Conference kaosws::canada

    This week, the four western premiers met to discuss Meech Lake, and
    appeared to find a comprimise on the issue of Senate reform. Under the
    Meech Lake Accord, all ten provinces must approve any amendments
    changing the Senate.  The western premiers agreed on a 'sunset' clause,
    that would remove the unanimity requirement if an agreement was not
    reached within three years of the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord.
    Ontario liked the idea, Newfoundland gave one thumb up, and New
    Brunswick restated its support for such a clause.  Quebec, however,
    stated that the Meech Lake Accord gives it a veto over Senate reform,
    and that it would not agree to anything that removed that veto. Under
    the present Constitution, Quebec does not have a veto over such
    matters. 

    Does anyone else get the impression that Quebec is TRYING to torpedo
    the Accord deliberately?  
    
    Before Meech Lake, Quebec stated that five principles must be met
    before it signed the Constitution.  Although many of the proposals
    that have emerged recently do not touch the substance (though perhaps,
    the implementation) of these principles, Quebec is refusing to discuss
    any comprimises that could break the deadlock.  Why?  I believe
    that all dissenting parties want Quebec's five principles enshrined
    in the Constitution, but disagree over HOW they were enshrined.
    
    Some of the concerns of opponents to Meech Lake are not central
    to this discussion.  Other issues, such as women's rights, aboriginal
    rights, etc., were not included in the original constitution.  However,
    the Meech Lake Accord was designed to handle one specific issue,
    the absense of the second biggest province from the Constitution,
    and including other issues now makes no sense.  The premiers must
    focus on whether Meech Lake enshrined Quebec's principles, without
    having unwanted consequences for the country as a whole.  If they
    have, then the Accord should pass.  If they have not, then the Accord
    must be reopened, or appended, before it is passed.
    
    Glenn

    
    
    The Meech Lake accord should ( I think ) be scrapped. The problems that
    I see with it are:
    
    1) It does not deal with native and womens rights.
    2) It does not include senate reform. Ie: an elected senate.
    
    I feel that the Quebecois are torpedoing Meech lake for several
    reasons. AND these reasons have more to do with political power games
    than the issue of language equality and a distinct society.
    
    The Quebec government does not want an elected senate! At most Quebec
    will agree to modest reforms. An elected senate means that the four
    western provinces and the eastern provinces will have a greater say as
    to what happens within government. Most western Canadians believe that
    the only way to ensure that our region has a more meaningful voice in
    the governments decision making process is through senate reform. Equal
    representation is not what Quebec wants. They want increased political
    power over and above the rest of Canada. This is something more than
    just protection of their culture.
    
    The four western provinces comprise 30% of the population of Canada,
    yet monies spent on goods and services by the government in the western
    provinces amount to about 11% of the total alotted. The Atlantic provinces
    comprise 10% of the population of Canada yet they receive only about 7% 
    of the dollars spent by the federal government. Fully 76 % of the dollar
    totals are spent within Ontario and Quebec. This regional inequality is 
    viewed as favoritism on the part of the federal government and an elected 
    senate would go along way to aleviate this.
    
    An elected senate would mean an end to these inequalities and an end to
    Quebecs preferred status by the government of Canada. The award of the
    CF-18 contract to Canadair of Montreal is a prime example of the
    A** kissing done by the Mulroney government.
    
    I believe that Quebec has a right to their own culture and language but
    not at the expence of the individuals rights. I also believe that this
    is not the main issue with the Quebec government. It is a popular
    rallying point, and is used as such. Power is the main issue. Allways.
    
    Eagerly awaiting a response,
    
    Ron

    I'd say that there is some validity in some of what you say ...
    but some again is emotionally driven ...
    
    I most certainly agree that there are a lot of political power games
    being played here, using the emotive issues such as distinct society
    and so on as tools to an end.  I think every first minister is out
    for getting power either for the provinces, or glory for themselves.
    None of them really seem to be in this tussle for building a stronger
    and more united Canada.
    
    There is not a lot wrong with the Meech Lake Accord of itself, apart
    from its vagueries and omissions.  I think what everybody forgets about
    the accord is that it is not meant as a document to complete the Canadian 
    Constitution, but rather a proposed agreement on a number of issues
    that were forseen as a Minimum to bring the province of Quebec into
    Canada under the Canadian Constitution rather than under the British
    North America Act as things stand now.  Everyone seems to think that
    the accord should do more than that, including a host of premiers.
    
    So, all the premiers who want the accord to do more than it does are
    really just power mongering.
    
    I wish all these people would just deal with the one issue, rather than
    cloud it with all the others.  Don't get me wrong, I do believe that
    there are all kinds of groups whose rights need to be addressed, but
    they do not have to be done in this accord.  I cannot understand what
    including native rights in Meech Lake has to do with the inclusion of
    Quebec in the Constitution, apart from people using it as another
    power lever, and the same with the elected seante.
    
    These are things that can be dealt with after we have a complete
    country all working at the same negotiation table.  After all, we
    cannot have debates over senate reform unless the whole country is
    using the same set of constitutional rules at the same table.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    Don't forget that EVERYONE present reached an agreement THEN, Qu�bec
    did not change it's stance, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Manitoba
    DID, so who is torpedoeing the accord?  even YOUR governement (Alberta)
    is for Meech Lake as it is so who is right?  all the prime ministers
    present then or the three dissidents?
    
    Jean
    

	Re:-1

	All of the issues raised by the opponents of Meech Lake are 
	extremely relevent to Meech Lake and getting the Qu�bec government 
	to SIGN the constitution.  I believe the Supreme Court has 
	already determined that the constitution applies to Qu�bec, the 
	"only" thing that is lacking is their acceptance and signature, 
	but I digress...

	The reason these issues are relevent is becuase the Meech Lake 
	Accord went beyond just Qu�bec's requirements.  In order to get 
	agreement with Qu�bec, Mulroney made deals with the other provinces.
	These deals have the possiblity of thwarting the aspirations of 
	other segments of Canadian society.  For example, rather than just 
	giving Qu�bec a veto, which the other provinces would never have 
	agreed to, Mulroney gave every province a veto in certain areas.  
	As a result, progress may be difficult in areas such as the 
	formation of new provinces or senate reform.  The folks who feel 
	they may be harmed forever by the Meech Lake Accord must oppose it 
	or give up their aspirations.

	So Stuart, you are quite correct in wishing that the powers-that-be 
	deal with one issue at a time.  The 11 gentlemen who traded power 
	three years ago (for their own advantage) should have followed your 
	advice.  But I suspect there wouldn't have been any kind of deal if 
	they didn't do some horse trading.

	I suggest that everyone read what Trudeau has to say about Meech 
	Lake and how it came to be.  Regardless of your political or 
	language background, I think you'll agree he explains very 
	clearly the circumstances under which the accord was written and 
	how Mulroney created a situation that couldn't possibly become 
	accepted (as written) within Canada.  And yes, I do blame Mulroney 
	very much for the current mess we are in...
 
	Regards,

	Garry Lockyer

    As I've indicated elsewhere, this was a bad deal signed under bizarre
    circumstances.  I liken it to a some car or door to door sales events.
    
    Jean, while the premiers did sign the accord, it was necessary that
    the accord be ratified by 11 legislatures, so even if a premier
    didn't torpedo it, a legislature could ... basically, it wasn't
    an accord until it had complete ratification.  I suspect that some
    of the premiers only agreed to sign as a way of saying .. OK, I may
    not agree to the accord as written, but I will agree to take it back
    to my legislature, especially considering the crazy circumstances that
    lead to Mulroney trying to get this accord.
    
    So, I think it is not altogether fair to say these hold-out premiers
    are renegging on their signature.  It would be like you agreeing to
    buy a car, with the condition that you get your wife's approval, then
    you find you cannot get that approval.  Is someone really at fault here
    considering that it was signed with that condition in place ?
    
    The relevence of these add on issues was only because of the greedy
    horse-trading that went on, putting more and more on the auction block.
    
    I hate to say this, because I do believe that Meech as written is
    badly flawed, but I think that if our provinces really do want
    national unity, then they are going to have to ratify Meech pretty
    much as it is written, and then work out the problems afterwards,
    when cooler heads and less beligerance prevails.
    
    Stuart

	.5 was meant as a reply to .4 by Jean snuck one in so now 
	I have to reply.  And I told myself I wouldn't discuss this 
	subject in NOTES!

	About everyone agreeing to something 3 years ago:  The reality
	is that 11 INDIVIDUALS agreed to the proposed Meech Lake Accord. 
	While I am not even close to being a constitutional expert, I don't 
	believe the 11 first ministers, as a collective body, have a 
	constitutional role in the governing body.  The constitution can 
	not be changed without following the ammendment process defined 
	in the constitution.  In the case of Manitoba, its constitution 
	requires public hearings to be held.  It is reasonable to expect 
	changes will be proposed as a result of public hearings.

	My point is that all of the above (assumming it is accurate) was 
	known at the time Meech Lake was written.  Politicians are 
	ignoring reality when they talk about having an agreement, when in 
	fact all there was an agreement among 11 individuals, each of whom 
	was agreeing to things for their own reasons, without knowing for 
	certain that the accord would be passed by the legislatures they 
	represent.  I would grant that Newfoundland was not "playing fair" 
	when they withdrew their support, but this just proves the point 
	that an agreement among the premiers is not an agreement at all.
	As soon as the government changed, the support for Meech Lake 
	dissappeared and it looks like the population of Newfoundland is 
	backing Wells.  This suggests that his predeccesor (sp?) was 
	out of step with the masses on the Meech Lake issue.

	Just another example of a crisis created and mis-managed by 
	politicians!

	Regards,

	Garry

    Jean,
    You are right Getty is for Meech lake. But, Getty is an idiot, and was
    voted out of his riding by myself and other concerned voters in
    Whitemud. He is stampeding for senate reform but ignores the dangers of
    Quebec having veto powers over this issue.
    The people of western Canada will be some PO'd if an elected senate
    does not become a reality. The hell with the rest of it. You guys can
    have everything you want but we want equal representation.
    The western provinces and the territories are tired of being treated as
    a 'resource producing hinterland'. A Yukon politician described it
    aptly using a mining project example;' The ore goes to Tokyo, the
    profits to Toronto, the taxes to Ottawa, the jobs to Vancouver and we're
    left with a hole in the ground which, if the federal government gave
    permission, we could use as a garbage dump.'
    
    Regards,
    Ron 

    Let's face it, in all but the Toronto area, we Ontarians are fed to the
    teeth with governments both Federal and Provincial who look at Ontario
    as a geographic area extending ito a radius of about 20 miles from the
    CN Tower!  "The Ontario Economy is booming" means the Toronto economy
    is booming.
    
    We ALL have gripes about equal representation.  More important than
    equal representation is that we get representation at all.  A given
    constituency elects an MP to represent them, but because of the strong
    party ties, s/he doesn't represent the people in his party or
    parliament.  S/he represents the party to his/her constituency and in
    parliament.
    
    I don't care so much about the senate ... but more about representation
    full stop!
    
    Stuart

    Alright...Lockyer's in.....

    re: .10

�   Alright...Lockyer's in.....

    If you ask me, Garry's  full of hot air :-). Must've been all of
    those flights over Calgary.

    - Larry

    Well as of last night, it's one down, two to go.
    
    Jean
     

    I doubt Manitoba or New Foundland will back down.

    Do all of the provinces have to agree by June 23rd? If they don't
    what happens then?

    
    The world comes to an end as we know it!!!!
    

    Well, in theory, nothing, in as much as the whole thing would have
    to be re-negotiated, like the time limit expiring on a purchase offer
    on a house.
    
    In practice, it will probably mean that an awful lot of people will
    have their backs up in both English and French Canada, with a lot of
    separatist leaning Quebeckers pushing harder for independence.  It's
    all a matter of perception.  Quebeckers will be feeling that the
    rest of Canada has rejected them.  In fact, a few politicians have
    rejected them ... not all of English Canada.
    
    Constitutionally, things will remain unchanged ... in that Quebec will
    remain part of Canada under the BNA Act rather than the Canadian
    Constitution ... although that is subject to interpretation.
    
    .15's idea that the world as we know it comes to an end is something
    of an exaggeration I think ... Whatever comes of Meech Lake, I think
    that we will see a long period of change in Canada, and that the
    failure of Meech will force changes on the country much more quickly.
    
    If we are smart, we will see the things that have been so divisive,
    and it's not just language and culture, and work positively as
    Canadians, to find acceptable ways of dealing with these problems.
    We have spent an awful lot of time and money promoting the multi-
    cultural nature of Canada when it comes to new Canadians, but somewhere
    along the way, it seems we forgot to promote our innate multi-cultural
    heritage.  Note that I said PROMOTE ... not legislate!
    
    Stuart

    In a meeting in Ottawa a few weeks ago, I was told that some western
    papers had full page ads saying "Qu�bec had enough, let't kick THEM
    out" (may not be exact but the message is the same), and two prime
    ministers representing two legislatures representing two provinces are
    stalling the whole thing.
    
    It's always in difficult times that you find out the true feelings of
    your partners and these past years we have seen a really ugly side to
    how we are perceived by some "Canadians" they may be a minority, but so
    was the KKK and they only voiced out loud what the majority was
    thinking, is it that way outside Qu�bec?  are we facing the same
    battles the blacks were (are) fighting in the US?  
    
    French Canada and english Canada both have their differences, and if
    the "marriage" is to endure, BOTH must have an equal say, NOT 9 (or
    11) to 1.
    
    Jean

    You exaggerate Jean ....  mind you it's hard not to under the
    circumstances ....
    
    If your partner came home one day and said to you, I want to go
    my own way but still want to share your earnings (which is what
    sovereignty association looks like) your reaction, in anger, would
    likely be .... OUT all the way!
    
    I think that what you are seeing is reaction without in depth thought.
    Knee reflex reactions.  The trouble is reflex reactions hurt, they 
    don't solve problems.  Remember that CBC Journal program ... the guy
    from Oshawa is typical of these people whose knee jerk reactions
    say things like 'kick em out' ... his tune was certainly more
    conciliatory by the end of his weekend.
    
    Sure, we all think that 'x' has had more than his fair share at some
    time or another ... ask most people what they think of Ontario and
    they'll complain that they get too much of this or that.  At one
    time the prairies took the complaints re government handouts ...
    (remember Lloyd Axworthy ?) at other times the maritimes took em.
    At the moment we have a prime monster who comes from Quebec, and
    that taints the picture.
    
    Maybe the KKK did reflect the thoughts of a lot of people, but very
    few actually thought anything like as strongly or violently as they
    did.
    
    You say that French and English Canada must have an EQUAL say.  Think
    about that a minute ... I think you have put your finger on the big
    and raw nerve right there ... one that is causing the country a lot of
    grief.  How much of Canada does Quebec represent ?  I don't know
    population figures or area figures off hand, but for the sake of
    argument, lets say 30% for both.  English Canada says that Quebec
    should have at best population proportional say, and at worst as you
    have indicated province proportional say, where Quebec, through its
    Meech Lake demands is requesting what is perceived as equal say,
    through the Senate reform Veto and through the distinct society clause
    (although to be honest nobody knows how to take that ... if it is
    such a meaningless clause as Bourassa and Mulroney say it is, then
    why are they both hanging so tough on changes that would clarify
    its legal meaninglessness(!))
    
    Would you consider it fair in say a meeting of 3 peers if you were
    told that one of you had 50% say in the result, and the other two
    only 25% ?  That appears to be what Quebec is asking.  Note that I
    said APPEARS.  Remember in all this storming around that appearances
    speak far louder than the actual words.
    
    Stuart

    Someone once said "each one of us has toughts that would shame hell"  
    I guess the KKK was just "voicing" some of those toughts and I guess
    that the people who want to kick the frogs out are acting the same way.
    
    The equal say and veto (both related) are to make sure we don't get
    stomped on like the supreme court did when they "invalidated" bill 101,
    it would not be (IMHO) to "control" the other provinces, but to make
    sure they don't in areas that are of no consequences to them like
    language laws, schooling, immigration...
    
    Jean
    

    Oh I forgot, as it stands now, what we would be getting from
    "souverainet� association" is getting AWAY from the HUGE federal
    deficit.  Since we are not part of Canada "officially" I guess we are
    not liable for it's debt (contracted AFTER Trudeau's unilateral
    repatriation of the constitution)
    
    Jean
    

    KKK did more than voice the thoughts, which was the real problem!
    
    Well, as to equal say and veto and so on ... You say it is to stop
    other provinces stomping on Quebec as per bill 101 ... Well, and I
    don't really want to drag through the language quagmire again here,
    but the idea here is to protect ALL Canadians equally wherever they
    live, be it Quebec, Ontario, Vancouver or Toronto's ChinaTowns, Little
    Italy in Toronto or Ottawa, Innuvik, or point Peelee, no matter what
    language they speak, no matter what their culture or race.
    
    Giving such protection has risks ... parts of Toronto look like
    another country ... parts of Vancouver sound like another country
    ... parts of Montreal look and sound English ...   I know it is a
    risk that Francophones don't want to take for fear of their culture
    and we've been through that already ...  I put to you that active
    promotion of your culture is far more likely to make it survive
    than legislating its survival.
    
    I think that Canada, let alone Quebec, has tried to legislate its
    way to find a culture that is unique and distinct and we are all
    paying a price for that ... and regretably inflicting that price on
    others.  Look at schools ... due to the influx of immigrants, schools
    no longer openly use the Lord's Prayer due to legislation ... and as
    a result there is a backlash against some of the religious groups
    who objected to the Lord's Prayer.
    
    It's time to stop legislating, and start promoting and enjoying our
    culture.  I am proud when I hear that a French Canadian has made a
    name for him/herself in the world.  Let's all show that pride for
    all Canadians, be they French, English or native Indian ...
    
    Stuart

    You say you are going to escape the Federal deficit ... believe me,
    a part of any such deal would undoubtedly have the rest of the country
    clamouring for Quebec to assume its share .... goodness knows what that
    would be or how to calculate it ... my guess would be on a per-capita
    basis.
    
    Then, since most industrialised countries of the world are running
    defict economies, do you think Quebec could do any better on its own ?
    I shudder to think how high taxes could potentially go, and goodness
    knows you are incredibly heavily taxed already!
    
    Stuart

    For the record, only three provinces pay out more than they receive,
    (British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario {from west to east}) Qu�bec gets
    about $300 per family from the feds and that is probably to support all
    the duality and duplication required by two governements and the two
    languages.  Also for the record ALL the other provinces get a LOT more
    than we get, we are so to say the "richest of the poor provinces".
    
    Now suppose (just suppose) that we separate and we are free to trade
    openly with Canada and the USA and the rest of the world and the things
    we don't manufacture we are free to choose from the lowest price, it
    could mean that instead of buying our toasters (for lack of a better
    example) from Ontario, we would buy from the US for a lower price,
    would this not reduce the level of dollars going to that province and
    increase ours (less money spent = more in our pockets).  ALL the other
    provinces are in the same boat, they artificially support the
    industrialized southern Ontario where very often it would be cheaper to
    trade with others and to top it all, we get burdened with high interest
    rates to keep poor Toronto from having a high inflation rate!
    
    Untill times get better, c'est la vie
    
    Jean
    

    One problem that I have with the Distinct Society" clause is that I
    don't know what it means.  
    
    I have been told (by the feds and Qu�bec) that it means nothing, it is 
    just a statement of the status quo.  If that is so, why is there such  
    opposition to discussing it?  Why will Qu�bec not tell people waht it
    really means to them, and how they intend to use it?  And why does it  
    need to be said at all?  After all, I am distinct from every other
    human being, I don't need a label to tell anyone that.
    
    Emotionally (not rationally) this clause can be see as confering a
    special status on the Qu�becois.  "We are distict, we are Qu�becois,
    you are just an *ordinary* Canadian"  Creating a two tier system in
    Canadian society.  And don't tell me that we have that with
    French-Canadiens and English-Canadians.  There are (or should be) no
    Chinese-, English-, French-, Italian-, Japanese-, Ukranian-,
    etc-Canadians, only Canadian-Canadians (or Canadien-Canadiens).  Each
    with their own cultural heritage which they and others like them
    *promote*.
    
    I am angry with the potiticians who three years ago couldn't get it
    right, and with those now who can't (or wont) correct the problems.
    
    I came to Canada 9 years ago, to a country with a reputation for 
    tolerance, or so I thought.  Was I wrong?
    
    Sign me Angry,
    		Bob

Re: Note 297.23  MQOFS::DESROSIERS 

    Jean,

    Trade is a two way street.  Do you imagine that Ontario doesn't buy 
    goods and services from Quebec that could not be obtained at a lower 
    cost from elsewhere?

    Remember also that the Federal Govenment spends a great deal of our 
    (income tax) money within Canada.  Many Canadians feel that Quebec has 
    been receiving more than its fair share of this support.  Presumably if 
    Quebec were to separate from Canada this money would no longer be 
    pumped into the Quebec economy.  

    Remember that although toasters are cheaper in the USA you have to buy
    them with US Dollars.  How would Quebec get US $'s -- by selling things 
    to them -- BUT THE USA WON'T BE PREPARED TO BUY EXPENSIVE GOODS FROM 
    QUEBEC IF THEY CAN GET THEM ELSEWHERE FOR LESS.  It's a vicious circle.

    Gerry

    Well, a deal, of sorts has been cooked ... and Clyde Wells has done
    what he said he would do, if it ever became a 9-1 thing ... that he
    would take it to the people of Newfoundland.
    
    Now, how will Quebeckers view this if Newfoundland rejects the accord ?
    Will they say Canada has rejected Quebec ?  It seems to me that the
    rest of Canada has done a lot of bending to accept Meech, and I hope
    that is recognized, and that it is Newfoundland who has done the
    rejecting ... 
    
    To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador I suggest that they accept
    Meech, for all its flaws ...  Look to the longer term.  A constitution
    can later be mended ... a collapsed country cannot.  The risks of
    rejecting Meech are now too great because of the emotion behind it.
    

    	I agree.

    	I still think Clyde is an opportunist though.


    Glenn

>    	I still think Clyde is an opportunist though.
    
    Let's face it, they are ALL opportunists ... do you think Peterson
    gave up potential Senate seats just out of the goodness of Ontario's
    heart ?  Meet a future Federal Liberal leader.
    

    We are doing a lot better with the US than with Ontario, so are Alberta
    and BC.  Let's face it, a LOT of factories in Ontario are there because
    before free trade it was easier to make or assemble stuff in Canada
    than to pay high import duty on those goods.
    
    As for the costs of freedom, I am willing to pay for it, I am already
    taxed more than you guys in other provinces, and it's for the language
    I choose to live in.  Canadians in general pay more than their US
    cousins and it's because of the country they choose to live in.  This
    is from a program I saw a few years ago comparing a family from
    Florida, one from Ontario and one from Montr�al, for the same things,
    the Montr�alais was paying $1000 more than the Ontarian who was payin
    $1000 more than the Floridian.  If it's only money to you, move to
    Florida (and learn Spanish) or stay in Canada in blissfull english or
    come to Qu�bec and enjoy the difference, because there IS one, and it
    WILL REMAIN SO!
    
    Jean
    

    Re.29
    
    >>..stay in Canada in blissful english or come to Quebec and enjoy the
    >> difference..
    
    
    Precisely !   It's Freedom of Choice.
    
    

How free do you think WE are?

Are you free to drive as fast as you would LIKE on the road?  can you ignore
all these red lights and stop signs (arr�t in Qu�bec) even at 4 am?

Can you plant ANY tree in YOUR yard?  some municipalities have laws that
prohibit the plantation of some species.  Others MAKE you mow your lawn on
a regular basis.

Can you put your garbage out on the road days in advance?

Can you go hunting any day of the year?

Can you take as many fish as you like out of any lake?

Can you burn anything you like in your yard?

Are you allowed to make all the noise you like anytime of day or night?

Are you free to ride your motor-cycle without a helmet?

Are you free to drive your car without fastening your seat-belt?

And on and on and on.....UNLESS you live all by yourself in the woods hundred
of kilo-meters from the nearest person, there are laws that COMPEL you to
do all these things, some are more stringent than others, but the majority of
the people living close to you decided to enforce these laws.  If you have
kids, you make "rules" in your house, like don't jump on the beds, no candy
before lunch, eat all your veggies or no dessert.....laws are rules to keep
others from abusing the system or to keep some people from inflicting injuries
onto others or to keep one from being abused by others.

When you live with a group of people, you have to bow to the wishes of the 
majority, if you don't like it, you can leave that group and join another
that thinks like you, as far as I know, we have not yet started to do THAT, 
nor do I think that we will EVER.  Now when I look at the way we are viewed
by some Canadians, it make a lot of sense to leave that group and go at it
alone, and you have the right to disagree, but you can't MAKE me stay.

As far as I can see, the only basic freedom we have is to think and voice
    out our opinions!  and I am doing it just like the rest of you guys,
    notwithstanding the grand canal of course.
    
Jean

    Jean,

    	Is it true that whirly-twirlies have been banned in NDG or is this
    just a vicious rumour?

    Glenn

    Jean,
    
    In which case, I guess we'll have to set up independent fifedoms all
    over the country ... Our community, part of the city of Kanata,
    disagree with the way our mayor is selling out the city to the cheapest
    bidder, but does that mean we can form our own city ?
    
    We don't like the way our province doles out the riches to Toronto
    either ... Does that mean we can form an independent province ?
    
    We don't like the way the feds treat us either ... Does that mean
    we can form an independent country ?
    
    I disagree with some of my neighbours in my community too ... maybe I
    should declare myself independent.  No more taxes ... HOORAY!
    
    Sure I am exagerating ... or am I ? 
    
    To be honest, I don't think that Quebec's independence will actually
    give them what they really want ... Come to that, I've listened to
    various separatists, and they all want separation for various reasons.
    At the moment they have a common adversary ... the rest of Canada ...
    but what happens if they do have their wish of independence ... the
    antagonism may turn one against the other in trying to get what each
    currently wants from Canada.
    
    Stuart

    All we want is what we were promised when upper Canada (Ontario) and
    lower Canada (Qu�bec) joined, that is: the preservation of our culture
    and language, meech seemed to be the vehicule to make this happen
    constitutionally at least but now it seems that the fate of the nation
    is in the hands of the Newfoundland legislature.  How ironic that the
    newest province may be the one to break up Canada.  Mind you Wells did
    say that we (the other provinces) should pass meech anyway, which shows
    how attached he is to democracy.
    
    
    And to do wirly twirlies in NDG, you MUST have proof that you attended
    an english school or that you are a foreigner.  It IS possible for
    frogs to do those things, but only in the privacy of our own homes AND
    between consenting adults, boy is life hard!
    
    Jean
     

    re: .-1 by Stuart
    
�    I disagree with some of my neighbours in my community too ... maybe I
�    should declare myself independent.  No more taxes ... HOORAY!
    
    Perhaps if your neighbours disagree with you they should declare you
    personna non grata and banish you into exile.
    						8-)
    
    Bob
    
    

    re: .34 by Jean
    
    The problem is that the politicians are not so much interested in 
    either the french language or culture.  Their prime interest is power.  
    
    As an aside, the Amish is the States have their own language and culture.  
    These are cultivated within their community, and I don't believe that 
    they need laws to protect them.  Carrot rather than stick?
    
    Cheers,
    	Bob

    Mind you Bob, the Amish culture is a very strong religion based
    culture, which is a little different from the French culture, but
    yes, this is what I have been striving to get across ... you cannot
    legislate culture ... the French in France seem to be understanding
    that a little now, since the Academie Francais now recognises some
    Franglaisisms.
    
    And, indeed, if it wasn't for power, the constitution would have been
    sorted out in 1981, or 1867 even!  Every politician wants either
    glory or power, and we get the stick.
    
    Stuart

    re .31
    
> Can you burn anything you like in your yard?
    
  What position does your community take on U.S. flags? :-)
    
    Tony

    I don't believe there's a law forbidding us to burn US flags ...
    althouugh it might create an international incident!
    

    If any one deserves to be recognised in Canada as a distinct society 
    it's got to be the First Nations.

(Marshall/Standard Broadcast News)
Meech-NB: (FREDRICTON, New Brunswick) New Brunswick Premier Frank
Date: 15 Jun 90 13:26:10 GMT

        (FREDRICTON, New Brunswick) New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna
promised to quickly pass the Meech Lake Accord... and has lived up to
his word.
        The Fredricton legislature has ratified the accord (10:10 am local
time) by a unanimous vote. The vote came after about one-and-a-half
hours of debate.
        McKenna's Liberals hold all 58 seats in the legislature... so he
was NOT expected to difficulty getting the deal ratified today.
        Following the vote, the legislature stood to sing ``O Canada''.

    
    Is Clyde Wells still sitting on a fence with whatchamall'em ?  

    	Chief Joe Don Baker 
    		  Starring in:
    
    	Walking Tall In The Manitoba Legislature


    	This summer's filibuster movie!		Rated: ZZZ

    Last night on CBC, they showed a Newfoundland representative polling
    his constituents, when they were in halls all together, they would sink
    the accord, but when they were asked personnaly, they would say just
    the opposite, how strange.
    
    The translation from soci�t�e distincte, to distinct society, implies a
    demarcation from other Canadians, and I guess that is what is being
    resented by the rest of the population.  Frommy petit robert:
    DISTINCT: Qui ne se confond pas avec quelque chose d'analogue, de
    voisin.
    This seem like it was written for us, the language is different, the
    culture is different, and so much so that the latest crime statistics
    show a BIG demarcation between french Canada and english Canada, is it
    because we don't associate with what is being shown on TV? are we less
    violent? are we DIFFERENT (or distinct)?
    
    As for the Amish, I'm sure they don't have the freedom to do what they
    please in their community, they have to abide by VERY strict "rules" as
    to the way they must live their lives if they are to remain part of the
    community.  They shun outside influences like the pleague, they have no
    radio, no TV (they may have something there), no telephone, no
    electricity.  They live at a horse's pace just like it was in the
    1850s, as far as I know, we don't profess to stop progress, we just
    don't want to lose our culture, and I'm certain that some of you out
    there in noteland can testify first hand at culture lost.  Your parent
    may have spoken chinese, italian, polish...can you, will your children
    be able to, their grandchildren?????  unless you take measures like the
    Amish have, you will not be able to keep whatever culture you may have
    had before and pass it on to future generations.  Sure you may teach
    them dances and songs but it will only be folklore to them, without
    true meaning.
    
    Jean
    

    	I hear they want to declare 'Yogurt' a distinct society in order to
    preserve its culture.
    
    	Seems silly to me.
    
    ;-)

    Re -.1
    
    ANYTHING semms silly to you, and coming FROM you too.
    
    Jean
    

    re. Jean,
    
    	Thanks for the compliment.
    
    Hope you're not doing whirly-twirlies on the M�tropolitain this summer.
    
    Glenn

    That digression into nonsense aside, you're right Jean, that distinct
    society clause bothers a lot of people ... not so much for what it
    actually says ... after all, who can claim that Quebec is not
    distinctive in its culture, language and so on ... but rather for
    what it could be interpreted as meaning by power hungry politicians.
    
    That is why, if the clause was in the constitution's preamble, along
    with recognition for all Canadians, and such groups as natives,
    women and so on, then the clause would not look like a potential
    threat down the road to the fabric of the country.
    
    In many ways, it is like the not-withstanding clause ... a threat to
    people's rights when used by power hungry politicians.  Combine the
    effects of not-withstanding with the distinct society clause and
    you almost have sovereignty association already, if used that way.
    I'm sure it's not meant that way by Bourassa ... pick another leader
    a few years down the road and anything is possible.
    
    Many things in a constitution should actually serve to protect us from
    our rulers and regretably, we don't really have enough protection now,
    with an appointed federal upper chamber and no upper chambers in the
    provinces.  We rely on the courts to strike down the laws that are
    unconstitutional, but we have little or no way of protecting ourselves
    from bad laws.
    
    Just as Quebeckers say "you just don't understand", we too could say
    that Quebeckers just don't understand our concerns ... and politicians
    don't want to understand our concerns.  Why ?  Do they have some secret
    agendae up their sleeves ?
    
    Stuart

    I too have wondered for some time what the Feds are busy doing behind
    the Meech Lake/GST smokescreen.
    
    Fankly, I'm getting tired of this. Quebec can be as distinct as it
    wants, provided (a) distinctiveness doesn't impinge on Federal
    government things, and (b) I don't have to pay for it.
    
    Grumble.
    
    ...laura

    Laura,
    
    Don't grumble too loudly, or somebody here will grumble back about
    supporting the fisheries ...  The point I'm trying to make is that
    we all end up paying for everything and I'll even stand up for the
    Quebeckers and say that they do a pretty good job of paying for it
    themselves ... I would not want to live there and have to pay taxes
    there ... I'd be broke.  It's bad enough in Taxtario whose taxation
    seems to related to incomes in Toronto ... nowhere else.
    
    Stuart

    This morning on radio, I heard Newfoundland's minister of energy say
    tearfully that he could not vote FOR the accord in their legislature. 
    I guess this must be related to the dispute we have with them over the
    Churchill hydro power plant.  Mind you WE built the power plant and
    before we did that there was nothing there, and another sore point is
    the fact that the whole Labrador territory was given to Newfoundland by
    Britain before they were even a part of Canada.  How many other
    provinces had this done to them?
    
    On Le Point (the equivalent of The Journal) they followed a couple of
    MNAs from Newfoundland while they were polling their constituents, they
    went trough a small town that used to be french and is now TOTALLY
    english, the most common name is White, and that used to be Leblanc! 
    The MNA said that the french speaking people were punished when they
    spoke french in school, this actually HAPPENED, so it is no news to
    anyone that the french population in Newfoundland is now almost nil
    (1500 people).
    
    I'm sure similar occurances could be unearthed in other provinces too.
    
    Jean
    

re: .51 by Jean
    
�    On Le Point (the equivalent of The Journal) they followed a couple of
�    MNAs from Newfoundland while they were polling their constituents, they
�    went trough a small town that used to be french and is now TOTALLY
�    english, the most common name is White, and that used to be Leblanc! 
�    The MNA said that the french speaking people were punished when they
�    spoke french in school, this actually HAPPENED, so it is no news to
�    anyone that the french population in Newfoundland is now almost nil
�    (1500 people).
    
    Jean,
    
    I'm not sure if you are saying that this is a good thing or a bad
    thing, which is it?
    
    If it's bad, then why is it acceptable for the same thing to happen in
    Qu�bec, only this time to the non-francophones?
    
    If it's good, then what about bills 101 and 178?
    
    Bob

(From an editorial by Jean-Claude Leclerc in Monday's Le Devoir entitled
Will Quebec Finally Learn?)

	While the country is holding its breath waiting for June 23, and a 
native member of the Manitoba legislature...holds the Meech Lake accord
prisoner, Canada rediscovers its First Nations.
	And after having made fun for so long of the "Newfies," many Canadians
are beginning to regret the contempt they have expressed for the Newfound-
landers.  (And) the Acadians, after having contributed first of all to
derailing the constitutional accord of 1987, finally rallied at the insistent
request of Quebec, thus allowing New Brunswick to ratify the agreement
unanimously.
	But whether it is a matter of the Acadians, the Newfoundlanders, or
the Cree and other aboriginals, Quebec's "foreign policy" has been found to be
seriously flawed.
	There is nothing accidental about this.  Quebec fell into the trap of 
its own inwardness. The Liberal government, like the Parti Qu�b�cois, not to
mention the Union Nationale, has practiced a policy of narrow "nationalist"
affirmation that has more often than not ignored the neighboring provinces,
the French-speaking minorities and the aboriginal peoples. (not excluding
the Quebec cultural communities).  They play subtle diplomacy in Ouagadougou
(capital of Burkina Faso), but they are incapable of the least sensitivity
toward their neighbors.
	Newfoundland is an obvious case in point.  Clyde Wells sharply rebuked
one of his ministers for saying that the little island would make Quebec pay
dearly for the Churchill Falls contract.  This old dispute, which has poisoned
relations between the two provinces for years, has been at the heart of the
Newfoundlanders' discontent.  If the bulk of Quebeckers are emerging from their
state of being "oppressed" within Canada, the majority of Newfoundlanders still
feel exploited by Hydro-Qu�bec, which continues to make profits from the big
dam in Labrador.
	Quebec, which nationalized its electricity and made it a great symbol
of liberty and progess, should have been the first to understand
Newfoundland's frustration.  We preferred to limit ourselves to a legalistic
position and humiliate the other province...
	In the same way, the Quebec government, while claiming for itself the
means to preserve French culture, took for granted that the French minorities
in other provinces were more or less doomed to extinction.  Some would have 
willingly cut all support to those communities in distress to prove that in
English-speaking America, there was no salvation outside an independent Quebec.
We thus let these people fall under influences that are not always sympathetic
to us.
	Finally, Quebec succeeded in making "enemies" of the aboriginal
peoples, while its national policy, based above all on the defence of its
culture and its distict society, should have led it to sympathize with
aboriginal demands, no less justified and pressing than those of
French-speaking Quebeckers.  The Quebec Minister of Canadian Affairs made an
appeal to "our aboriginal friends," who were running the risk of losing "a
precious ally" if they caused the failure of the Meech Lake accord in Winnipeg. 
They must not have believed their ears.
	It is certainly the first time that these people are hearing references
to "friends" and "allies"...
	Quebec must return to these terms and this policy of alliance and
presence, whether Meech passes or fails.  It is urgent to proceed with a
re-examination of the common links and interests with the other minorities and
our neighbors, whatever happens to the constitutional agreement.  Gil R�millard
warned that in the case of failure, Quebec will close the file for a long time. 
We must be dreaming.  Is this the Canadian policy of a government that claims
to be developing an international policy?  It is not suprising that the Suret�
du Qu�bec is still making raids on Indian reserves, and that Quebec is cutting
funds to our own international co-operation organizations.  We haven't finished
paying for nationalist introspection.  Will Quebec finally learn?

    There are a lot of reasons people dislike the accord, and not all of
    them have an historical basis.  Sure, if we go back through history,
    we all have axes to grind, and the clan wars would still be active.
    
    I know that there have been a lot of injustices done in the world,
    many here in Canada, but it is hard to fix these old injustices ...
    it is better to fix todays living injustices, like the treatment
    of native peoples.  Sure Labrador was a part of the British Crown
    Colony of Newfoundland ... but how often have you heard Labrador
    described as the land God forgot.  It's only after it is seen to
    have a real value that people look back and say we shouldn't have
    given it up.  Imagine those Indians who sold Manhatten for trinkets
    ....
    
    Yes the supression of French happened also in Manitoba, but that kind
    of supression does not often happen today, although there was a French
    language school board in Eastern Ontario that decided the children
    were not allowed to speak English in school or at any school related
    activity ... and this was recently.
    
    Remember, two wrongs don't make a right ... they just make two wrongs.
    
    I have swung back and forth on the accord myself.  At the moment, I
    really do not feel that it should be passed ... and it has nothing
    to do with wanting to reject Quebec ... but it has everything to do
    with wanting to build a better Canada.  To be honest, I wouldn't be
    upset if we scrapped the current constitution and went back to the BNA
    Act until such time as a fully negotiated constitution, allowing public
    input, built for the betterment of Canada and not the glory of a few
    politicians, could be designed which was acceptable to all.
    
    It might take 3 years, or 5 years or 10 years ... I don't care really.
    It should be acceptable to the people of Canada and proclaimed by
    referendums, not politicians who sign a deal and use party politics to
    pass it in their respective legislatures.  If not by referendums, then
    at least by free vote.
    
    Because of the flaws in the processes, and the glory hunger of the
    politicians, we have a flawed constitution that one province rejected.
    Because of the flawed constitution, resulting in flawed processes and
    more glory hungry politicians, we have some constitutional amendments 
    that the majority of politicians accept but the apparent minority of 
    the population reject.  And finally, we have some horse trades for later
    constitutional talks to bribe the acceptance of these amendments.
    
    Is that any way to build a country ?
    
    I sincerely believe that most Canadians who are rejecting Meech are not
    rejecting Quebec, but rejecting a political circus that has lead us
    to this ridiculous situation.
    
    Where to now ?  Is it right to cobble this together  in the way we are
    doing ?  Sometimes you reach a point where a re-design has got to be
    the way to go, just as in software, and I think our constiitutional
    mess is there now.
    
    Stuart

    Well, the news just broke in: Newfoundland had a secret referendum
    last night and the outcome is just unbelievable:
    
    50 % of the "Newfies" voted for the ACCORD
    And the other 50% voted for...
    
    			     ...the PRELUDE!
    
    Michel 8-) (Honda l'affaire!)
    
    
    P.S. Does that qualify for Twirly Whirly or wathever?

    	That's whirly-twirly and YES it qualifies! I hesitated in entering
    something silly here because the tone was so serious, but, this Meech
    Lake Accord is making me do whirly-twirlies every time I turn on my
    T.V.!

    Mr. Yogurt

<<That's whirly-twirly and YES it qualifies! I hesitated in entering
<<something silly here because the tone was so serious, but, this Meech

No, no.  It's twirly-whirly and you certainly never hesitate when it's silly.

And now...back to Meech...

re Note 297.51                 
>    Mind you WE built the power plant and
>    before we did that there was nothing there, and another sore point is
>    the fact that the whole Labrador territory was given to Newfoundland by
>    Britain before they were even a part of Canada.  How many other
>    provinces had this done to them?

Yes, thank God the British didn't force Labrador upon any other provinces!

Tom

A bit long, but funny article.  Reproduced without permission.
    
Shopping List:  What Americans covet if Canada falls apart.

By Joel Garreau  The Washington Post.

  Remember the slogan "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight?"  Do you know where 
54 degrees, 40 minutes is?  It's the southern tip of Alaska.  It's the 
precise point on the Pacific Coast where a Foreign Power has for more 
than a century blatantly interposed itself between the home of 
America's great Arctic North, and the state named after our very 
Founding Father himself, Washington.
  But it looks like we're about to get a chance to fix that problem.  
We may soon get a shot at being not just the Contiguous 48.  But the 
Contiguous... well, the possibilities can go as high as 60 or more, 
depending on which Canadian provinces and territories we allow to join 
us.  Canada has a self-imposed deadline of Saturday to 
ratify the Meech Lake Accord.  Otherwise, it may be curtains for 
Confederation.
  I am still firmly of the belief that Canadians are Canadians, and 
thus, some kind of compromise will doubtless be wimped out.  But in 
the unlikely event that our brethren to the north wind up standing on 
principle, there is not a moment to lose.  Already, Nova Scotia's 
premier has said that his province's best hope may lie in joining the 
United States.  Clearly we must figure out which pieces we want, so we 
can put in our dibs.  And which ones we don't.
  Where we start is easy.  We want the baseball teams.  (As 
consolation, our neighbors to the north could get every U.S. hockey 
team.
  Then there's Niagara Falls.  The Canadian side has always been the 
best part, esthetically.  We want the whole thing.
  We sure don't want Newfoundland.  These are the people who are 
saying, What the hell, eh?  So we have a Canada sans Quebec, eh?  So 
what if that leaves the eastern end of Canada in the same position as 
the eastern end of Pakistan when it was interrupted by India, eh?  Who 
cares if that makes Newfoundland into a hyperborean Bangladesh?
  Newfoundland is Appalachia without the cultural amenities.  Or the 
good-looking women.  Forty-eight per cent of the provincial budget is 
transfer payments from the federal government.  Forget it.  No way.  
If somebody's got to take it, how about Ireland?  That's another place 
full of charming people who can't make a decent living until they 
leave their native land.  Ireland is also closer to Newfoundland than 
most of America.
  Same goes for New Brunswick.  Give it all to Ireland!
  Actually, not all of the Maritime Provinces are worthless.  You do 
want some of Nova Scotia -- the part near the beach.  The interior, 
which in winter resembles New Brunswick, you give to Ireland.
  Nova Scotia within a mile of the beach is heaven.  It's Maine only 
better.  About eight weeks out of the year.  After a while you round a 
point and it's oh, yawn, another drop-dead world-class post-card-
quality scenic vista.  We will definitely take that.  We have to.  
Cape Cod is full.
  Prince Edward Island, on the other hand, we'll take the whole thing.  
What the hell.  It's small.  It has drop-dead pink-sand beaches and 
incredibly cheap lobsters.  It also has Anne of Green Gables.  Fine.  
We'll take Anne, too.
  After all, she won't have Canada.
  No way we're taking Quebec.  She wants to be in our free-trade 
alliance?  Fine.  We'll buy all the hydroelectric power she wants to 
sell.  In fact, we already do.  That's what's keeping New England and 
New York State lit.  A state of the Union?  Forget it.  I mean, would 
you give statehood to France?  Get a life.  America would end up with 
legally mandated tri-lingual cereal boxes.  Have you any idea how big 
those suckers would have to be?
  We will unreservedly, unhesitatingly and enthusiastically take 
everything north and west of Winnipeg.  No questions asked.  Welcome 
to the club.
  Sure, we'll take the Canadian Arctic.  As if we haven't already.  
Even now the water under the icepack is full of U.S. submarines.  
Maybe we could sublease a little of it to Exxon.  Why should Valdez 
have all the dead seals?
  Think of the possibilities for toxic-waste dumps in the Canadian 
Arctic.  Uranium tailings?  Asbestos?  New Jersey medical wastes?  No 
problem.  There has got to be more Canadian Arctic that there are 
environmentalists to protect it.
  The Canadian prairie provinces?  Sure.  We're going to need a new 
breadbasket.  We've screwed up the one we've got seriously enough.  
Not only are we pumping all the water out of the Ogallala Aquifer that 
underpins much of our Plains agriculture, but if global warming is 
real, and Kansas is headed desertward, we're going to need a new one.  
That would be Saskatchewan.  Our new Banana Belt.
  Speaking of water, it may all be frozen up there, but we'll suck 
every last drop.  Stand by, Los Angeles, Phoenix.  Help is on the way.  
For decades, there have been large gray men in large gray suits 
walking around California with rolled up blue-print maps calculating 
how you would get Canadian water to the thirsty metropoli along the 
Mexican border.  Be patient, guys.  Just a few more days.
  Alberta?  Absolutely, we'll take Alberta.  Alberta's one of the 
greatest places on the planet.  Air you can see through for a million 
miles?  That's Alberta air.  Alberta is also more American than most 
of America is.
  The Calgary Stampede is the greatest rodeo in the world.  Alberta is 
Texas with snow-capped mountains and nice summers.  It has energy 
reserves at Middle East levels -- oil, gas, coal, oil shale, tar 
sands, uranium, all there for the taking -- at, ahem, world prices.  
The West Edmonton Mall is the world's largest.  It includes an indoor 
wave-making swimming pool so large it offers surfing lessons.  Don't 
you love these people already?  Great Americans.
  Of course, they're going to need a few guns.  For some reason, the 
Canadian government has always opposed universally arming its society 
with concrete-block-breaking assault weapons.  But the National Rifle 
Association will be only too happy to help fix that.
  Oh, by the way.  There's one thing we should explain, guys.  It's 
about secession.  We have a thing about that in the United States.  If 
you want in, remember:  You ever decide to change your mind, we don't 
do Meech Lake.  We do Antietam.
  British Columbia?  Sure.  No such thing as too much Pacific 
coastline.  Nothing wrong with the Queen Charlotte Islands that some 
asphalt, McDonald's stands and people in polyester aloha shirts can't 
cure.  Okay, what does that leave?  Ontario.
  Ontario is like a Maryland crab dinner.  Lot of good stuff in there, 
but most of it you want to throw away.
  First of all, in Ontario we want everybody who does not speak 
English.  The only reason Toronto is no longer the dullest city on 
earth is that it is no longer full of Anglo Canadians.  it is full of 
Hong Kong Chinese.  And not a few Italians.  All those guys get to 
stay.  As soon as they memorize the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Some other things are more complicated.  Do we want the Mounties?  
They've got a worse civil-liberties record than the FBI, no small 
accomplishment.  But they do look magnificent at supermarket openings.
  What about CBC radio and TV?  Full of America-bashers who want their 
jobs protected. Nice nature specials, but isn't that what the National 
Geographic is for?
  The state-supported short-story writers are history -- all those 
people whose last line is "He cast aside his cigarette, into the 
snow."
  What about the Canadian money?  The paper stuff is really cute, with 
all those colors.  But on the other hand, we could save a bundle if we 
no longer had to build vending machines that reject Canadian quarters.
  Kiss Ottawa goodbye.  We've already got Albany.
  The thing you have to understand about Ontario, is that it is full 
of Canadians who are not only Anglos but Easterners.  Anybody who says 
"ooout and abooout" is automatically suspect.  These are the people 
who came up with the unlikely idea of Canada in the first place.  They 
had to.  They were on the losing side in the American Revolution.  
They could have created a nation with the industry of America, the 
government of England and the culture of France, and instead produced 
a place with the industry of England the government of France and the 
culture of America.
  Our founding document wishes for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of 
Happiness."  Theirs calls for "Peace, Order and Good Government."  We 
don't have a lot of that in America.  They might not like it here.
  By the way, where is Meech Lake?  Do we want it?

    Very funny indeed, especially the part about Ontario.
    
    I was discussing something similar with a freind, and he said that most
    countries fight to the bitter end for their land, Canada (- Qu�bec)
    will just give it away to the US, no fights, no war and for what?
    MONEY!   We won't, after all if that does happen, we will only be too
    happy to get away from english dominated governement, so we won't jump
    from the frying pan into the fire.
    
    Oh, about punishment of french speaking students by the Newfoundlanders
    (can I say Newfies????), I'm not saying it's good, I was just trying to
    poin out some of the methods used to stamp out french language outside
    of Qu�bec (BTW WE don't do that) and the effectiveness it had.
    
    Jean
    

re: 297.60 by Jean

�    Oh, about punishment of french speaking students by the Newfoundlanders
�    (can I say Newfies????), I'm not saying it's good, I was just trying to
�    poin out some of the methods used to stamp out french language outside
�    of Qu�bec (BTW WE don't do that) and the effectiveness it had.
 		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
    
    You're right, you don't try to stamp out the french language, just
    english.
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong Jean, but hasn't a school board in Montr�al
    done just that by legislating french only on school premises?
    
    Now if we can negotiate a deal where ALL people in Canada are EQUAL.
    
    Yours in confederation,
    				Bob

    RE: 297.60  MQOFS::DESROSIERS 

    >          We won't, after all if that does happen, we will only be too
    >  happy to get away from english dominated governement, so we won't jump
    >  from the frying pan into the fire.
    
    Jean,  Since when has the Quebec government been dominated by English? 
    If you are referring to the Federal Government then all I can say is
    that you must be joking!  The PM and majority of senior Cabinet members
    as well as the most senior of the Civil Servants are from the province
    of Quebec.  If Quebec were to separate from the rest of Canada, then
    many people in English speaking Canada would be pleased to have a
    government that was not dominated by French Canadians!

    - Gerry
          

	Well, June 23 has come and gone.  Here in Massachusetts, Meech
Lake has been getting minimal coverage, but *I* want to know what's
going on.  Any word on whether Quebec will have a referendum soon?
Since Bourassa (sp) has said he will no longer deal with the other
provinces, is separation the only thing left? 

	Sandy (Canadian -- US -- Quebec? citizen)

>    Correct me if I'm wrong Jean, but hasn't a school board in Montr�al
>    done just that by legislating french only on school premises?

Is this for real, Jean?  Two people can't even speak a language other than
French to each other in a private conversation?

Even in states in the U.S. which have passed "English as the only official
language" laws, restrictions such as this have been held by the courts to
be a human rights violation.

/john

    
    Jean, you suggest that we will just give our land away, for money.  At 
    times, it certainly seems that way, and you can be sure that few Canadians
    actually want that.  Our political leaders are another kettle of fish
    altogether.  If it means political glory, I'm sure they'd sell our
    souls to the devil.  They politic one thing to get elected, but then
    it appears that they had secret agendae.  I'm sure that all Canadians
    from every province are tired of governments they cannot trust.
    
    The death of Meech Lake brings a lot of disappointment on the one
    hand, but relief on the other.  Disappointment that Qu�bec remains
    isolated in Canada and that as a result of that failure Qu�bec is
    also chosing to isolate itself further.  One can understand why but ...
    The relief comes in that the process of producing a constitution
    is seriously flawed, in which the rights of Qu�becois and all Canadians
    can potentially be horse traded in closed sessions by 11 men and
    forced through legislatures by party politics and political pressure,
    where the input of all Canadians and Qu�becois can be ignored.
    
    If Meech had passed precendent would have been set.  At future
    constitutional talks, it may have been Qu�bec that was put in the
    same untenable position that faced Manitoba and Newfoundland, and
    I wouldn't place odds on Qu�bec doing much different from Manitoba
    or Newfoundland.
    
    Meech wasn't ditched as a rejection of Qu�bec, but rather as an
    unfortunately muddy statement to our politicians that the rights of
    all Canadians (Including Qu�becois) should not be horse-traded by
    eleven men in secret.
    
    I want to see Qu�bec an full and willing partner in this great land
    and I am sorry that our politicians were unable to find a way to
    achieve this.  I want to see Qu�bec maintain its distictiveness,
    just as I want to see every part of this land maintain its
    distictiveness, for this is what makes our land so rich.
    
    The Canadian dream may not be complete, but it is achievable with
    better understanding and more tolerance, and political leaders
    across the country who are willing to do not only what is right
    for their province but what is right for all the provinces and
    territories.
    
    If I could, Jean, I'd like to shake your hand right now and say
    that I respect how you feel about Qu�bec, its language and culture.
    I can understand to some extent how you've come to feel as you do,
    but I see that Qu�bec can be a part of this great nation while
    maintaining and promoting its uniqueness and there is where we
    differ.  I'd like to try to reassure you that it's possible.
    
    In spite of Meech, it should and can be 10 provinces = Canada,
    not 9 + 1 = Canada

    	Clyde Wells makes me want to do whirly-twirlies and so does Chief
    Joe Don Baker.

    	This country is finished.

    	I don't care what happens now.


    Glenn

    >	This country is finished.

    >	I don't care what happens now.

    
    This defeatist attitude ... this apathetic attitude ... makes me
    angry.  I can understand to some extent why you feel that way, but
    it's time to make our elected representatives aware that we want
    a united country and we want no more horse-trading.  It's also
    time to reach out a hand to all Canadians in whtever way you can
    to make everyone including Qu�becois feel wanted in this country.
    
    If our politicians won't do what is needed to unite our country, then
    it's up to ordinary people like you and me to make people like Jean
    feel a part of Canada, and to make him understand that we do not
    want him to lose his language and culture within a great country.
    
    Get up and do it Glenn ... no more whirley twirlies.
    
    Stuart

    re: .60 by Jean
    
    Jean, you mention getting away from english politicians.
    
    If I look back at the time I've been in Canada (9 years), as Prime
    Minister we've had Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney, both from Qu�bec. 
    And the next PM will probably be Jean Chr�tien.
    
    Not bad representation.

    re: .64 by /john
    
    In Qu�bec this violation of basic human rights is permitted (and
    indeed encouraged).  Qu�bec has used it's "distinctness" and the
    "notwithstanding" clause in the Canadian constitution to override
    it's own human rights laws in order to enact pro-french legislation.
    
    This is one reason that many Canadians were against the Meech Lake
    Accord.  They feared for the human rights of the non-francophone
    Qu�becois.

    re. Angered

    	With buffoons like Clyde Wells and ignorant bigots like Jacques
    Parizeau, people wiping their feet on the Qu�bec flag and people
    dragging the Canadian flag behind their cars, I have every right to
    feel that Canada is finished. So if this makes you angry, I don't care.
    Your view of 10 = Canada is a political unreality, 9 + 1 = Canada is
    clearly the political reality and that has been thrown out.
    	Canada has changed over the last century and Qu�becers feel they
    can determine their own destiny and I believe they can.
    	Take a map of Canada and erase the province of Qu�bec and see
    what's left. Certainly not a country I care to be proud of. The only
    way it can stay together is if mandatory bilingualism exists coast to
    coast. English Canada would say this is a waste of money which in my
    mind justifies the Qu�bec point of view. So either that happens or we
    allow Qu�bec to be the way it wants and English Canada to be the way it
    wants. It should be obvious by now that neither is possible because
    everyone is too stubborn.
    	Give Qu�becers a reason for them not to be paranoid about the
    eventual death of their language and then negotiate a constitution
    everyone can agree on. I believe English Canada should take the first
    step because it has nothing to lose and Canada to gain! Stop asking
    Qu�bec to give up something and show that you are willing to put up
    something then I will start believing that this country will survive!
    Until this happens, whirly-twirly I will, at length even!

    In extreme sorrowful whirly-twirliness,

    Glenn

    P.S. You may consider this reply a whirly-twirly.

>    Give Qu�becers a reason for them not to be paranoid about the
>    eventual death of their language and then negotiate a constitution
>    everyone can agree on. I believe English Canada should take the first
>    step because it has nothing to lose and Canada to gain! Stop asking
>    Qu�bec to give up something and show that you are willing to put up
>    something then I will start believing that this country will survive!
>    Until this happens, whirly-twirly I will, at length even!
    
    I couldn't agree more ... but what I am saying is that it is up to
    each and every Canadian to do this and stop leaving it to the
    politicians ...  We expect our politicians to save our country, but 
    they are so consumed with their own agendae that they are patently 
    incapable of doing so.  So I put it to you and every other Canadian
    that it's time to do it ourselves.
    
    Never mind the politicians ... although I will plagiarize and modify
    a quote of a popular one ...
    
    The Canadian dream is not complete ...
    We, the people, have lots of work to do!

>>>>>Give Qu�becers a reason for them not to be paranoid about the
    eventual death of their language and then negotiate a constitution
    everyone can agree on.


Glenn

Until the school system changed from a Catholic school system to
a Quebec provincial school system, the learned elete was the
anglophone. The CEO's and effective money-mongers were the
English educated. I know this is too simplistic but the basis of
the drain of power of French-Quebec was the money power to
Ontario and other provinces over the last 30 or so years.

The whole system needs to change so that not the language but the
whole attitude of anglo-phone Canadians towards the franco-phone
be changed. Like fighting aparthide in South Africa or
arab-phobia in Israel, the whole system has to change before we
can be healed and be the "True North, Strong and Free".

The abuses of civil rights on both sides of the border between
Quebec and the rest of Canada needs to be worked on. The 9
provinces needs to hold the rights of the Quebecois while the rights
of the non-french must be graranteed by the Province de Quebec.

If the legislation of the Montreal School Board is true, then I
fear for the new-Canadians coming from HongKong. Learning
english is hard enough but to master french well enough to speak
to each other would be very hard. It's not an impossible task
since I learned french in highschool and college.

Like Stuart says, we need to believe in Canada to keep her
working as a unit. My prayers are with the leaders as well as
those of you who must face the challenge of an ever changing
Canada.

cal hoe

Would an independent Qu�bec remain a part of the British Commonwealth?

	If so, would it be a republic (like India), or a
	constitutional monarchy within the realm of the
	British monarch (as it is now)?

	If not, would it be a republic (like France), or a
	monarchy (as Qu�bec was before the defeat on the
	Plains of Abraham).  There are pretenders to the
	French throne, who just might jump at the opportunity
	to embrace willing subject in North America.

	Would it seek any association with Metropolitain France?

/john

    If Qu�bec does decide to separate, my suspicions are that they will
    want to work out a deal for "Sovereignty association", although
    that could be as difficult to engineer as Meech!  Such a deal would
    probably resemble the EEC formation, where legally the countries are
    separate with their own laws but in a symbiosis for predominantly
    fiscal issues.
    
    As to commonwealth association, that would depend upon the sovereignty
    association deal reached with Canada, although I personally
    cannot imagine a sovereign Qu�bec respecting the throne in any
    way.  Mind you the commonwealth is not a particularly strong
    organization now and is a linkage purely based on historical
    connection than any strong, logical commitment.
    
    Anyway, I'd rather not talk of an independent Qu�bec because I
    believe that we should be able to engineer a single country again
    and accepting the idea of an independent Qu�bec is tantamount to
    giving up that dream.
    

    Cal,

    	I disagree with you simply because English will win out in the end
    by osmosis. In order for French to be visibly strong in north America,
    it must have legislation to protect it. This is what Qu�bec has been
    doing and it has worked for them in the sense that the Francophone in
    Qu�bec is no longer a second class citizen.


    Glenn

    Canadians don't understand each other because people dismiss each
    other saying ... "you won't understand" ...
    
    I remember the first time, as a child in Ottawa, I met a French lad who
    knew no English.  I didn't understand.  I'd never been exposed to this
    idea that someone else might not know English.  It was strange.  The
    encounter was too short to understand, but we played together after a
    fashion and the language barrier wasn't too important.
    
    There are probably many Canadians who have never experienced the idea
    that there are people who don't know English and so just don't
    comprehend that idea.  So, to them, providing bilingual services and
    so on would seem like a waste.  We are teaching people to understand
    and help people from outside Canada when they come here, but we aren't
    teaching them the realities of our own land.
    
    I don't think it's too late ... but it is going to take some real
    effort and leadership.
    
    As I've said before, I do not believe that legislation to protect
    language and culture is right ... it only creates other problems later.
    It requires promotion, not protection.
    
    Take a positive attitude .... you say Canadians don't understand
    each other ... have you gone out and shown others how they can take
    those steps towards understanding ... or are you just going to lament
    the fact ?
    
    Stuart
    

        Stuart,

    	I have spent many hours trying to make Anglophones understand the
    Qu�bec point of view to no avail (my wife being the exception). I being
    a native Qu�becer and bilingual can see both sides of the issue, but I
    still believe that French Canada has a lot more to lose. I find it very
    difficult to get an Anglophone to even ponder the Qu�bec point of view,
    they dismiss it without examination by and large. I also understand
    English Canada's point of view but it cannot be achieved by asking
    Qu�bec to give up what it has fought for, whether perceived as right or
    wrong.
    	I don't hear many people promoting uniform bilingualism in this 
    country. The fact that you say what Qu�bec has done is wrong proves my 
    point that English Canada won't deal unless Qu�bec gives up something. 
    	Money talks, and if you look at ours, it's bilingual. I think it's
    time for English Canada to put up or shut up! I don't believe they'll
    do it and therein lays my pessimism about Canada's future.

    Glenn

Glenn,

I tried to say that the back of the issue is an economic one, the
failure of the francophones to have any visible money power, much
like the experience of the american blacks or women in the equal
rights movement. I do not condone the tromping of anyone's native
language; that is why I believe the franco-phone might draw up an
alliance with native-Canadians to work the issues. Unfortunate,
there's been too many statements made about the native-Canadians
to realize how they can work together to elevate the ECONOMIC
situation instead of the fog of language barriers.

Wasn't there a Matis supression in the prarie provinces that
french speaking were supressed? (My high-school Canadian history
is over 25 years old.)

cal

re: 297.77 by Glenn 
    
�    	I have spent many hours trying to make Anglophones understand the
�    Qu�bec point of view to no avail (my wife being the exception). I being
�    a native Qu�becer and bilingual can see both sides of the issue, but I
�    still believe that French Canada has a lot more to lose. I find it very
�    difficult to get an Anglophone to even ponder the Qu�bec point of view,
�    they dismiss it without examination by and large. I also understand
�    English Canada's point of view but it cannot be achieved by asking
�    Qu�bec to give up what it has fought for, whether perceived as right or
�    wrong.
    
    So what is the Qu�bec point of view?  I only see/hear the propaganda
    and extremists, neither of which makes me sympathetic.  What is the
    REAL situation (as you see it)?
    
�    	I don't hear many people promoting uniform bilingualism in this 
�    country. The fact that you say what Qu�bec has done is wrong proves my 
�    point that English Canada won't deal unless Qu�bec gives up something. 
    
    Two things here.  To have bilingualism across the country at all
    levels is a very expensive proposition.  Many people feel that, without
    the numbers of minority language speakers to warrant bilingualism, this
    is just unnecessary expense.  I would agree, whether the minority
    language is french, english or any other.  My taxes are high enough
    already, aren't yours?  BTW, uniform bilingualism means more than just
    speaking french outside of Qu�bec, it's a dual edged sword.
    
    Second, do you feel that what Qu�bec has done is right or wrong?  And
    why?  Would you feel the same way if the same thing was done in Ontario
    but with the languages reversed?
    
�    	Money talks, and if you look at ours, it's bilingual. I think it's
�    time for English Canada to put up or shut up! I don't believe they'll
�    do it and therein lays my pessimism about Canada's future.

    Put up what?  And whatever happened to negotiation and compromise?  You
    know, a win-win situation for EVERYONE regardless of race, religion,
    sex, language, disability, etc.
    
    Unfortunately the majority of the politicians seem to want to win, and
    they carry people with them in a wave of near hysteria.  Most people
    (IMO) want Canada (with Qu�bec) to be a country where people can be
    themselves no matter in which province they live.


    

    I think that, today, there will now be an incredible number of
    anglo ... I was about to say anglophones ... but no that's really
    not the target group ... let me just say Canadians who will be more
    willing to liste, as a result of the Meech failure.  On the other
    hand there will no doubt be people who will now be more polarized
    against for other reasons.
    
    As I've said before, many if not most anglophones have never had to
    encounter or consider the idea of being in a minority, so it is
    not in their mind set, just as they have never contemplated the
    problems of natives.
    
    You say that I have said what Qu�bec has done is wrong ... what I
    said was I don't believe that legislation is the way to protect
    language and culture ... or at least legislation by limitation ...
    there are many many instances of history around the world that can
    show the validity of my belief.  However, I did NOT say that Qu�bec
    is WRONG.  The concepts of right and wrong paint only two sides
    when there are an infinite number of degrees in between and a
    million rights and a million wrongs and many poeple cling to one
    concept of what's right and what's wrong.
    
    Sure, I don't believe that the distinct society clause belongs in
    the body of the constitution, but that's because it can be used
    by governments to remove rights of Canadians (including Qu�becois)
    especially if we ever have malevolent governments in place.  Some
    might say that is far-fetched but I don't think so; we have
    governments now who are doing things against the majority wishes of
    the people.
    
    I have a lot more faith in Canadians to do what is best for the
    country than I have in our leaders.  I commend M. Bourassa for
    standing up for what he believes in.
    
    It's not time for English Canada "to put up or shut up" ... it's
    certainly time to stop complaining ... it's definitely time to
    decide what we want Canada to be and to find a way to achieve
    Qu�bec's desires ... and maybe in an even better way than has
    been proposed to date, because until now we've only seen people
    horse-trading what else they want in the constitution as grounds
    to accept Qu�bec.  What a nonsense!  If Canada wants Qu�bec in the
    constitution, it pretty well knows what it must do to achieve that.
    
    At the same time, it's time to stretch out hands of friendship
    across our border ... no ulterior motives, no secret agendae, for
    whatever happens, we will remain neighbours forever.
    
    Stuart
    

    I did not really want to step in but, just in case you might have 
    thought Jean has given up on Canada, because he has not replied yet,
    let me reassure you: today is a holiday in Qu�bec, for the St-Jean
    Baptiste (You know, the guy who lost his head because of a dancing
    girl, I wonder if this is symbolic... :-)). 
    
    RE: .69
     
    >> This is one reason that many Canadians were against the Meech Lake
       Accord. They feared for the human rights of the non-francophone
       Quebecois. <<
    
    It is not the human rights of the individuals that are violated by
    the "notwithstanding clause", but the large corporations that deal
    in the public domain. I don't know what the school board's story
    is all about, but I am sure that if we would to get all the facts
    right, we would find out that most of the information was once
    again distorted by the medias or that the decision was made by an
    extremist individual of the same breed as the ones who wipe their
    feet on the Qu�bec flag. A lot of people are basing their judgement
    on only two sources of information: "their" newspaper (or/and "their"
    TV station) or people that they meet that are as well informed (sic!)
    as they are. I, for myself, read at least 4 different newspapers,
    in both languages, and by doing this experience, I found out that
    we are constantly mislead, and that sensationalism is the true
    ultimate goal. Now, I feel that every individual has the duty
    to make sure he gets an impartial statement of the facts
    before he makes a judgement or even formulates an opinion
    in public. Failure to do so only shows that we are biased
    and uninterested in truth, and that we only seek confrontation.
    
    The distinct society term means a way to protect the essence,
    or the culture of the qu�b�cois. Period. To utilize it for any
    other purpose would be unjustifiable legally, politically and
    morally. Better, it should only be an insurance policy, something
    that would allow Canadians (all of them) to sleep well at night
    and feel at home in this land. Sad that we had to come to the point
    where we need something in writing to believe each others, but it is
    the resultant of the lack of mutual tolerance. By failing, once again,
    to accept and understand that the request is only symbolic, and by
    giving it so much importance, we are making it a reality, a need.
    
    It reminds me of some police tactic (the OPP used to do that a lot
    on the Queensway) you park a police car in the middle of the highway
    no man aboard, send the officer to Dunkin Donuts, buy him coffee, and
    no one will get tickets, but no one will over speed...
    
    Michel. (Til Jean comes back...)

    I have no doubt as to the intent of the distict society term
    (it's no longer a clause ...) and yes it is sad that we all have
    to want to define our place here by words whether we are majoritites,
    visible or invisible minorities, whether we are founding nations
    or natives.  What scares me is not today ... but tomorrow.
    Governments are not above using the law in unjustifiable legal,
    political and moral ways.  Just look at what was done to attempt
    to bring Qu�bec into the constitution by the various provincial
    and federal governments.  The desired result would have been laudible,
    but the means to that result were dispicable.  M. Bourassa stood firm
    and probably rightly so given what the other governments were doing
    to each other because if he did budge goodness knows how much pressure
    would be brought to bear upon him to take part in the horse-trading
    that was going on and then goodness knows what he'd be forced to give
    up.
    
    
    Anyway, a constitution is not going to resolve the issues of flag
    stomping and intolerance.  Just because a constitution is written
    doesn't mean Canadians are going to start loving one another.
    That's why I am trying to do my part in attempting to understand
    the situation, and trying to show that I hold no ill feelings to
    anyone in this country (unless of course they have personally
    violated me).  That's why I think it is important to show friendship.
    Qu�becois and Canadians will be here as long as there are people on the
    earth, so they might as well learn to get along ... and why not start
    now.  It's time to bury the hatchet on the grievances of yesterday
    however hard that might be, but it's the only way to build for
    tomorrow.
    
    When we start showing that we can be good neighbours, even if we cannot
    be good friends, then we can start building a constitution with trust
    and honour.
    
    
    

    re: .81
    
    Unfortunately it's not only big corporations that are affected by the
    use of the notwithstanding clause.  It is small business and the
    consumer who are no longer allowed to trade in the language of their
    choice.  These are individual rights that are being overridden with the
    language laws.
    
    One thing that seems to be forgotten is that one does not have to be
    francophone (or even speak french) to live in Qu�bec, just as one doesn't
    have to speak english to live in England.  That's just an emotive issue
    for the bigots ("They f***ing come to our country (province) then they
    should speak our language.").  Believe me, I've heard it said many
    times.  As an individual, one should have the right to use whatever
    language one chooses.  If you don't like my choice then you have the right
    to ignore me or boycott my store.  That is the price that we both have
    to pay for OUR freedom.
    
    In respect of the stories about the bigotry that we hear on both sides
    there are two things I'd like to say.  First we rarely hear about the
    average person because it's the extremists that make better news, no
    matter how fair our media might be they have to compete.  Second we are
    unlikely to know the truth of any of these stories.  And even if we
    did, my different perception of the world would give me a truth that
    was different to yours.
    
    We now have the situation in Qu�bec where large numbers of people
    believe that Qu�bec has been rejected by english Canada.  I do not
    believe that this is so.  Meech Lake, and the bitterness that went with
    it has been rejected, but the majority of canadians want Qu�bec as part
    of Canada.
    
    *I* want Canada to stay together, what do *YOU* want?
    
    Bob

    Did you see yesterday on the news that during the parade several I assume
    Quebecers were wiping their feet on a CANADA flag. I don't know what kind
    of perception the rest of Canada would have towards this gesture. Since
    a group of people in an Ontario town went to Montreal to apologize for
    stepping on Quebec's flag, do you see it is necessary for Montrealers
    to apologize to the rest of the country. CANADA flag is not only the
    flag of English Canada, it is also the flag of Quebec unless she is not
    part of it. 

    Personally, I see that as the reaction of a few people.  So they want
    to express their displeasure with Canada ... well, that's their
    perogative.  I'm not going to go beyond saying it was sad.  It's
    not humiliating though ... I have a pride in being a Canadian, and
    if these people don't feel that, then it is their loss, not ours.
    

    As an immigrant to this country for more than 15 years, I see double
    standards. The same thing happened in Brockville stirred up strong bad
    feelings in Quebec, an apology seemed not good enough to calm the 
    enmity. However, it is perfectly OK for Quebec to do the same thing
    just to express their displeasure. I have a problem to swallow this
    logic. It is not theirs or ours, we all belong to the same family, we
    all share gains and losses.

    You have to remember that the treading on of the Quebec flag was a
    symbolic gesture of hundreds of years of Anglo-French enmity both
    here in North America and in Europe before.  Many Francophones in
    Canada feel opressed, so an apology won't do.  It was another insult
    after many years of oppressive insults.
    
    Some Qu�becois have never and will never consider themselves Canadians,  
    because they cannot visualize themselves as having anything at all akin 
    to other Canadians.  Just because they live on the same land mass as other
    Canadians doesn't make them Canadian, just like we aren't Americans.
    
    It is not alright that someone tramples on the Canadian flag, but what
    purpose would it serve other than escalate hostility if someone
    retaliates (and I'm sure someone will), but I won't.  What it shows,
    by not over-reacting, is that Canadians are in fact showing tolerance
    and a willingness to let byegones be just that.  There are people in
    Qu�bec and the rest of Canada who won't let the past be, and start from
    here to build a great nation.
    
    Stuart

       Re.84 & 86 by POLAR::
    
    Are you aware of the fact that sports fans in Toronto have a 
    habit of booing when "Oh Canada" is being sung? 
    
    The booing usually gets louder when the parts of "Oh Canada" which is
    in French is being sung.
    
    All of us will agree that *some Toronto sports fans doing that does
    not mean that all the residents of Ontario are non-patriotic
    anti-Canada bunch. 
    
    BTW: It strikes me as weird that some Canadian citizens will boo
    when their nations anthem is being sung.  
    I can't imagine that sort of booing happening in an Alabama sports
    staduim.  (If POLAR:: is looking for extreme examples/comparisons). 
    
    Maybe Clyde Wells and Elijah Harper can explain this phenomenon of
    booing when "Oh Canada" is being sung ?
    
               

      Re. 59
    
    >> Newfoundland is Appalachia without the cultural amenities
    >> Or the good-looking women..
    
    
    Clyde Wells would get mad, if he was to read/hear this.
    
    BTW: A few weeks ago a Montreal Gazette article mentioned that
    the "hidden agenda" of Clyde Wells NewFd is that if Meech Lake dies
    N/F would have a "perfect" excuse for joining the US, hoping
    that they will get fatter/higher/better welfare payments from Uncle Sam. 
    
                 Is that the reason why Clyde held back...? 

    RE: .73  "independent Qu�bec"
    
>	Would it seek any association with Metropolitain France?

    Maybe it could be annexed by Ste. Pierre/Miquelon.  They're already
    French territory and could almost be considered as contiguous (by
    water).  Of course, Nfld. might cut off the ferry service.  ;-)
    

    Excume me for not replying before, but I HAD to work.  Hey we even got
    Glen grand canal wirly twirly Richardson talking seriously, this has to
    be THE topic in this note file.
    
    A small analogy:  If you keep walking on your lawn in the same path for
    years, you will make the ground so hard that nothing will grow there
    again even if you stop walking there, you may seed the ground, but it
    will not take root.
    
    French in Canada has been supressed by law, intimidation or other
    means, this has been very succesfull in eliminating it from most
    provinces.  Now with Trudeau's idea of promoting bi-lingualism and
    bi-culturalism (a crock if you ask me) is the same as sowing on
    hard ground, it will not take because there is no one to receive the
    "message".  I and other Qu�becois don't trust Canada one bit when they
    say they mean no harm to french in my province, they may be saying we
    are sorry for our sins, for stamping it out of all other provinces, but
    we won't do it to you, sure and I beleive in santa claus too!
    
    As for the accusations to the effect that WE were trying to do the same
    things in schools (regulate the use of french in schoolyards), this was
    a proposition from a zealot, it was NEVER done.
    
    I also blame anyone who does not respect other peoples symbolism, be it
    a flag, their religion or their property.
    
    Jean
     

>    Excume me for not replying before, but I HAD to work.  Hey we even got
>    Glen grand canal wirly twirly Richardson talking seriously, this has to
>    be THE topic in this note file.
 
    	Jean,

    		Your are excumed. 
    		
    		I'm OK now, call it temporary sanity.

    		You'll have to excume me now, I think my washing machine is
    	in the spin cycle!

    Glenn

    Spin cycle, eh!
    
    If you want to spin (or whirley-twirley to use the correct term) then
    
    			Press next-screen key now!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    			Press previous-screen key now!
    

Re .91

Great answer.

cal

    Re .94
    
    Indeed Jean has hit the nail on the head ...
    
    So, what I want to know is how do you soften it ?  Time is obviously
    one way ... but no one wants to give it time ... look what happened
    Mulroney thought he'd given it enough but ended up packing the ground
    harder.
    
    So, Jean, sovereignty issues and the intolerance of the past aside,
    what can we do to build greater understanding and friendship between
    Qu�becois and other Canadians ?  Don't tell us we can't do it because
    we never have ... Don't tell us we can't do it because we don't want
    to.  Don't tell us we don't understand so never will.  Tell us what
    you as a Qu�becois with strong feelings would like to see Canadians
    do to promote better friendship between our peoples ... and conversely
    tell us what you could see Qu�becois doing to promote friendship with
    other Canadians.
    
    I am not asking what we can do to appease the Qu�becois into remaining
    in Canada ... I am asking what we can do to improve our relations.
    
    Stuart

    >>>    As for the accusations to the effect that WE were trying
    to do the same
        things in schools (regulate the use of french in schoolyards),
    this was
        a proposition from a zealot, it was NEVER done.
    <<<
    
    As of yesterday was it never done. But up until yesterday, it was
    being contemplated.
    
    The ruling was toned down to legislate French only in Montreal schools
    when in a curriculum environment ( classes, seminars, etc ).
    
    Scooter

    To stuart,
    
    One, stop talking about who is paying for what, that we are a burden to
    the rest of Canada (remember 7 provinces and 2 territories get more out
    of Canada than they pay in taxes)
    
    two, if you live outside of Qu�bec, learn french so you CAN communicate
    and APPRECIATE what we have to offer (as well as being able to read the
    other side of the cereal box)
    
    three, if you live in Qu�bec, learn english so you can appreciate what
    is coming from the rest of north america.
    
    Jean
    

    re .97
    
    You know, I think there is probably an awful lot more to your first
    statement than meets the eye.  I would suspect that plays as major
    a role as the language issues.  Don't you just get tired of the
    "he gets more than me" talk ?  I don't accept it from my kids and
    we are supposed to be adults here.
    
    As to learning the other language, I think more important is to
    recognise that other people do speak other languages and respect
    that fact, and don't necessarily expect everyone to speak your
    language.  I don't expect a Francophone to speak English ... if he
    does, then it makes my life easier, but if he cannot, then I find
    a bilingual to help me ... I don't write the individual off.  After
    all the traveller in Europe doesn't expect everyone to speak English,
    so why should he expect that in Quebec ?
    
    Obviously as much bilingualism as possible is a helpful thing, but
    near total bilingualism is impossible and probably unnecessary. If,
    on the other hand, you are likely to have to deal with Francophones
    in your day to day life, then it really should be your duty to either
    learn French, or at least have someone available to assist you, and
    you should not do this grudgingly.
    
    Stuart

    Stuart,

    	If you feel that country wide bilingualism is impossible and
    probably unnecessary then you are proving to me that Qu�bec is a
    distinct society. This I believe is the political reality. I hope a
    time will come when Qu�bec will feel that their language doesn't need
    Bill 178 to protect it.

    	The question I have is, is Bill 178 really a Pope?

    Glenn

    Glenn,
    
    I don't think anyone has a problem with Qu�bec being distinct ... as
    long as all other distinct people are recognised as such.  It is 
    legislating that Qu�bec must be distinct (what would happen if the rest
    of the world started to speak french, would Qu�bec than be forced to
    declare itself anglophone?  8-) ) that I find difficult to swallow.
    
    Is Qu�bec any less distinct today than it was a week ago?  Would have
    been more distinct (how?) if Meech had been accepted?  How does a piece
    of paper change what Qu�bec is or what you are?
    
    If you have *real* answers to these let me know 'cause I really don't
    understand.
    
    Cheers,
    	Bob
    

    Re .99
    
    You took my words and twisted their meaning to fit distinct society.
    
    We are a land of many distict societities ... every racial group ...
    every language group ... every ethnic group ... every city ...
    every town ... every village have cultures which make themselves
    distinct from one another.  Come to that I am different from you
    am I a distinct society ?  At what level do you decide that this
    distinctness deserves a totally separate state ?  Does this kind
    of distinctness deserve a separate state ?
    
    Distinct societies are social realities, but are they and should
    they be political realities ?
    
    Stuart

    	I have come to the conclusion that trying to make Canadian
    Anglophones understand the Qu�becois point of view is impossible and
    probably unnecessary.

    Glenn

    You know, I get very tired of discussions that end this way ...
    
    You reach some questions that are critical to the way you think the
    way you do, and the other party says "You just don't understand and
    you never will" and takes the bat home leaving the critical questions
    unanswered.
    
    For starters, I'm not a Canadian Anglophone ... What I am doesn't
    really matter, although I am an anglophone, and I chose Canada of
    free will, for hanging labels on people only serves to divide rather 
    than unite.
    
    You'll never get anyone to understand as long as you react in that
    antagonistic way.  And isn't this really what it's all about people
    who stopped listening.
    
    I'm listening ... I'm trying to understand ... you don't give me much
    chance though.
    
    

    I don't understand the difference between the anglophones and the
    francophones.  Don't they all take the same dime?
    

*phones play r-accords, unlike grammaphones which play grandmother clauses.
And of course you need a pornaphone to play porngraphs.    

    ".. take the same dime". 
    
    I have the (world wide) impression the anglos come down to the 'dime'
    much earlier than others - distinct
    
    When I enter Quebec from the US or anglo-Canada I have a very nice
    DISTINCT feeling, getting away from the un(i)-cultural porridge,
    aka 'melting-pot'.
    
    R.

    
    When I visited Ottawa via Quebec from US in august, I have a
    feeling that Quebec is a very different country.  Everything is
    in French,  no English sign, and people are relunctant to speak
    English.
    
    As the note .106 said, Quebec don't want to be a melting pot.
    All they want is a distinct society, and ultimately what they want
    is a separate country.
    
    I say just let them separate from Canada.  What is the big deal about
    this?

    Re -.1,
    
    Did you feel rejected because of the unilingualism or did you enjoy the
    "difference"?
    
    Jean
    

    Jean,
    
    that is the point.
    
    Rainer_who_enjoys_cultural_differences