Conference kaosws::canada

    
    .1 was not a bad comment at all.
    
    Sovereingty Association is not easy to explain but goes something
    like this. An independent state that would make its own international
    treaties, trading regulations, law system, etc except that it would
    use Canadian money, defense, and other things and would still have
    some of its social services recognized throughout the country such
    as medical insurance plan, etc.
    
    The closest existing example that I can think of is the relationship
    between Monaco and France.
    
    Others will probably explain it much better than I.
    
    Roger

    Monaco's status is somewhat idealized. Monaco citizens are very
    few, and this citizenship is almost impossible to acquire (even
    by marrying one of the princesses). Monaco residents under specific
    conditions, can benefit of a special tax status. This special status
    is granted by the French Ministry of Revenue and most often applies
    only to Corporation. Basically Monaco is a French competitive offering
    for international businesses head offices which find Geneva to
    expensive. The "country" receives all of its service from France
    (utilities, public work, health care system, etc...). There is only
    25,000 residents (not all citizens). The main business is tourism
    (Casino) and a fairly large commercial bradcasting system (owned at
    50% by the French state broadcasting administration, SOFIRAD).
    Until the 60s all of the tourism assets (casino, hotels, etc...) were
    owned by Onassis' Societe des bains de mers. A major dispute with
    the French Revenue ended up in the sale of it to a local group (financed
    by a French development company). The control of the Monaco citizenship
    status is subject to french approval, and all attempt by the prince
    to have some control over the fiscal law or the military status of
    his subjects have been unsuccessful so far (they can be called to
    serve in French Army like all other French Citizens, although it
    rarely happens outside wartime). With the 1992 collapse of all trade
    barriers in Europe, Monaco part as a tax shelter is bound to
    diminish, and they are investing heavily into tourism. Which means
    that their "souverainete" is of little advantage, and they, like
    all other europeans, are looking for more association.
    
    I hope Quebec as better model to look up to for its souverainete
    association (wanna try Andorra, San marino or Vatican ?). 

    Loose translation from Yvon Deschamps,
    
    "What Qu�bec wants is a soverign province in a united Canada"
    
    Jean
    

    
    As of now ( April 1990) is Canada two nations ?
    Or ten provinces �
    
    Any opinions, that might help those of Us who are still ambivalent 
    about this whole issue ?
    

    There is a whole continuum of inter-country relationships, and some are
    more independent than others. Consider the `independent' countries of
    the European Community, who, after 1992 will be a lot less independent
    than the individual states in the U.S., which function collectively as
    one country...
    
    Was Canada independent from Britain after the British North America Act
    of 1867? The Statute of Westminster of 1931? The Charter of Rights &
    Freedoms of 1982? Yes, on all three counts - but to varying degrees.
    
    ...laura

Re .6

I assure you that R.H. Mrs. Thatcher would go never allow lessening
in the sovereignty of Britain. She doesn't even like the Single
Market Act itself. 

The comparison with the U.S. (or indeed with the USSR) is very ill
informed indeed. 

As for the B.N.A. Act, this established a 'dominion'. A country
formed by an act of (any) parliament is hardly a constitutional
basis. 

Joe
ex-Of Brampton

    How is my comparison `ill-informed'?

    The only problem I can see with the comparison is that most of the
    States formed a Union at a very young stage in their lives, and as
    such did not have the same degree of history preventing co-operation.
    
    The reference to Mrs Thatcher was probably accurate in that she
    probably would be very reluctant to release much British Sovereignty
    to a European partnership when push comes to shove, and most European
    countries are likely the same.
    
    The union of the USSR was imposed, on the other hand, predominantly
    by force.
    
    
    Stuart

     >>>  As of now ( April 1990) is Canada two nations ?
        Or ten provinces 
          Any opinions, that might help those of Us who are still
    ambivalent about this whole issue ? 
        <<<
     
       In Quebec, the people wwere sold,by Georges-Etienne Cartier,
    the  concept of two founding nations.
        
        The rest of Canada was sold the concept of ten provinces in
    a confederation, all equals.
     This was in 1866-67. 
    
    This is still the prevailing state.
    
    Scooter

>       In Quebec, the people wwere sold,by Georges-Etienne Cartier,
>    the  concept of two founding nations.
    
    As the rest of Canada saw it the two founding nations concept is the
    idea that the Canadian culture and language were acquired from England
    and France and has no political strings ... after all Canada, including
    Quebec had been an English colony.
    
    Are you suggesting that Quebeckers see the two founding nations
    concept as French Quebec and English Canada and as a political
    distinction, rather like Quebec declares that the "distinct society" 
    clause in Meech means nothing political, except that the rest of Canada
    is taking it that way ?
    
    Stuart

    The only problem I have with the notion of two founding nations is that
    it is obsolete. Had Canada stayed as it was in 1867, it would remain
    accurate - but there were *many* founding nations in the West.
    
    I heard a comment on the radio this morning suggesting that the
    approach to a multicultural nation was to emulate Belgium or
    Switzerland, which practise a strict separation of the two cultures.
    How would people feel about a unilingual and uniculturally French
    Quebec, and a unilingual and uniculturally English rest of Canada?
    
    ...laura

    
    Interesting note Laura...from my understanding and I hope this is
    correct...the French and Flemish speaking people of Belgium also
    do not see eye to eye on many things.
    
    

    Re -.2,
    
    	This is an area where both the western red-necks and the diehard
    separatists would see eye to eye.
    
    Jean
    

    re .13
    
    You are so right, the Flemish and French definitely do not see eye
    to eye, and Vlanderen has proposed separation from Belgium on numerous
    occasions.  I don't think emulating Belgium would make any difference.
    
    Almost the same thing in Switzerland from what I recall, although I've
    not heard of separatist movements as such, but there is a lot of inter-
    racial snobbery and they have 3 languages and cultures to contend with
    (French, German and Italian).
    
    

    Switzerland actually has 4 offical languages; french, italian,
    swiss-german and a language called romanich (sp) which is only spoken
    in a small area in the mountains around Chur.
    
    Alan

    
    Yugoslavia is also an example...4-5 different groups..all speak
    different languages and since the death of Tito things have been
    very uneasy over there.
    

The fourth language in Switzerland is Romansh (or in German romaunsch,
or in French romanche, alternate English is Rumantsch or Grishun).

It is basically an "in-home" language; that is, although an official
language, every speaker of the language must know another language,
usually German, to be able to survive.

Romansh is a Rhaetian dialect related to French and spoken by about 50,000
people.  Two other major Rhaetian dialects are more closely related to
Italian:  Ladin, spoken by 12,000 people, and Friulian, spoken by 500,000.

/john

    Just to get back on topic here.  Why should the rest of Canada support
    sovereignty association with people who no longer wish to be Canadian?
    It would seem to me that if Quebec wishes this type of association with
    the rest of Canada that there should be a minimum timeframe to allow for
    financial readjustment, but before voting in their referendum it should
    be made perfectly clear to all Quebecers that they are on their own!
    No way should Canadians offer one penny to a people who have split this
    country down the middle.  Canadian tax money should be used to get
    Canada back onto the road to being productive and self-supporting with
    a surplus instead of a deficit.  Let's see how interested Quebecers are
    in having their own country when they aren't being financially propped
    up by the rest of Canada.  Long live the Quebec franc!
    
    I think it's time to play hardball!
    
    Don
    

    I heard an interesting interview on the CBC this morning, with a
    politician discussing sovereignty association for the province he
    represented. No, it wasn't Bourassa. Nor was it Parizeau.
    
    It was Bill Vander Zalm. This is getting serious.
    
    ...laura

    And if you talk to people from Vancouver island, THEY want to separate
    from BC, at least all Canadians seem to agree on one subject.
    
    Jean
    

    Let's set up thousands of little fifedoms all over the country ...
    so that we are left with Canada as just Parliament Hill with which
    we all have an association .... solve all the problems.  Every state
    would be sovereign, the Feds would be stripped of 99 44/100% of their
    powers so they couldn't force anything on anybody.
    
    Hmmmmph! 
    
    Stuart

    re .22
    
 >   Let's set up thousands of little fifedoms all over the country ...
    
    Well, by my reckoning, there is one Fifedom, on the east coast of
    Scotland, between the Forth and the Tay.
    
    And, whilst in nit-picking mode,
    	"agenda" in Latin is already plural - the singular is "agendum",
    meaning a thing to be done. So, if "agenda" in English is singular,
    it's plural should be formed in the English way.
    
    Tony

    Nit nit nit ....  
    
    You know what is meant ... and a fifedom is an accepted, if rare, term
    and does not imply reference to Fifedom other than by comparison.
    
    OK ... so I got the plural wrong ... 
    
    Got anything *USEFUL* to add to this discussion ???
    

    re .24
    
    Are you sure you don't mean "fiefdom"? :-)
    
    Now, I don't know whether this is "*USEFUL*", but would a change in
    the status of Quebec put it outside the U.S.-Canada free trade area?
    
    Tony

re: .25 by Tony RTL::HINXMAN 

�    Now, I don't know whether this is "*USEFUL*", but would a change in
�    the status of Quebec put it outside the U.S.-Canada free trade area?
    
    Presumably it would.
    
    This whole issue of breaking from Canada or sovereignty association is
    such an emotive one I'm not at all sure that people are considering all
    the issues involved.  One of which is of course whether Canada would 
    want sovereignty association with Qu�bec
    
    Splitting a country is no trivial task.
    
    Bob
    
    PS.  Whose face would appear on the Qu�bec francs?

    OK ... I had this nagging thought that maybe I'd blown the spelling ...
    I don't have a dictionary to hand. (Anyway stop pick-nitting ... you
    knew what I MEANT)
    
    Look, we don't even have a clue what the various options Qu�bec might
    consider will do its status in Canada, or what it will do to Canada
    itself, let alone how it will affect Qu�bec's or Canada's external 
    organizational committments like the Free Trade Area, Nato, the British
    Commonwealth.
    
    We don't even know if there will be a Canada at this stage!
    
    Nobody knows ... and that is what is so awful about all of this.
    
    Stuart

    If Meech had been ratified, there would be no wondering.

    Re .28
    
    Sorry, but that is naive ...  Sure in the short term it may be true,
    but in the long term, I think we could be in a worse mess than we are
    today.  We'd be a country held together by signatures on paper
    rather than the goodwill and understanding of the Canadians.
    
    I sincerely believe that even if Meech had been signed we'll still
    pondering Qu�bec separation, Western independence, American annexation
    and other forms of pondering our own navels for years to come.  For
    an individual this much introspection is a danger to mental health;
    for the provinces and country it is a social, political and economic
    health.  
    
    We'd be standing at this same cross roads just a few years from now
    with no greater understanding of what it is to be a Qu�becois, a
    Westerner or a Canadian.
    
    The demise of Canada is not inevitible but the crisis we face today
    probably is, Meech of no Meech.
    
    Stuart

    Meech was so full of holes that if it had passed it would still have 
    left us wondering.  
    
    If Meech had passed do you imagine that the PQ and other separatists in
    Quebec would have accepted that?  They would still be saying that they
    had been 'humiliated' by English Canada, and that Canada was not whole-
    heartedly behind the deal, and that they don't understand.  The
    separatists have been using these emotive terms so much just recently
    that some of the ordinary folks are starting to believe them!  
    
    The politicians are playing games, but I think (and hope) that the 
    ordinary French Canadians in Quebec will see through that.  It's time 
    everyone realized that politians don't solve problems -- they make 
    them.  
    
    -Gerry

    re. .29 & .30

    	Why don't any Qu�becois share your opinion? If I am naive then I am
    along with millions of other Canadians who speak French.
    	I guess the New Brunswick MPPs are pretty stupid eh? What a bunch
    of naive idiots they were.
    	Come on! At least they realised the responsibility they had to
    think of the interest of the whole country and not just their regional
    problems.

    re .29
    	If I am naive, then I share some pretty prestigious company. You
    can identify yourself with a buffoon like Clyde Wells whose signature
    isn't worth anything. 
    	What your statement says to me is I'm naive and your Anglophone.

    	
    	You guys are starting to sound pretty pessimistic. Feeling some
    trepidation about Canada's future? You should be.

    	If Meech Lake had been ratified, the Qu�bec separatists would have
    become a de-clawed pack of whiners with little support. If you don't
    believe that then you are once again selling Qu�becers short.

    	Glenn

    Hey Glenn, are you supporting me in my quest because I supported the
    grand canal?
    
    For people to meet, they only need to go half way, we did but then we
    were told "since you moved first, you may as well keep going and go the
    full distance" is this Canadian compromise?
    
    Jean
    

    Jean,

    	I am supporting you in your quest only because you thought
    whirly-twirlies should be allowed in NDG between consummated adults.

    Glenn

    Glenn,
    
    Let me be the first to congratulate you on your ability to twist
    what I said ... you do a fine job at it!
    
    I said that it is a naive view to assume that the signing of Meech
    Lake would mend the country's divisions, be they Qu�bec separatists
    or Western or Atlantic separatists.  I did NOT say that YOU were
    naive ... I don't know you to make comments about you ... don't
    begin to even imply that I do.  I didn't say that anyone who signed
    or agreed to the accord were idiots.  I repeat, I said it would be naive
    to assume that the country's divisions would be mended by signatures
    on the constitution.
    
    Meech Lake turned out to be about a lot more than bringing Qu�bec
    into the constitution ... for all the national inequities it fixed
    it created others.  Inequities that would still cause problems years
    down the road.
    
    If a little emotion drumming can raise the separatist mood again
    in Qu�bec, do you really believe Meech would have changed that ?
    I doubt it.
    
    I've already said in another note what I think about your hanging
    labels on me ... it's divisive ... but if you want to hang a label
    on me I guess that's your business, but it serves no useful purpose.
    Why must you, instead of using logical debate, start throwing what
    could be taken as insults and name calling ?
    
    
    
    

    <<< Note 283.21 by MQOFS::DESROSIERS "Lets procrastinate....tomorrow" >>>
                                -< separation >-

>>>And if you talk to people from Vancouver island, THEY want to separate
    from BC, at least all Canadians seem to agree on one subject.
    
    Jean
    
This is somewhat true because most of the immigrants that come
from the Orient settle in Vancouver and lower Fraser Valley. The
Islanders feel that they are paying taxes to support all these
hordes of immigrants; however, the problem in Vancouver is that
the Chinese from Hong Kong are spending BIG to buy real estate by
paying CASH$$$ for the houses, driving prices way out of the
market value.

calvin