Louis Balthazar - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Louis Balthazar
Notes (part. bibliogr.) au bas des p
I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible a... more I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible ambiguity. For most English-speaking Canadian leaders in 1867, the British North America Act was creating a new nation. For French Canadians however, the new country was the result of a pact or a contract between provinces, especially between the French-speaking province of Québec, which received special guarantees of autonomy, and the other English-speaking components of Canada. Th..
Notes (part. bibliogr.) au bas des p
L'impact référendaire, 2011
I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible a... more I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible ambiguity. For most English-speaking Canadian leaders in 1867, the British North America Act was creating a new nation. For French Canadians however, the new country was the result of a pact or a contract between provinces, especially between the French-speaking province of Québec, which received special guarantees of autonomy, and the other English-speaking components of Canada. Th..
Problems and Opportunities in U.S.-Quebec Relations, 2019
Problems and Opportunities in U.S.-Quebec Relations, 2019
Classiques des sciences sociales., 2005
Recherches sociographiques, 1991
Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y ... more Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. [https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politiquedutilisation/] Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.
Politique et Sociétés, 1999
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1989
first glance, but the economic outcomes and political likelihoods vary remarkably. The authors al... more first glance, but the economic outcomes and political likelihoods vary remarkably. The authors also present as succinct and complete a review of the technical options as regards emissions abatement as I have read. This is, one should also be clear, not an alarmist book. In fact, from a Canadian perspective, it would seem understated as regards the environmental impacts of acid rain. For example, the authors write "unlike respirable sulphates or fine particle matter, acid deposition does not appear to represent a direct threat to human health" (51). One might have said that such effects have not thus far been demonstrated. One might have discussed in much stronger terms than they do the indirect health threats (for example, metals leaching, accelerated landfill leaching, and so forth). Also, in my view, there is an underestimate of the technical and economic potentials for additional increments of energy conservation as part of the solution (78) and the potential impacts on forests as part of the problem. Nonetheless, this is an excellent book with a generally intelligent and appropriate balance between concern and precision. It succinctly brings together all the crucial elements necessary to US political decision-making in the case of acid precipitation. It should be read in classrooms on both sides of the border and in the new Canadian embassy building in Washington, D.C.
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1972
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1995
The federal structure of Canada has always been very important for Quebec, especially since the Q... more The federal structure of Canada has always been very important for Quebec, especially since the Quiet Revolution. By the 1960s, Quebec had come to constitute a communication network of its own. This reinforced the notion of provincial autonomy. Quebec's claims were supported by two important federal commissions. The Ottawa government, however, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau's leadership, reacted with the concept of a single Canadian nation. Trudeau's actions culminated with the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the Quebec National Assembly did not and could not approve a constitutional scheme that totally ignored Quebec as a people, the Canadian Constitution was and still is illegitimate for Quebecers. Efforts at rectifying this anomaly were in vain, in great part because the very spirit of Canadianism resulting from the application of the Charter did not allow for the full recognition of a distinct society in Quebec. This is why Quebecers, wh...
American Review of Canadian Studies, 1996
By the winter of 1997, Quebeckers' sentiments toward Canada had hardly changed. If another re... more By the winter of 1997, Quebeckers' sentiments toward Canada had hardly changed. If another referendum had been held then, the results would have shown, in all likelihood, the same tragic polarization as on 30 October 1995. A public opinion poll conducted for the exclusive use of the Canadian government in October 1996 was released by the Toronto Star on 26 February 1997. It showed that seven Quebeckers out of ten were dissatisfied with the Chretien government's performance concerning the status of Quebec in Canada. Quebeckers nonetheless remained strongly attached to Canada (65 percent) and saddened by the perspective of secession. They would have voted for sovereignty-partnership in the proportion of 50 percent, just about like a year before. How could Quebeckers be at the same time so tied up to their country and risk its dismantlement by voting Yes on sovereignty with an uncertain partnership project? I tried to offer several explanations to that paradox in my article of a year ago. These underlined the fact that Quebeckers have always been both loyal to Canada and keen on their own specific identity. It is to preserve this identity from the threat of a new form of all-embracing Canadianism that so many Quebeckers are contemplating a higher degree of sovereignty than what is allowed by the present constitution of Canada. The Quebec sovereignty movement has always been fed by the inability of the Canadian government and the apparent unwillingness of a majority of Canadians to recognize Quebeckers' specific identity. Prime Minister Jean Chretien is committed to avoiding a repetition of the "nerve-racking" Referendum of 1995. He moved a resolution in Parliament to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to give it a veto (along with other major provinces) on any future constitutional change. But this action remained mostly symbolic and did not go beyond the Parliament's expression of goodwill. The federal Cabinet was also reshuffled to allow the addition of fresh blood from Quebec. Stephane Dion, a brilliant young political scientist, was appointed Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations: he pledged to have the "distinct society" recognition enshrined in the constitution. Pierre Pettigrew is another young and intelligent Francophone Quebecker who was called to the Cabinet with Dion in order to assuage his Quebec compatriots and prevent them from voting Yes in another referendum. Most of these efforts of the federal government, however, fell short of addressing the main bone of contention that has remained intact more than a year after the Referendum. Ottawa has used the stick and the carrot, but has lamentably failed to bring forth a conception of Canada that would make room for the people of Quebec. The Stick Contrary to what many had expected, the close Referendum vote did not induce Canadians (including English-speaking Quebeckers) to search for new forms of accommodation with the Quebec government. The Referendum undoubtedly produced a strong shock, but it also has generated more bitterness and hostility than a desire for rapprochement. The expressions of love that were loudly heard in the pre-Referendum rally were transformed into tough utterances in the style of "put up or shut up." What was sought was not to pacify Quebeckers but to frighten them away from trying again to achieve sovereignty. Both the federal government and members of various elites in English Canada vowed to prevent another referendum by threatening to review an eventual question, to demand a qualified majority (that is, 60 or 65 percent) and, above all, to disallow in advance any unilateral declaration of independence (U.D.I.) on the part of Quebec. The possibility of partitioning a sovereign Quebec was also seriously considered. All of the latter were part of a so-called "Plan B," as if a positive "Plan A" to keep Quebec in confederation had failed completely. Let us briefly examine these unpleasant perspectives. …
American Review of Canadian Studies, 1995
y American colleagues have done an excellent job in analyzing the M 1995 Quebec Referendum. Even ... more y American colleagues have done an excellent job in analyzing the M 1995 Quebec Referendum. Even if I must part company with a number of their statements, I fall in agreement with most of their general conclusions. Perhaps their outsiders' positions afforded them a better opportunity to offer an objective evaluation. Yet one may wonder if Americans are totally outsiders in this question. Being English-speaking and culturally much closer to English Canada' than to Quebec, in spite of their real sympathy and friendship for Quebeckers, do they not tend to view things through the prism of English-speaking Canadians' standpoint? Moreover, the bulk of their information comes from Anglophone sources like the Toronto Gbbe and Mail and Maclean's. Even Robert Gill, who attempts a Quebec perspective, relies twice as much on sources outside French Quebec. This is not to say, of course, that the English Canadian media are always wrong and do not report the facts correctly. Some of them are making an honest effort to be objective. But French language media in Quebec have been obviously much more balanced in their coverage of the Referendum campaign. They have shown and explained the Yes point of view as well as the No in great detail. All the articles above, therefore, have remained largely outside the Referendum's "black box": the two million and a half voters who gave their support to the sovereignty-partnership project. As a French-speaking Quebecker and longtime analyst, I claim to be in a good position to open the black box and give an answer to the question: "Why did such a great number of Quebeckers vote Yes?" It is impossible to do so without going back to history. As Robert Gill correctly pointed out, "collective memory" played a prominent role in this Referendum. Recent history, in particular, has given ample motivation to the Yes vote. But what exactly did Quebeckers vote for? This is another issue to be addressed. I shall do so in analyzing the question that was proposed to the Quebec electorate. I shall also deal briefly with the actual result and its meaning. Because of its obvious importance, the issue of the ethnic vote and the alleged ethnic nature of Quebec nationalism will be given special consideration. Finally, like my colleagues have done, I will offer a few suggestions as to what seems to me to lie ahead.
Comment comparer le Canada avec les États-Unis aujourd'hui ? C'est la question centrale d... more Comment comparer le Canada avec les États-Unis aujourd'hui ? C'est la question centrale de cet ouvrage qui met en dialogue 13 contributions écrites par des américanistes et des canadianistes, dans une perspective interdisciplinaire. Les domaines d'investigation, regroupés en trois grands pôles de réflexion - politique, espace, et migration - se situent pour la plupart à la croisée de plusieurs champs : économie, politique, droit, anthropologie, sociologie, histoire des idées, histoire de l'immigration, de l'urbanisme, et littérature. Il s'agit de cerner à nouveau, dans le contexte actuel de la mondialisation, les lignes de fond qui soustendent les intérêts parfois disparates des comparatistes qui rapprochent deux pays dont la relation est inégale
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 13597569908421076, Dec 18, 2009
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 13597569908421076, Dec 18, 2009
Bulletin d'histoire politique
Tous droits réservés © Association québécoise d'histoire politique; VLB Éditeur, 1999 Ce document... more Tous droits réservés © Association québécoise d'histoire politique; VLB Éditeur, 1999 Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.
Notes (part. bibliogr.) au bas des p
I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible a... more I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible ambiguity. For most English-speaking Canadian leaders in 1867, the British North America Act was creating a new nation. For French Canadians however, the new country was the result of a pact or a contract between provinces, especially between the French-speaking province of Québec, which received special guarantees of autonomy, and the other English-speaking components of Canada. Th..
Notes (part. bibliogr.) au bas des p
L'impact référendaire, 2011
I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible a... more I INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the very foundation of modern Canada rests on a terrible ambiguity. For most English-speaking Canadian leaders in 1867, the British North America Act was creating a new nation. For French Canadians however, the new country was the result of a pact or a contract between provinces, especially between the French-speaking province of Québec, which received special guarantees of autonomy, and the other English-speaking components of Canada. Th..
Problems and Opportunities in U.S.-Quebec Relations, 2019
Problems and Opportunities in U.S.-Quebec Relations, 2019
Classiques des sciences sociales., 2005
Recherches sociographiques, 1991
Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y ... more Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. [https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politiquedutilisation/] Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.
Politique et Sociétés, 1999
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1989
first glance, but the economic outcomes and political likelihoods vary remarkably. The authors al... more first glance, but the economic outcomes and political likelihoods vary remarkably. The authors also present as succinct and complete a review of the technical options as regards emissions abatement as I have read. This is, one should also be clear, not an alarmist book. In fact, from a Canadian perspective, it would seem understated as regards the environmental impacts of acid rain. For example, the authors write "unlike respirable sulphates or fine particle matter, acid deposition does not appear to represent a direct threat to human health" (51). One might have said that such effects have not thus far been demonstrated. One might have discussed in much stronger terms than they do the indirect health threats (for example, metals leaching, accelerated landfill leaching, and so forth). Also, in my view, there is an underestimate of the technical and economic potentials for additional increments of energy conservation as part of the solution (78) and the potential impacts on forests as part of the problem. Nonetheless, this is an excellent book with a generally intelligent and appropriate balance between concern and precision. It succinctly brings together all the crucial elements necessary to US political decision-making in the case of acid precipitation. It should be read in classrooms on both sides of the border and in the new Canadian embassy building in Washington, D.C.
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1972
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1995
The federal structure of Canada has always been very important for Quebec, especially since the Q... more The federal structure of Canada has always been very important for Quebec, especially since the Quiet Revolution. By the 1960s, Quebec had come to constitute a communication network of its own. This reinforced the notion of provincial autonomy. Quebec's claims were supported by two important federal commissions. The Ottawa government, however, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau's leadership, reacted with the concept of a single Canadian nation. Trudeau's actions culminated with the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the Quebec National Assembly did not and could not approve a constitutional scheme that totally ignored Quebec as a people, the Canadian Constitution was and still is illegitimate for Quebecers. Efforts at rectifying this anomaly were in vain, in great part because the very spirit of Canadianism resulting from the application of the Charter did not allow for the full recognition of a distinct society in Quebec. This is why Quebecers, wh...
American Review of Canadian Studies, 1996
By the winter of 1997, Quebeckers' sentiments toward Canada had hardly changed. If another re... more By the winter of 1997, Quebeckers' sentiments toward Canada had hardly changed. If another referendum had been held then, the results would have shown, in all likelihood, the same tragic polarization as on 30 October 1995. A public opinion poll conducted for the exclusive use of the Canadian government in October 1996 was released by the Toronto Star on 26 February 1997. It showed that seven Quebeckers out of ten were dissatisfied with the Chretien government's performance concerning the status of Quebec in Canada. Quebeckers nonetheless remained strongly attached to Canada (65 percent) and saddened by the perspective of secession. They would have voted for sovereignty-partnership in the proportion of 50 percent, just about like a year before. How could Quebeckers be at the same time so tied up to their country and risk its dismantlement by voting Yes on sovereignty with an uncertain partnership project? I tried to offer several explanations to that paradox in my article of a year ago. These underlined the fact that Quebeckers have always been both loyal to Canada and keen on their own specific identity. It is to preserve this identity from the threat of a new form of all-embracing Canadianism that so many Quebeckers are contemplating a higher degree of sovereignty than what is allowed by the present constitution of Canada. The Quebec sovereignty movement has always been fed by the inability of the Canadian government and the apparent unwillingness of a majority of Canadians to recognize Quebeckers' specific identity. Prime Minister Jean Chretien is committed to avoiding a repetition of the "nerve-racking" Referendum of 1995. He moved a resolution in Parliament to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to give it a veto (along with other major provinces) on any future constitutional change. But this action remained mostly symbolic and did not go beyond the Parliament's expression of goodwill. The federal Cabinet was also reshuffled to allow the addition of fresh blood from Quebec. Stephane Dion, a brilliant young political scientist, was appointed Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations: he pledged to have the "distinct society" recognition enshrined in the constitution. Pierre Pettigrew is another young and intelligent Francophone Quebecker who was called to the Cabinet with Dion in order to assuage his Quebec compatriots and prevent them from voting Yes in another referendum. Most of these efforts of the federal government, however, fell short of addressing the main bone of contention that has remained intact more than a year after the Referendum. Ottawa has used the stick and the carrot, but has lamentably failed to bring forth a conception of Canada that would make room for the people of Quebec. The Stick Contrary to what many had expected, the close Referendum vote did not induce Canadians (including English-speaking Quebeckers) to search for new forms of accommodation with the Quebec government. The Referendum undoubtedly produced a strong shock, but it also has generated more bitterness and hostility than a desire for rapprochement. The expressions of love that were loudly heard in the pre-Referendum rally were transformed into tough utterances in the style of "put up or shut up." What was sought was not to pacify Quebeckers but to frighten them away from trying again to achieve sovereignty. Both the federal government and members of various elites in English Canada vowed to prevent another referendum by threatening to review an eventual question, to demand a qualified majority (that is, 60 or 65 percent) and, above all, to disallow in advance any unilateral declaration of independence (U.D.I.) on the part of Quebec. The possibility of partitioning a sovereign Quebec was also seriously considered. All of the latter were part of a so-called "Plan B," as if a positive "Plan A" to keep Quebec in confederation had failed completely. Let us briefly examine these unpleasant perspectives. …
American Review of Canadian Studies, 1995
y American colleagues have done an excellent job in analyzing the M 1995 Quebec Referendum. Even ... more y American colleagues have done an excellent job in analyzing the M 1995 Quebec Referendum. Even if I must part company with a number of their statements, I fall in agreement with most of their general conclusions. Perhaps their outsiders' positions afforded them a better opportunity to offer an objective evaluation. Yet one may wonder if Americans are totally outsiders in this question. Being English-speaking and culturally much closer to English Canada' than to Quebec, in spite of their real sympathy and friendship for Quebeckers, do they not tend to view things through the prism of English-speaking Canadians' standpoint? Moreover, the bulk of their information comes from Anglophone sources like the Toronto Gbbe and Mail and Maclean's. Even Robert Gill, who attempts a Quebec perspective, relies twice as much on sources outside French Quebec. This is not to say, of course, that the English Canadian media are always wrong and do not report the facts correctly. Some of them are making an honest effort to be objective. But French language media in Quebec have been obviously much more balanced in their coverage of the Referendum campaign. They have shown and explained the Yes point of view as well as the No in great detail. All the articles above, therefore, have remained largely outside the Referendum's "black box": the two million and a half voters who gave their support to the sovereignty-partnership project. As a French-speaking Quebecker and longtime analyst, I claim to be in a good position to open the black box and give an answer to the question: "Why did such a great number of Quebeckers vote Yes?" It is impossible to do so without going back to history. As Robert Gill correctly pointed out, "collective memory" played a prominent role in this Referendum. Recent history, in particular, has given ample motivation to the Yes vote. But what exactly did Quebeckers vote for? This is another issue to be addressed. I shall do so in analyzing the question that was proposed to the Quebec electorate. I shall also deal briefly with the actual result and its meaning. Because of its obvious importance, the issue of the ethnic vote and the alleged ethnic nature of Quebec nationalism will be given special consideration. Finally, like my colleagues have done, I will offer a few suggestions as to what seems to me to lie ahead.
Comment comparer le Canada avec les États-Unis aujourd'hui ? C'est la question centrale d... more Comment comparer le Canada avec les États-Unis aujourd'hui ? C'est la question centrale de cet ouvrage qui met en dialogue 13 contributions écrites par des américanistes et des canadianistes, dans une perspective interdisciplinaire. Les domaines d'investigation, regroupés en trois grands pôles de réflexion - politique, espace, et migration - se situent pour la plupart à la croisée de plusieurs champs : économie, politique, droit, anthropologie, sociologie, histoire des idées, histoire de l'immigration, de l'urbanisme, et littérature. Il s'agit de cerner à nouveau, dans le contexte actuel de la mondialisation, les lignes de fond qui soustendent les intérêts parfois disparates des comparatistes qui rapprochent deux pays dont la relation est inégale
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 13597569908421076, Dec 18, 2009
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 13597569908421076, Dec 18, 2009
Bulletin d'histoire politique
Tous droits réservés © Association québécoise d'histoire politique; VLB Éditeur, 1999 Ce document... more Tous droits réservés © Association québécoise d'histoire politique; VLB Éditeur, 1999 Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.