so don't let me fool around no more I'm in trouble. Motivation issues, big time. Argh. You know when the stress about not caring starts to overwhelm you, but you still can't make yourself care? And I find myself wondering what I'm trying to prove - I already did this, got the degree, proved it to myself, so now what.

I'm reading some excruciatingly boring history documents for research on my Confederation paper. It's not that the subject matter is boring, but I haven't stumbled on any well-written accounts of the time period as I would have expected. You can read entire (and lengthy) speeches made by Nova Scotia politicians in 1868, but it seems like these guys had a talent for using a heck of a lot of words without really getting to the point. I gather that Nova Scotia wanted out of Confederation before the ink was even dry on the agreement, so they debated the matter in their legislature for years afterwards, but I haven't come to the point where they stopped fighting it yet.

It sure gives you some perspective on current day Canadian politics, specifically the struggle between the provinces and Ottawa regarding who gets to make decisions about what. In my research on democratic and electoral reform, I always thought that this particular tidbit was a key element in maintaining Canadian unity:

Canada…does have one significant check on prime ministerial power that is largely lacking in other Westminster-style democracies – a strong federal system. It is a point that bears close consideration. Essentially, while power may be highly centralized in the hands of the prime minister, the same holds true for provincial premiers. In other words, prime ministerial power and ambition can be easily checked by strong resistance from some of the larger provinces.

From the very early days of Canadian Confederation, it has been the provinces that keep Ottawa in check. And almost every province has taken issue with the federal government at some point - does it not make sense that this power should be harnessed and used as leverage? Alliances can be formed and favours can be traded, because although the "fathers of Confederation" intended that the federal government should predominate, the system that actually evolved is not what they envisioned. What we have now is a system of democracy where neither level of government is superior to to the other. Ottawa cannot dominate.

These days I'm gaining a better understanding of the Quebec separation issue, from both a historical perspective and then in a modern day context. I don't typically like to weigh in on issues that I'm certain I don't know enough about, and I'm still not ready to take a position on the concerns of Quebeckers, but I thought it was interesting to read the following quote from Justin Trudeau regarding Quebec:

Trudeau called the idea of [Quebec] nationalism one "based on a smallness of thought that closes in, that builds up barriers between peoples and has nothing to do with the Canada we should be building."

In one respect I do fully agree with his position. When most nations are in the process of breaking down barriers and seeing the benefit to be gained by creating partnerships, this notion of separation seems very backwards. Then again, maybe that's what it will take for this group of people to feel the good faith necessary for that type of relationship. Who knows, man.  | ¶ 11:26 p.m.