I'm shocked to hear Coyne opposed a deal that might have involved Canada recognizing Quebec is different than the other provinces. SHOCKED I say. Almost as shocked as I am to hear that it was the small-minded, mincing little Premiers who had to remind Mulroney that "his first duty was to negotiate on behalf of the federal govt" (i.e. don't do anything that might be perceived as accommodating Quebec nationalism).

There is a lot to criticize about Mulroney but Meech was a noble effort that would have helped the country if it had passed.

And that Trudeau quotation is pretty ironic given his role in Meech's failure.

No the fact that the Premiers are incapable of realizing that Quebec's interests are compatible with Canada's – that just because Quebec gains something doesn't mean Canada has lost anything – shows how small-minded and lacking in imagination they are.

Anyway, we're starting to merry-go-round. Let's just agree to disagree my friend.

I like Andrew Coyne alot, and agree with him much of the time.
I do not however share his views about Quebec.

It is too bad that you obviously don't understand the oppourtunity that was missed at Meech.
Oh well, enjoy your anti-Quebec populism, and revisionist history.

Hating Quebec is a totally bi-partisan affair, although it is interesting that it is something you attribute to the right, when Mulroney (the right-winger) was such a Quebec sell out.

No wonder your heads spinning.

Are these problems you speak of on the scale of the formation of the Bloc?
How about the 95 referendum?

We would be alot farther along as a nation had Meech been ratafied.
As it is, we are a stunted child of a nation, not living up to our potential.

I have a great deal of admiration for Quebec and Quebecers. I'm sure you're right about it being a non-patisan issue. I didn't mean to suggest that only rightwingers hate Quebec. In Mulroney's case it would be absurd, since he is a Quebecer. Mulroney's flaws contributed immensely to Meech failing…not necessarily the failure of Conservatives. Lord knows liberals. and nationalists in general have made enough mistakes there over the years.

It's nice to find some agreement across political lines on this.

Coming out of retirement to oppose Meech was Trudeau's unforgivable sin IMHO.

I'll admit that at one time I had hopes that Harper might just be the one to tie up this unfinished buisness.

That optimism seems silly now, but maybe someday someone like Mulroney will come along and finish the job… I won't be holding my breath thou.

You know Canada itself was created in a "backroom deal" right? I guess there's something to be said for backroom deals in certain circumstances.

The only way to negotiate a sensitive deal like Meech, a deal that involves politicians putting aside their immediate interests and thinking about what's good for the future of the country, is with some measure of discretion. The problem was when it left the negotiating table and moved into the provincial legislatures where any jacka*s (Wells, McKenna, Filmon, Parizeau, etc.) who wanted to grandstand could do so.

Canadians said 'no!' to Meech/Charlottetown and it's one of the most shameful episodes in our history. But don't worry Quebecers said no too (for different reasons) and share in the blame.

No I purposely omitted Elijah Harper from my list. First Nations peoples had a legitimate beef with being excluded from the deal. I think it would have been better for the country if we could have just concentrated on getting Quebec's signature on the constitution through Meech, and then leave other issues for later negotiations, but I can understand why Natives might feel differently.

Canada has unfinished business with these people and the country will never reach it's full potential until this is dealt with.

I'm no expert on Meech. I was just following along like most Canadians at the time, trusting our elites and politicians to do the right thing. It was a time where i probably grew up as a citizen and started to realise that politicians operate from a personal agenda in addition to advancing goals they think are good for the country. And yes that does include taking a more critical, less naive view of Trudeau. I was, and still am to some extent conflicted n the question of Quebec and distinct society. On the one hand they're obviously distinct – no question. But we live in a federation and they're not the only distinct society in the country. Where do you draw the line? They are distinct – but so are we all. It's ok to say it , but t put it in the constitution would be a mistake. Should Quebec be free to operate as a distinct society within Quebec? Yes i suppose, although it does raise issues of minorities and their right to be Canadian. What i can't support is any kind of constitutional veto that essentially grants Quebec equal standing to Canada. On this ground i agreed with Trudeau, but not necessarily in all things.

The provinces do not appoint senators and SCC judges.

I take exception to your characterization of Trudeau as a gunslinger with regards to constitutional negotiation. Remember that patriation was thrice attempted and failed before 1982. Trudeau knew from experience that making a deal would be difficult and that it would collapse on itself if given enough time. This happened in 1965 and 1971, when Lesage and Bourassa agreed to patriation after long negotiations only to retract their approval when nationalists put pressure on them.

Mulroney shared your interpretation of the events of 1981 and thought Trudeau simply lacked the tact and ability necessary to make a deal and hold it together. In stark contrast to 1981, Mulroney obtained the consent of all premiers and allowed them 3 years to ratify. He was confident that he had satisfied Quebec nationalists and that he would succeed where his predecessors had failed. Unfortunately, he was wrong. The first crack appeared when Gary Filmon, the Conservative Premier of a prairie province – where PET was reviled and had little influence, btw – refused to ratify the Accord because he feared he would not be re-elected otherwise. From that moment, the Accord was as good as dead, just like Fulton-Favreau and the Victoria Charter before it. Mulroney had ignored the lessons of past attempts at patriation and Canada paid the price for his hubris.

The province not appointing senators has nothing to do with Bill Davis' offer to give some of Ontario's senate seats to the west (an amazing gesture towards progressing the accord).

If you take umbrige at my calling PET a "gunslinger", that's fair enough. I retract it .
We'll leave the character assaination for another time.

Would you care to address the rest of my post? Do you disagree with anything there?

The money questions are these:

1. Do you think our country would have been better if Meech had been ratified?

2. Is there any concession in Meech that is not de facto reality today?

I must admit that Mulroney's hubris was a large part of his downfall, but I don't delight in it like you seem to.

I could counter that PET's hubris was to Canada's detrement.

"Have you heard of the not withstanding clause?

The nation within a united Canada thing?

I don't believe there is anything in Meech which is not de facto reality today."

———

Agreed. One of the real tragedies of Meech was that it would have cost Canada so little that it hadn't already conceded (or soon would). If people could have just had a more generous ATTITUDE about the whole thing it would have helped national unity immeasurably.

Look at it from the point of view of a Quebec nationalist (not a die-hard separatist, just a regular nationalist with mixed feelings about Canada and sort of on the fence about separation). Bourassa got a few symbolic concessions, and not much in terms of new powers (not that he really needed any because Quebec ALREADY has the necessary powers to protect its language and culture). Meech would have essentially just formalized an already existing arrangement. But even this was too much for Clyde Wells and Trudeau/Chrétien and Preston Manning and the rest of the anti-Meech forces. They had to maintain the illusion that Quebec is just one of ten provinces. To not do so would be GIVING IN to the Quebec nationalists. Well, that's exactly what needed to happen. Peace is created when the stronger party is generous with the weaker one. The problem with Canada is that the majority doesn't realize it's the majority & every party acts like an aggrieved minority.

I will give credit though to people like Bill Davis and David Peterson (and Bourassa and Mulroney too) who were exceptions to the rule and were able to think of the bigger picture. Too bad they didn't carry the day.