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

"Nunavut does not have a city the size and cultural mix of New Orleans."

Nunavut doesn't have a population the size of a city.

I find that my knowledge of Canadian history is growing rapidly as I get older. There's a sad idea here that our history is boring, but it is, in fact, exceptionally fascinating as long as your idea of exciting history isn't battles and killing. I owe a debt to H2G2 for spurring me to do far more research than I might have otherwise.

I agree about Pandora's box that the US opened and that we didn't open it. That's actually really my point. That opening and not opening has had repercussions down the years for both countries.

I agree about what you say about a minority block of votes, but I don't agree either that there are not politically significant minorities in Canada other than the Quebecois or that Elijah Harper simply conducted a filibuster. In fact, he spoke only four words and he was speaking for what is a politically significant block of votes. And, interestingly, Elijah Harper is now considered something of a hero and there is a campaign for him to be appointed to the senate.

In Canada it is much easier to have a significant block of votes. We have a far greater number of viable political parties than you have. Sometimes a party forms a majority government with less than a majority of the votes so small blocks can be of much greater significance. This state of affairs was notoriously described by Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau blamed his party's defeat in a Separation Referendum on "money and the ethnic vote."

"Nunavut doesn't have a population the size of a city." - Exactly my point. Autonomy becomes a much stickier situation with population density and local cultural diversity. Exponentially so.

"I find that my knowledge of Canadian history is growing rapidly as I get older. There's a sad idea here that our history is boring, but it is, in fact, exceptionally fascinating as long as your idea of exciting history isn't battles and killing. I owe a debt to H2G2 for spurring me to do far more research than I might have otherwise." - I've found the same effect with myself and American history. We've got a lot of killing in our history, so there is plenty of that to engross the casual student. But when I undertook the Revolution project, I found myself more fascinated with the philosophical aspects of the Revolution than the military ones.

Regarding Elijah Harper, I don't call it a filibuster, since I don't know either way, but the sources tend to call it that: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Meech%20Lake%20Accord

if you follow the links from your link:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Filibuster%20(legislative%20tactic)

Harper spoke six words (I miscounted when I said four.) "Leave is not given, Mr. Speaker." Hardly "an extremely long speech that is designed primarily to stall the legislative process and thus derail a particular piece of legislation, rather than to make a particular point per se." In fact, Harper's six words were spoken only to make a point. Furthermore, the Manitoba legislature was operating under in a situation "in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules" and so, according to thefreedictionary.com, a filibuster could not occur.

What happened was that the Manitoba government asked that the legislature wave a mandatory waiting period before beginning debate on the accord in order that they could finish debate and pass the accord before their own arbitrary deadline. Harper, speaking as a representative of the First Nations, told the Speaker that he did not give the government leave to wave the waiting period because his people could not agree to a Constitutional Amendment from which they had been excluded. So, the Government of Manitoba was forced to follow the rules, wait the two days and abstain from ratifying the accord because of their own deadline. It was certainly a victory for the First Nations (and for Canada, in my opinion) by procedural means, but that's the nature of parliamentary democracy.

"In Canada it is much easier to have a significant block of votes. We have a far greater number of viable political parties than you have. Sometimes a party forms a majority government with less than a majority of the votes so small blocks can be of much greater significance. This state of affairs was notoriously described by Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau blamed his party's defeat in a Separation Referendum on "money and the ethnic vote""

I think we're beginning to blur the meaning of the word 'minority' for the purposes of this discussion. A minority political view and a minority ethnic group are two very different things. But even if all of the ethnic minorities (of non-European descent) are united in a political view, they still only control less than 13% of the popular vote. Unless the ethnic majority is deeply divided on an issue, the ethnic minorities can't swing the outcome either way.

As the likelihood of all ethnic minorities coming together on a single issue is slim, their direct effect on the government is also slim.

" But even if all of the ethnic minorities (of non-European descent) are united in a political view, they still only control less than 13% of the popular vote."

And yet we turn over huge areas of land and very large mineral and other natural resources to the control of a few thousand people. Why is that? It is certainly not simply in the hope of winning the votes of the Inuit. In fact, Nunavut is the product of the efforts of a number of Federal governments from opposite sides of the floor (sort of like Republican and Democratic administrations working in concert to hand Alaska, with its oil, over to the Eskimos). No particular political party is benefiting from the existence of Nunavut. As I understand it, Nunavut came to be not as a result of political strategy but rather as a simple acknowledgment of two facts: a) it was the morally correct thing to do and b) our constitution has at its foundation a very clear statement: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." Canada did not grant Nunavut to the Inuit; Canada recognized and affirmed that Nunavut has existed since time immemorial, whether the Government of the day or the majority of the people of Canada liked it or not. (Interestingly, I think that the majority of the people of Canada are quite content to recognize and affirm the existence of Nunavut.)

I don't think that very much of the big picture of Canadian politics can be explained by the simple desire to woo voters. Canadian politician seem to function only at two extremes of a spectrum: petty short term profiteering for themselves and friends, which has little effect on the country as a whole and serves as a spectator sport and fodder for phone-in shows; and grand gestures by which minorities are recognized as every bit as important as majorities. The Meech Lake Accord failed because the 600 people of Red Sucker Lake were not granted the same status as the millions in Quebec. Manitoba could have still ratified the agreement despite Elijah Harper, but it didn't. Why is that? Later events have made it clear, I think, that Manitoba didn't go forward because the legislators of Manitoba realized that it shouldn't go forward, that Elijah Harper was right. And later events have made it pretty clear that pretty much every legislator in the country agrees with Elijah Harper on this issue, that, to a Canadian heart, the six hundred in Red Sucker Lake did have the same status as the millions in Quebec. But nobody gets votes for agreeing with Elijah Harper: they just get to be right.

Summing up again: I don't understand it but an awful lot of what Canadian Governments and Canadian politicians do has nothing to do with getting re-elected, and, in fact, most often seems designed to devote a lot of energy and resources to benefit a few people who will never be "politically significant". Apart from what I've suggested above, I can't imagine an explanation for this behavior.

"Unless the ethnic majority is deeply divided on an issue, the ethnic minorities can't swing the outcome either way."

Most Canadian Members of Parliament win their seats by only a few percentage points. If virtually any minority group voted as a block they could quite easily swing an election. They certainly already swing elections in individual ridings. In fact, Quebecois Nationalist are a minority in their province, and a very tiny minority in Canada, but that tiny minority has already elected the official opposition for the country and is now in a position to hold the balance of power in the government of the Canada. This is sort of like if the City of Los Angeles somehow gained control of the Senate and the House.