david.nicholson,s
Wednesday Night in Westmount
WEDNESDAY NIGHT SALON #725
by Sam Totah
Wednesday Night with Ed Broadbent #725
JANUARY 31, 1996This was indeed a different evening at the place of David and Diana --who are “real connoisseurs of such soirees”. Their record stands at 725 for having repeated these intellectual get-togethers.
Of course, the presence of present and past politicians help to make these soirees remarkable. Besides the Hon. Ed Broadbent Ed Broadbent --we had as principal guests: Messrs. John Ciaccia--the politician from the Liberal Party (Quebec), Me. Julius Grey who wears a number of hats --the lawyer, the professor and often the controversial man in the news who at times takes the middle-of-the road approach on the subject of “sovereignty”. His latest one word version of where we stand on the issue: let’s cool it. The economist Carl Beigie was present and a good number of other professors from the major English speaking universities in Montreal. Peter F. Trent--mayor of Westmount was present. Professionals of all métiers were also fairly represented! We numbered approximately about 30-35 people trying to warm up to each other’s ideas on a very cold winter night outside. In fact the thermometer indicated 25 degrees below zero --while inside the Nicholson’s home --the spirits were much warmer.
Back to the soiree--since the interesting part of the evening --is not necessarily what you see but what you hear “off-the record”. We heard plenty.
On an evening --where serious discussion was expected to take place within a few minutes, David --the host, tried to warm up the atmosphere by showing clips of videos of “Ed” --the brilliant orator in his early days at the House of Commons. Specially “Ed” standing up --he rarely spoke sitting down-- vs. his political adversaries at the time: Messrs. Trudeau and Mulroney. The main subject of discussion: a sovereign Quebec and the partitioning of Quebec --before or after! A subject of “a double trenchant” (like a sword with a double cutting edge). This subject was in the news during the past week. Both the federal government and the new partition movement in Montreal having given it an uneasy birth.
Hereunder is a list of comments heard--with no priority as to their importance or sequence of participation in the over-all context “at what price Quebec unity?”
--Make Montreal a Berlin of North America!
--If Montreal “goes” --so goes the tax base of the whole province of Quebec. Where is the new tax base of Quebec going to come from? (There was no answer “off or/on the record”
--If you win an argument --then ‘you WIN exactly that: only ‘an argument!”
--What about aboriginal rights? What about the northern Quebec aboriginal rights legitimacy? (Ed Broadbent --speaking for the Human Rights Organization he is presently Chairing)
--The division of Quebec argument is totally counterproductive. Result: sovereignty might get some new adherents.
--The parts will not add up the whole!
--What will replace the ‘hole’ created if Quebec separates?.
--Support the “collective right!” (i.e. ?)
--Support minority rights!
--Ottawa --i.e. the federal government has no plans “A or B” in case of a secession. Furthermore, at present the federal government is meeting “the cause celebre” on a day to day basis. New policies and new visions arise as we go along on the corridor of the unknown. This is not exactly a tunnel vision, but it looks and sounds like our politicians are walking in the dark tunnel without seeing the light at the other end.
--There is talk of a partition in vacuums --there are no real proposals on the table!
--After all, ‘constitution’ prevents people from doing things; then why are we all so hang-up on its importance!
--How about the “new power base” in the West --specially with the emerging British Columbia.
--At the end of the rope, the new social agenda will dictate the direction of both the separation movement and the federal system as we know it to-day.
--Do we need an international arbitration to oversee what goes on in the referendum arena in the province of Quebec? Then, why not extend an invitation to Mr. E. Broadbent for his presence and that of his Human activist group he is representing. May be the trips to Haiti will have to be postponed.
--Julius Grey: “Federations have fallen apart in the past: Ireland, Cyprus, India-Pakistan, Germany-Poland ...”. Let’s us devote our energies and attention to something else!
There was a mock “debate” amongst parties for and against the partition (now re-worded in plural: partitions). Comments on how to approach the subject came in from all sitting around the discussion table. The real debate is due on February 16- 1996 in front of a real audience! I believe the question on the table at that date will be: “Is it still worth trying to save the Canadian federation?”
These are some of the notes I have taken during the evening. In all honesty --we all survived the mish-mash of ideas, feelings, comments, suggestions --thanks to the good humor of the videos prepared by David. Diana helped maintain the “cool” of the place by her intervention --when guests or for that matter the host went astray off the main topic. It was easy to go astray on a topic as serious as “session, or divorce, or partition or whatever new or old name you want to attach to it!”.
To re-phrase a now well known phrase by an ex-liberal politician: Partition, is partition, is partition --by whatever name you want to call it !
In conclusion: I have hope that if we survived this particular soiree at the Nicholson --with so many ideas flushing around as the sound and beams in a downtown disco and the divergence of our two, three, four and many more cultures being so obvious to anyone present on the night of Wednesday January 31, 1996...then there is only one outcome to all this: Quebec and Canada will survive. C’est la vie!
Comments by Sam Totah
Montreal, Que. February 14, 1996
Tel.: 933-3712 ; Fax: 933-9914
S. Totah
Email:
Sam Totah at bulmer@vir.com
Tel. 514-933-3712 Fax. 514-933-9914
Visit The Mansion's Web page
DOW Reuters TSE | Weather
