn't mean to start a fight. I am surprised that you seem to think that there are nothing but superficial differences between Canada and the U.S.

US history mentions the Quebec Act only so far as it affected the US, and that is in the manner of the redrawing of boundaries.

In re-reading the 20th grievance, it appears their challenge is that a non-English government is allowed to exist in the British Empire. From a colonists perspective that would have to be doubly galling... the Empire insists on destroying the English governments of the rest of the colonies while simultaneously permitting a French one next door. If the Canadians could have their own government (and one of an alien culture at that), why not the Virginians?

In that light, it's not so much a protest against the French government of Quebec as a protest against the arbitrariness and unfairness of the British crown.

I'm not "starting a fight", I'm merely challenging your assertion. I have no doubts that there are differences between Canada and the US. On this particular issue, however, you have failed to illustrate them.

"US history mentions the Quebec Act only so far as it affected the US, and that is in the manner of the redrawing of boundaries."

That may be, but:

The Quebec Act permitted a "non-English" government in British North America. The Declaration of Independence explicitly protested the existence of that government.

Canada grew out of what was left of British North America after the 13 colonies left. Canada built on the initial institutional diversity that the Declaration had rejected.

I agree that the Declaration was protesting a whole lot of other things, including the expansion of the borders, etc. I also agree with your interpretation of the 13 colonies' perspective. But there is another perspective and there where other colonies. The British Colonies of Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland did not choose to join in the rebellion, instead choosing to remain with Quebec, first as part of the Empire and then as part of Canada. For those colonists the Quebec Act was not "doubly galling"; in fact, those colonists fought repeatedly to defend their colonies, including Quebec, against attempts to pull them out of the Empire which had been seen as so tyrannical by the American colonists. And, a remarkable number of American colonists came north at the outbreak of hostilities because they wanted no part of the experiment. I expect they are seen as deserters or traitors from the perspective of American history; in Canada they are remembered as United Empire Loyalists who chose to come to the place where they expected to find freedom (interestingly, many settled in Lower Canada, the very colony which had the non-English government).

From the American historical perspective, the Quebec Act was tyranny that needed to be opposed; in Canadian history it was the beginning of a great challenge to which we have tried to rise. Canadians outside Quebec have been consistent for over two hundred years in their acceptance (at times grudging) of the legal patchwork that the Quebec Act made of our country. In the last forty years we have embraced the challenge and expanded that system of different legal forms for different parts of our society. The most obvious example of this expansion is Nunavut, but a number of agreements, some more radical, concerning smaller terrritories and smaller groups are in existence or are in progress.

Canada is a different experiment from the U. S. Our experiment is one that is not about picnics and potato sack races. It is about giving nations within our state the legal and constitutional authority to develop their own governmental systems, elect their own leaders, and raise taxes to fund the programs that their people feel to be important. This experiment began with the Quebec act and is continuing with the Deh Cho.

My point in this thread has been that the Declaration was a turning point for Canada as well as the U. S.: the twentieth grievance forced a choice that most at the time probably made without being aware that they were doing so. The U.S. chose one course and Canada chose another. The Canadian colonies chose to remain in a land with distinct legal structures for distinct nations within the larger society, the American colonies chose to reject that aspect of the Quebec Act along with all the other things they found offensive.

This is a Canadian perspective on a part of the Declaration of Independence as it affects Canadian history.

Here's a link from the U of T that might be of interest. It's quite long and only tangentally relevant to this thread, but you may find it of interest. http://www.utpjournals.com/product/utq/693/693_weisman.html

There is one error of fact I noticed toward the end: "the reorganization of 136,493 square miles of the Northwest Territories (an area a little smaller than the state of Montana)" In fact, Nunavut covers 769,883 square miles, an area somewhat larger than Montana. In fact, Nunavut is quite significantly large than Alaska.

But the article is interesting in drawing a distinction between the pluralisms in the U.S. and Canada.

"The Quebec Act permitted a "non-English" government in British North America. The Declaration of Independence explicitly protested the existence of that government." - Yes. The government of Canada was allowed its own form of government that predated the Empire's control. So why would the Americans not be allowed to retain their own governments as well? Especially when those governments had been approved by the British crown? That's what they're complaining about. It has nothing to do with cultural diversity. It's about the duplicity of the British government in being generous to one colony and onerous to 13 others.

Before judging America and the rebellion against the rest of the British Empire, I recommend you read the Declaration of Arms, which preceded the Declaration of Independence by a year. In it the Americans request exactly the things that were granted to all the other colonies... an independent Parliament to govern themselves. In the Quebec Act Canada was given even more... they were granted their own alien form of government, and one not based on a colonial charter bearing the signature of a British king.

"It is about giving nations within our state the legal and constitutional authority to develop their own governmental systems, elect their own leaders, and raise taxes to fund the programs that their people feel to be important." - The government of Canada proposes to carve out provinces to be ruled by the resident Chinese? Another for Cubans? Another for expatriate Americans?

"So why would the Americans not be allowed to retain their own governments as well? . . . It has nothing to do with cultural diversity."

I agree. It wasn't a particularly identical treatment the colonies got. And, it does have something to do with cultural diversity for Canada. The Quebec Act is every bit as important to what Canada is today as the Declaration of Independence is to the U. S. And, the Declaration of Independence rejects the Quebec Act. It seems to me that this is an interesting little footnote to a discussion of the Declaration.

"Before judging America"

Sorry. I did say that I wasn't judging America.

"The government of Canada proposes to carve out provinces to be ruled by the resident Chinese? Another for Cubans? Another for expatriate Americans?"

In fact, there are already ten of those provinces.

"And, the Declaration of Independence rejects the Quebec Act." - While this is an interesting discussions of the two nations, I still feel that the separation is not very clear, and that the Declaration rejection of the Quebec Act and the Quebec Act's future implications for Canada are mild coincidence.

"In fact, there are already ten of those provinces." - Really? Which one is the one ruled by the Chinese?

In all seriousness, based on our history, particularly recent history, if a group could cogently demonstrate an extremely long-standing physical and cultural connection to a particular patch of land, a long-standing history of autonomy, a long-standing cultural cohesion, then at some point I would expect that some form of formal self-government arrangement would happen if that particular group truly wanted it. I expect that the first group with European ancestory (apart from the Quebecois) to achieve this will be the Metis, and it will likely not be too terribly far in the future since they started working on it over a hundred years ago. Apart from the Quebecois, the Metis, the First Nations and the Inuit the only groups that might be able to demonstrate such a connection would be the Acadians (certainly welcome to come home to their three provinces) the Newfoundlanders (have their province), the United Empire Loyalists (they still are a big part of a number of provinces), and the descendants of the British colonists of Upper Canada (they have a number of provinces as well). In time, (not very long) a number of other pioneer groups will have developed such an attachment to a particular region, and (I'm sure you won't believe this) new arrangements may very well be made in our structures.

You see, we are a country that has come to abhor as ridiculous the idea of internal armed conflict: it is generally acknowledged, for example, that if the Quebecois or the Western Provinces actually decided they wanted to secede from Confederation, no one would lift a finger to stop them. A Canadian Civil War is inconceivable; we would try desperately to accomodate grievances and, in the end, say farewell with good wishes.

So, to answer your question, no, the government does not propose to carve out provinces for anybody. But, the Inuit proposed something and Nunavut was created. The Tli Cho proposed something and Tli Cho lands are about to become a unique political structure within Canada. The Deh Cho are working on something similar. The province of Manitoba was created out of a Metis homeland. Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada as a Province in 1949, not as a Territory, not as a new bit of Quebec. We make accomodations and we sometimes change our rules in order to make those accomodations. The government does not propose to carve out provinces for anybody: it proposes to carve out what people have the right to have (and, sometimes, that turns out to be a province).

Sorry Blatherskite, I was writing while you posted.

I think my last post answers your second question: We don't have the Province of New Manchuria. Yet.

"Declaration rejection of the Quebec Act and the Quebec Act's future implications for Canada are mild coincidence."

Yes, the rejection of and the future implications are complete coincidences. The Quebec Act's implications for Canada have nothing to do with whether or not the Act had been rejected by the U.S. But, the fact that the Declaration rejected the Quebec Act in totality does, I think, shed light on the future course of American social history, a social history which has followed a different course from Canadian history. Likely the U.S. would have followed much the same course even if the Declaration had never mentioned the Quebec Act. But I feel that the rejection helps to illustrate the different courses the two countries have taken.

"I still feel that the separation is not very clear"

Which separation? Do you mean the distinction between the two countries?

"In all seriousness, based on our history, particularly recent history, if a group could cogently demonstrate an extremely long-standing physical and cultural connection to a particular patch of land, a long-standing history of autonomy, a long-standing cultural cohesion, then at some point I would expect that some form of formal self-government arrangement would happen if that particular group truly wanted it." - This is a distinct difference. Apparently we're talking about two very different ideas about what multiculturalism means. For Canada, that appears to mean distinct cultures establishing their own lands and provincial governments. For the US, that means distinct cultures living side-by-side under a joint government.

Our own Acadians (the Cajuns), for example, could demonstrate the same kind of historical/cultural connection to the state of Louisiana. However, if the Cajuns were granted full autonomy in Louisiana, that would be unfair to the members of the many other cultures who have settled there. Likewise the Mormons in Utah, who, if left to their own devices, would institute a state religion in violation of the Constitution, then revert to polygamy. It would not be a fun time for non-Mormons in Utah.

"A Canadian Civil War is inconceivable; we would try desperately to accomodate grievances and, in the end, say farewell with good wishes." - Then again, Canada never had a problem with establishing the authority of the federal government. From the very beginning the US had to wrestle with the balance of power of the sovereign states versus the federal government. Canada never had that problem for two reasons:

1) Canada began as a single province, with other provinces joining a pre-existing government later, thereby conveniently establishing the authority of the national government without dispute.
2) Canada had an outside, superior authority to resort to in its formative years, in the form of the British crown.

The US simultaneously rejected the crown and embraced 13 sovereign colonies, opening up a political can of worms that resulted in 100 years of trying to solve where the federal government's power ended and the state's power began. The Civil War answered that question for all time. Now with that challenge dealt with, the federal government is in a position where it can afford to grant autonomy and release its authority over others without undermining itself in the places it still controls. See the Philippines for a recent example. See also recent developments with Native American bands regarding autonomy, self-government, and gambling.

First of all, Canada most definitely did not begin as a single province. There were, at the beginning, the Canadas, Upper and Lower, but they were not under a single administration. You need to look a little more closely at our history. Upper Canada (Ontario), Lower Canada (Quebec), Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories have had separate administrations since long before Confederation. I'm not sure where you got the idea that there was ever a single "province" of Canada. There was British North America, which before the American Revolution included the thirteen colonies, so in that sense, the U.S. was once also part of the single province of Canada. That is, of course, absurd.

The province refered to in the Declaration of Independence is Quebec (Lower Canada). The Quebec Act did not affect the laws in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, or any othe the other territories or colonies of British North America. All of those areas remained under "English law". Some of those colonies got mad at the crown about a number of things, includeing the Quebec act and set off on their own, the rest were content with things, including the Quebec Act and got on with their own lives.

Manitoba was initially carved out of the Northwest Territories as a Metis province. Nunavut is a Territory that was carved out of the Northwest Territories and is administered by elected representatives in a manner in keeping with Inuit tradition. Tli Cho lands will be administered by the Tli Cho according to their traditional systems of government. Newfoundland was a protectorate of Britain and made a choice between independence, Canadian provincehood, remaining a protectorate, or trying to become some part of the U.S. They chose to be a Canadian province rather than be independent.

We've had the same can of worms. We embraced four independently administered provinces and one huge territory. The U. S. began as a small collection of colonies and the rest were added later. Yes, they claimed individual sovereignty and yes they rejected the crown. Well, our colonies didn't claim individual sovereignty and didn't reject the crown. The difference is not one of initial conditions; it is a difference of initial decisions (as I've been suggesting all along). We started in pretty much the same place but we chose different courses.

As for ' the federal government is in a position where it can afford to grant autonomy and release its authority over others without undermining itself in the places it still controls' Our federal government has been doing that since the beginning. Most of the country was once completely administered by the Federal government. Since the 1800s the Federal government has been divesting itself of authority over huge parts of the country so that now most of the land is administered by provincial governments. The oil resources of Alberta were once completly under Federal jurisdiction. The diamond mines of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are now under the authority of First Nations governments. Our Federal government has felt itself in a position to grant autonomy and release authority from the beginning, without a civil war. I don't know why that is, but it seems to argue against your idea that the US couldn't do it until the Civil War settled the question. I know that we are quite fond of conferences and meetings and discussions and negotiations up here. I'm not sure how that works in the US.

As far as never having had a problem with establishing the authority of the Federal Government: For most of my life Quebec has been governed by a party whose prime ideological reason to exist is to achieve independance. For a good part of my adult life a major party in the Federal parliament, at times the official opposition, also has had it's only purpose the cecession of Quebec. Frankly, it's rather as if Texas were usually ruled by a party that wanted to cecede and as if the Federal Democrats were interested in nothing else than the independence of Texas. I can't imagine such a situation ever coming to pass in your country, but that *is* my country. And we're content and happy and prosperous and have a darn good time with each other.

'Our own Acadians (the Cajuns), for example, could demonstrate the same kind of historical/cultural connection to the state of Louisiana. However, if the Cajuns were granted full autonomy in Louisiana, that would be unfair to the members of the many other cultures who have settled there. Likewise the Mormons in Utah, who, if left to their own devices, would institute a state religion in violation of the Constitution, then revert to polygamy. It would not be a fun time for non-Mormons in Utah.'

We gave the Inuit of Nunavut their autonomy. And, there are a bunch of non-Inuit living in Nunavut and there don't seem to be any problems.It's an even more fun time in Nunavut than it was before.

Oh, and about your earlier suggestion that we don't have any groups in Canada apart from the Quebecois who are politically significant: A major agreement on our Constitution, one that would have largely ended the question of Quebec's place in the country, was defeated by one man, Elijah Harper, who used his vote in the Manitoba legislature to ensure that the deal would not happen unless the concerns of the First Nations were taken into account. Sorry, but if a Cree Band Chief from Red Sucker Lake Manitoba can stand up on behalf of his people (population 673) and prevent a major package of Constitutional Amendments from becoming law, then there are a hell of a lot of groups large enough to have political significance.

Just another couple of little thoughts:

First, I'm quite enjoying this discussion and I'm hoping that neither of us is getting frustrated or annoyed.

Second a little something I've mentioned elsewhere before:


The U.S. is justly proud of being the first collection of colonies to break away from the mother country. Canada, on the other hand, has a congenital habit of not really giving a crap about the fact that it was the first collection of colonies to break away from the mother country without a fight. I remained convinced, but can't offer any real proof, that those final three words "without a fight" go a long way to explaining why our countries, which really did begin in such similar circumstances, have taken such different paths. Our similarities may be explained by our common starting place, but our entire histories have been quite different in pretty much every way.

As you're showing, my knowledge on Canada's history is sketchy at best. Thanks for your patience. In all our history books, different boundaries are shown through our development, and this big thing called Canada is always up at the north.

Perhaps the reason the US government had to establish its authority is that it had already invoked rebellion. Once the lid is open to Pandora's Box, it's not easily closed. The Canadians never opened it.

"We gave the Inuit of Nunavut their autonomy. And, there are a bunch of non-Inuit living in Nunavut and there don't seem to be any problems.It's an even more fun time in Nunavut than it was before." - Nunavut does not have a city the size and cultural mix of New Orleans. Quebec and Louisiana would be comparable, but Quebec's independence, as far as I know, keeps getting defeated in popular election. Louisiana's would face the same fate.

That's not to say a Cajun Louisiana might not be a fine thing. But Mormon Utah has been, and could easily return to, a very bad thing. Some folks I know in Utah already chafe at what is a de facto Mormon control of the state.

The states that seceded at the Civil War still have large minorities who believe the South will rise again, and the Condederate flag still figures prominently in most of their state flags. And yet we still get along at least as famously as you and your Quebecois.

Regarding Elijah Harper... filibuster is not the same as controlling a significant block of votes. Harper can only pull that trick once or twice, but a minority block of votes can be used every single time.