Conference kaosws::canada

  Suddenly it matters to you what the rest of Canada thinks about what
    Quebec thinks ? What brought on this sudden change ?
    
    Scooter

    OK Jean, I'll bite ...
    
    I am almost becoming resigned to the idea that Quebec will seek some
    sort of separation from Canada ... not because of the Belanger Campeau
    commission, not because of the behaviour of the rest of Canada, but
    primarily because of the behaviour of the current Federal government.
    
    I think that were we to have had a more popular Federal government, the
    tide towards separatism from Quebec would not be so strong.  The
    Federal government unfortunately reperesents too many things to too
    many people.  To Quebecers, it represents the rest of Canada.  To the
    rest of Canada, the Federal government is seen time and time again to
    bend to the wishes of Quebec.  To Westerners, the Federal government
    represents Ontario and Quebec.  To Easterners, it represents everybody
    but themselves.
    
    What all this basically boils down to is that we have a Federal
    government that has not fairly represented the peoples of Canada for 
    more years than I care to think about.  I long to see a truly
    representative government ... not one that represents solely the
    politics and whims of any one particular party.
    
    So, I think it is time we all separated from Canada ... in a sense.
    The question then remains, has too much damage been done thus far to
    build a new Canada, inclusive of Quebec?  And the other question that
    is probably more relevent, do we have any leaders who care about more
    than their own back yard to want to build a new Canada ?  Chretien may
    not be well liked any more, but in my book, he got one thing right ...
    "Come on Canada, we have a lot of work to do!" and I hope it's not
    too late.
    
    Stuart

	I think its a horse that has been beated to death. Every five
	years there is the big separation scare. I think people
	are treating this one like the boy who cried wolf too many
	times.

	I think most people are too worried about more important
	things right now. They worry about job security, the rising
	costs of living, and a third world war.

	I refuse to worry about Quebec any more, let the people
	who get paid the big bucks get an ulcer about this
	reoccuring nightmare.

	I for one have my life to get on with.

	Charlie

    Quebec is paranoid.  There is too much effort expended to "ensure"
    Quebec retains its language, culture, and identity.  Laws (like Bill
    101) serve only to alienate people.
    
    No language, culture, or identity was ever preserved or saved by laws
     - only by people.  It's time for Quebec and its people to shed this
    insecurity and inferiority complex and get on with making the whole 
    country function as a unit.  Or if people don't believe in a united
    Canada, get lost.  All of the above applies equally well to B.C.,
    since many people there are convinced that anything east of the
    Rockies is not worth even acknowledging, since "those damned easterners
    don't care about the west.
    
    If I seem a little severe and bitter, it's partly because I was born
    and raised in Montreal, and have since lived in Ontario, Saskatchewan,
    Alberta, and B.C.  (In Alberta, since the days of the oil boom and the
    National Energy Policy, they say "Oh Yeah, Easterners; they came, they
    took, they left."
    
    So in summation, we Canadians are a sorry lot:  little or no national
    pride, petty bickering between artificial "factions", unable to govern
    or elect people who can, taxed to death, ....
    
    Let's wake up, smell the roses, get along, and keep this great country
    whole.  I for one believe everyone loses if Quebec separates.
    
    Meech Lake had nothing to do with assuring Quebec's place in
    confederation, it was just more concessions to a province with too many
    already.  Either we have a strong centralist federal system, or we just
    split into 10 (or 12) units, and fire those jerks on the hill (Senators
    first!!!).
    
    Otto.
    

	Well said Otto, but put on the old fireproof suit ;-)

	BTW hello and long time no see,

	Charlie

    I found it interesting to hear Jacque Parizeau on the Journal last
    week.  He made separation sound so simple ... gee we just get a few
    people to sit around and sign a few papers and voila everyone leaves
    happy.
    
    This guy is DREAMING!!  Actually I know he realizes it is more
    complicated than that, BUT the image of it being a trivial matter is
    what he is projecting so that the people of Quebec and the rest of
    Canada go on continuing to believe that it is a trivial matter.  His
    objective is separation, so clearly he and the other leaders of Quebec
    separation paint a rosey picture.
    
    I'm trying to think of any country in recent history that amiably
    separated as Parizeau suggests Canada could.  None come to mind. 
    Europe moves toward closer integration and most of Canada keeps
    dreaming of building more walls and accusing each region of screwing
    one another.
    
    Y-e-c-h!!!!!

    Re .4
    
    Did you say "Wake up and smell Des Rosiers"?
    
    ;-)

    I am gladd to see that there is still room for a joke in a topic such
    as this.
    
    I now live a long way away from my 'adopted' homeland, and my blood
    always goes cold when I hear about Quebec wanting to be a separate
    country. I have been away from the political scene for too long, to
    enable me to comment on it, but I can speak from my heart.
    
    I would be very sad to see ANY province break away from Canada. To me,
    Canada was a melting pot of many nationalities showing the world how
    to get along with each other. I remember everybody pulling together in
    all the neighbourhoods I grew up in, and I especially remember  how
    well we were treated in a village in Quebec ( I think its name was Val
    Cartier, near to Quebec City ).
    I hope that this is a scare, and nothing comes of it. I also hope that
    someone rises above the fog of mediocraty in Government, and emerges to
    lead a strong Federal Government, and lead the WHOLE country to a
    future where all are seen to be, and are treated as, equals.
    
    
    Regards,
    Wayne.

    Stuart,
    
    	I agree with you.  There is too much meddling from the central
    governement, and in areas that are not in their field of competence. 
    They have managed to trow us into a recession to keep prices in check
    in southern Ontario.  Not one of the major political parties has done
    anything for the country except to make sure they keep in power...at
    ANY cost, and I don't trust (at least now) Canada as a whole to look
    after the problems afflicting it whitout doing undue harm to my
    province AND it's peculiarities (just look what they did to the CBC as
    a recent example).
    
    Jean
    
    

    Jean,
    
    Are my eyes deceiving me ??? You agree with me !  History in the
    making!
    
    Anyway, just to put my response into a bit more perspective ...
    I happen to believe in a strong Federal system .... BUT .... a
    system that is representative of the people.  I wouldn't care (too
    much anyway) if a federal government made decisions that favoured
    one area or another, provided they were made for valid reasons ...
    Earning political brownie points, patronage, buying (or seemingly so)
    votes are none of them, valid reasons.
    
    I also believe that the provinces in some areas have too much power ...
    and I'm not looking at any one province.  I believe in an effective
    second house that should be used both federally and provincially as
    a house of second thought.
    
    Canadians I would trust to make the right decisions for the country as
    a whole.  Most Canadian politicians I don't trust.
    
    It's a shame that these talks on the future of Quebec and Canada are
    going on now in these dificult economic times.  They will be terribly
    and emotionally tainted by the state ofthe economy.  Note how Mulroney
    has attempted to take the bull by the horns again over the
    constitution to take focus off the economy.  The trouble is he forgets
    that he is in a china shop!
    
    Stuart

    The coverage of Jean Chretien's appearance before the B-C commission
    was not detailed.  It seems the press are more after impression and 
    emotional reaction than content.  
    
    Most of the commission members (it seems to me they are already committed 
    to separation) said that they wanted to hear specifics from Chretien. 
    Surely Chretien is not in a position to state what he would "bargain
    away".  He is looking over the edge of a steep cliff!  
    
    I agree with some of the respondants to this note that Chretien might 
    be perceivedas "yesterday's man" or "Trudeau's man".  However he will 
    react to the situation - he must!  He can't afford to be hated in his 
    own province.
    
    I favor a strong central government because I have seen really
    stupid acts by provincial governments - not that the feds haven't 
    blundered.  People like Bill VanderZalm would never last on the
    national stage, yet they do amazing damage while they rule
    provinces.  (Take our late forests and fisheries for example). So
    while on the cultural side Quebec should have every right to protect
    its language, the management, promotion of standards and basic rights
    need to be safeguarded centrally.  While Chretien may not have all the
    answers, I think it is his committment to the federal system and 
    knowledge of Quebec that won him the leadership.  I know that won't
    appeal to pequistes, BQ's and seperatists.  I'm hoping that the
    majority of non-committed quebecois will put aside the emotions
    surrounding Meech, and get down to serious reform, starting with
    the senate.  With a reformed senate, all provinces can have more
    of a veto in Ottawa, and we may not need a special deal for quebec.
    
    And I think most of English Canada could put aside their cynicism if
    THERE WAS ANY HOPE FROM ANY SOURCE!!  At the moment there doesn't seem
    to be.  We all take responsibility for that.  Every time I see a bunch
    of jerks putting up a protest to defend "English Rights" in Victoria
    B.C. I mutter, and lament for the future of our nation.
    
    Sorry for rambling on, but I too am searching "pour la reponse".
    
    
    Pieter
    

    I tought prostitution was illegal in Canada, but after hearing/seeing
    Chr�tien (and Mulrooney too) in action at the commission, I'm not so
    sure, these guys will do ANYTHING to get in power, anything except
    what's good for the people, and if you think Glenn is good at whirly
    twirlies, just look at any political leader, they put him to shame.
    
    Jean
    

    Prostitution isn't illegal in Canada, in most provices, anyway (don;t
    know about Quebec ).
    
    Scooter

    Well I NEVER!

    >>    Chr�tien (and Mulrooney too) in action at the commission, I'm not
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    The Chin that Walks Like A Man has NOT appeared in front of the commission.
    
    
    Scooter

<<The Chin that Walks Like A Man has NOT appeared in front of the commission.
    
And Cr�tin appeared at the back of the Commission, within minimal penetration.

Pat

    I really have to smile at some of the statements made about "Quebec
    protecting her language, heritage rhubarb, rhubarb,rhubarb....".
    Anybody who becames a new resident in the province of Quebec has to
    send their children to a French-speaking school. When my grandparents
    emmigrated from Czechslovakia in 1933, they went to Montreal. They
    tried to get my mother and uncle into a French school, but the French
    said that they wouldn't accept them because they couldn't speak French.
    So they had no option but to send them to an English-speaking school
    where my mother said they were welcomed with open arms and the teachers
    did everything they could to help them pick up the language i.e.
    English as quickly as possible. Talk about ironic. By the way my mother
    and uncle picked up French playing with kids on the block and are both
    fluent French speakers as are most of my family still living in the
    province. I live in Ireland now and am very proud that I can speak
    French pretty well. I am also doing everything I can to encourage my
    children to learn to speak French. 
    
    Now I here that there are fights breaking out in quite a few French
    schools in Montreal because native Francophone Quebecers get peeved
    when new non-Francophone Quebecers speak their native tongue or English
    in the hallways and schoolyards. What right do they have to expect
    people to speak only French when they are outside the classroom. Quebec
    is supposed to be a democracy. People are supposed to be able to speak
    whatever language they want to outside the classroom. My God even an
    idiot knows that forcing (or legislating) people to speak a language is
    not exactly condusive (spelling?) to nurturing a proper attitude to
    learning a language.
    
    I'm a native Quebecer and I feel that Quebec has gotten more than most
    provinces whenever it "negotiated" or "bargained" with the federal
    government. And it never did anything in return to quell
    anti-separatist or encourage pro-Canadian feelings. I understand
    completely Quebecs fear of losing it's language, heritage etc etc..
    but I feel it was never done in a positive way. People who couldn't put
    up with this were told that if they didn't like they could leave and
    many (who didn't really want to leave) did. At least they were able to
    go to another part of the country. People in Eastern Europe didn't have
    that luxury. Quebec has been spoiled over the years and I for one can
    understand why western Canada gets totally pissed off.
    
    Ted. 

    Now Ted, if you were to still be living in Canada, and said what you
    just did, you would be pigeonholed as a "threat to Canadian unity".
    
    In non-Quebec Canada, it is not politically correct (ie. the news media
    won't like you ) to not do everything humanly possible to prevent
    Quebec from leaving the Canadian Corral.
    
    Scooter

    Well said, Ted.  I also was denied access to French-language schooling,
    and that was in the 1960's!  Having just returned from Western Canada,
    where my son received no french in grades 1 & 2, and was on a 4-year
    waiting list for French immersion (good old Alberta, one French
    immersion school for 650,000 people), we made the choice to save him
    from failing a year and enrolled him in English school.  He struggled
    at first with French (3 times a week for 1 hour), but is beginning to
    improve.  For those who don't understand Quebec's educational system,
    as long as the child has attended at least 1 full year in English in
    another province, they are entitled to English language education in
    Quebec.  This is quite a change from the previous policy.
    
    In any event, Ted's point is well taken:  neither denial nor force are
    the right attitudes to foster rhubarb, I mean language acquisition.
    
    My French is mediocre, my German (mother tongue) atrocious, and of
    course my English is English: an illogical, butchered language.
    
    Would that there was only one world-wide language, or that we were all
    taught at least 6 before age 6!
    
    Otto.

    Ted,
    
    	Sounds like you're doing whirly-twirlies with rhubarb. My hat's off
    to you! I never would of thought of it.... but it must be as easy as
    pie!
    
    
    Glenn

		M E R R Y  C H R I S T M A S 

		   J O Y E U X  N O E L

    
    
    
      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    BONNE ANNEE AUSSI   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Ted.

    Brian may not have appeared before the commission, but his comments on
    the matter are in the same vein as Jean Chr�tien's.
    
    As for Qu�bec's school commisions, in the past (and even now still in
    some localities) they were dominated by the clergy, so anything not
    conforming to the purity of white-french speaking-catholic origin was
    automatically outcast, so it's no wonder that some immigrants were
    ousted from the school system.  Keep in mind also that in those days
    there were ample supply of students, the french schools were bursting
    at the seams.
    
    Jean
    

    Sorry Jean but that's a pretty week excuse. I'm sure that the very same
    could be said for the English Catholic side of the School Commision. In
    Montreal the School Commission ran/runs both the English and French speaking
    schools, I should know I taught for them for three years.
    
    Ted.

>BONNE ANNEE AUSSI

Who brought the Australians into this discussion?

    � l'ann�e prochaine, je n'ai pas l'esprit assez belliqueux pour
    continuer � discuter de sujets discordieux m�me si c'est moi qui ai
    ouvert le bal.
    
    Joyeux No�l et Bonne ann�e � tous les "noters"
    
    
    Jean
    

Oh, you'll get back in your usual spirits as soon as the holidays are over.

I did the last 1/2 of my high-school in english and we weren't 
allowed to speak french on school grounds, and yes this was in Quebec.
The idea is, school isn't only in the classrooms but ANYWHERE on
the school grounds. In English high-school, most students were from
a FRENCH background and since we weren't allowed to speak much in
class, outside of the classroom was the best place to speak comfortably.
Therefore if you were *caught* speaking french you were asked to 
speak in English ONLY. So it works both ways, too bad most of youS
are only looking to bash Quebeckers like Oprah bashes men. :*)

Andy

    you don't get it do you ?
    
    Anywhere else, outside of Quebec, nobody tells anybody what language to
    speak outside of class - *except in language immersion schools*, where
    the language being learned is only one allowed. And people attend these
    schools by choice (well, sometimes by decision of parents, but it
    amounts to the same thing).
    
    >> Forcing << people to speak only one language, by regulation, rule,
    or law is morally reprehensible, whatever the language.
    
    Scooter

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand. MAKING THEM talk the schools
language is for the good of the kid. You see, some kids in English
High could barely speak english at all, therefore whether they'd be
at recess or in the cafeteria teachers would *force* them to speak
english because they wanted the kids to learn faster. They use to let
them speak french but they'd then graduate barely knowing how to
speak, oh yeah they could write it...That's why they enforce it. You
don't have that problem in Toronto because EVERYBODY is english, but
in Quebec you've got to make these *special* rules to force french
kids to speak english in English schools and English/foreigners to
speak French in French schools. Most people from Quebec, if not all,
feel it's a great idea but you being an outsider seem to be screaming
for justice....since when has democracy lived in highschools? :*)


Andy

Andy,

This thing about being obligated or forced to speak English on school grounds
is news to me, and I attended the same English High School you did during
basically the same time.  Did something change when I left the school?

I'd like to make a point clear which I think the media didn't as much as
they should have about the proposal to force students in a French school in
Montreal to speak french.  This proposal only applied to official organized
school functions such as sporting events (i.e. the coach speaking to his
team, people in the crowd could still speak whatever language they wanted),
and social events.

My 2 cents worth.

Mario

    Andy,
    
    Where did you go to school? I went to a large English speaking high
    school in Ville St. Michel in the east end of Montreal and there were
    lots of French guys in the school and in my class and the teachers
    never said anything to them about speaking French outside of class.
    Everyone was free to speak whatever language they wanted to outside of
    class. The Italian guys often spoke Italian to each other in the yard
    or in the corridors. 
    
    In our French classes only French was spoken which is logical by me. My
    only complaint was that we only had French once a day which wasn't
    enough for the like of me to get good at it. I tried watching the
    French TV stations as much as possible as well. Worked on it with
    French speaking friends outside of school but no matter how hard I
    tried something I said always had them rolling on the floor in stitches
    of laughter. My problem was everytime I went to speak French I couldn't
    stop thinking in Anglais. I admit I was bad at French and probably
    would have been at some other language too but even though I went
    through a lot of angst I understood the value of being able to speak
    French and I have always thought French was lovely to listen to. It's
    one of the more beautiful spoken languages in my opinion.
    
    One idea I like here in Ireland is sending your children to an Irish
    speaking part of the country for a few weeks during the summer
    holidays. The kids live with an Irish speaking family and are only
    allowed to speak Irish. Some people though are a bit harsh because I've
    heard too many instances of kids being sent back home because they
    uttered a phrase in English. Seems more like coercion to me. I agree
    that the child should be told not to speak anything but Irish but it
    takes time for anyone to become immersed in another language. I think
    that would be a great idea in Quebec for kids that don't attend French
    immersion schools. 
    
    I was watching a TV programme on the teaching of Irish here in Ireland
    and they Irish were very impressed with the way French was being taught
    in Canada, especially the French immersion schools in Quebec and
    Ontario. So there can't be that much wrong with it.
    
    I agree that speaking French should be ENCOURAGED outside the classroom 
    but not FORCED. Human nature being what it is however we tend to
    take the easy way out so sometimes teachers may have to ENCOURAGE
    students a little more strenuously than they want to.
    
    Vive les deux langues.
    
    Ted.
    
   

Ted,
	When I said: *force* I really meant ENCOURAGE. Couldn't 
remember that big word :*). In no way was this forced upon the kids,
but they suggested it. 

Mario,
	You have a short memory. The guys in your grade were 
mostly English, mine were mostly French. Hence I noticed it 
more ('encouraging' English ONLY).

Andy

    <<allowed to speak Irish. Some people though are a bit harsh because I've
    <<heard too many instances of kids being sent back home because they
    <<uttered a phrase in English. Seems more like coercion to me. 

Ted, I'd suggest that the little tykes who are sent off to the Gaeltacht
should fire-off that time-worn Irish phrase when they're admonished for inad-
vertantly speaking English...





		P�g mo thoin!


Sl�inte,

Padraig
   

    Although i have sympathies for people defending their culture (the
    language being one of it's major components) i don't like the idea of
    being forced to do anything, no matter where.
    
    As a foreigner, coming from a unicultural country, i had no personal
    experience with things like that. As such, i'd like to bring up a
    positive aspect of 'being forced':
    
    I came (and come) to Qu�bec (Montr�al) also to learn french and to
    apply it 'on the street'. Especially the latter i found to be very
    difficult, since there was (is) always the possibility to speak
    English (which is a bit better on my part). I mean, you don't have
    the nerves in a store or pub to do something in french in 5 minutes
    when you can do the same in 1 minute in english. In this case it
    would be better to 'be forced' to speak french when there is no
    'english failover'. I think, next time i go to Chicoutimi or Sept �les
    or so in order to really learn french finally.
    
    Also, french is simply a lot more difficult structurally than english,
    so there is an implicit barrier. I thought this was so for me because
    of my germanic mother tongue, but i found out that romanic people like
    Mexicans also have a harder time with french than with english.
    
    Rainer
    

	Andy,

	I saw the same thing happen in my school in Quebec. I remember
	a teacher taking aside two students speaking French in the
	hallway and saying this to them.

	"I don't really care that you speak French but your parents
	put you hear to learn English. Try to speak only English
	while on school grounds and you might find learning English
	alot easier."

	Those students stopped talking French, not because they were
	forced to, but simply because the teacher made sense.

	Other teachers were not so nice (and maybe even a little bigoted)
	and bluntly told French speaking students that they were not
	allowed to speak French.

	I really do not know what the _law_ or _rule_ of the school was,
	but I think the first teacher I spoke of had the right idea.
	I little diplomacy goes a long way with your common sense.

	Charlie

    So, it looks like even the Belanger Campeau commision can't come up
    with a uniform concensus or recommendation and (only) just managed
    to link them into an almost workable guideline to give back to
    Robert Bourrassa, which sounds just like the jist of what he was
    suggesting before the Allaire report anyway.
    
    Or, to put it another way, Quebec looks almost as divided on this
    whole issue as the whole of Canada is.
    
    It is definitely time for a Federal election to elect a government
    with a prime mandate of unifying our country, and who we believe
    are capable of doing that.  Before the PM gambles the country away
    with yet another roll of the dice.
    
    Even if we do not achieve unity in terms of everybody signing a
    constitution, at least getting everyone to agree to try to work
    towards a concensus and towards some harmony has go to be the right
    step.  Even if the country falls apart, we still have to do this,
    so why not do it NOW.
    
    Stuart

    The commission BC was composed 50-50 of representatives from the
    federalist and separatists camps, the final vote was over 75% in favor
    of separation (the anglophones and allophones NEVER change their
    votes).  The polls also reflect the same proportions, soooo....
    
    What I hear from the rest of the country is that they would rather have
    the country break apart than give "special" treatment to Qu�bec, is
    that true?  is that bluffing?
    
    Jean
    

    Well, what do you think ?
    
    Most of the rest of Canada believes in a strong Federal government,
    a universal charter of rights giving Canadians the same rights and
    freedoms independent of the province they are in, a relatively
    equivalent division of Federal/Provincial powers in every province,
    and that, on an emotional level, that if you live in Canada that you
    are a Canadian first and then you are for example an Ontarian.
    
    Now it seems consistent that Quebec doesn't like that playing field
    and wants different rights and freedoms for its people, that it wants
    a totally different balance of federal / provincial power, that it
    wants powers that would severely weaken the Federal government and
    lastly that Quebecois see their being Canadians as an unwanted accident
    that they'd rather forget.
    
    Given that scenario, what would your reaction be ?
    
    Stuart

    I watched Belanger on Canada AM this morning trying to clarify what the
    term "seperation" ment ... the one part that I personally found
    offensive, was a comment regarding the setting up of a committee to
    study proposals submitted from the rest of Canada to avoid the
    referendum .. what the hell makes him think the rest of Canada is going 
    to submit ANY proposal !!
    
    .39 summed it up exactly the way that I feel  -  its Quebec that is
    looking for "special" treatment .. No way ! Be a Canadian first then be 
    a Quebecer.
    
    /T  

    IF things were universally uniform, we would all be working for IBM,
    blowing our noses in Kleenex tissues, eating Kellogg's corn flakes and
    McDonald's big macs.  There ARE differences, we have managed to keep
    ours since the first days of colonisation and the rest of Canada has
    also done the same, the only difference is that at first it was (more
    or less) an equal partnership between upper and lower Canada and now it
    has evolved in 9 provinces + 2 territories vs Qu�bec.  There is no way
    a Calgarian or a Torontonian can begin to understand the difference
    unless he has lived here (and not in an english ghetto like the west
    island) in the "other official" language, so I do not expect ANY
    proposals against separation from the rest of the country! 
    furthermore, such rejection may just speed up the process.
    
    Jean
    

    Yes but what about the effects of the Grand Canal? Should this not help
    keep Canada together?
    
    Glenn

    I do love the way the way the Qubecois banter out that time worn
    phrase "but you just don't understand".  It is very reminiscent
    of dealing with a depressed person --- no one else can understand
    because they believe that there is no valid comparison between
    their own situation and any one else's situation.
    
    Even if we were intimately aware of the situation, we could not
    understand.  I believe that this is a false barrier, just like
    a depressive uses.  I don't think that the Quebecois *want*
    Canadians to understand how they feel.  The very idea that someone
    else understands their situation means a loss of their identity.
    So, here we are in a dichotomy ... 
    
    There is no real way around this ... Canadians have argued with
    Quebec for years that we do understand and tried in many ways through
    an extensive policy of bilingualism and multi-culturalism to
    foster their culture.  But it is *never* enough ... it never will
    be enough.  Canada has always tried to incorporate Quebec, but
    Quebec has always wanted to stand aloof.
    
    The only way out of this is for Quebec to decide to want to join
    Canada or to leave Canada.  This idea of waiting for Canada to
    make them an offer they cannot refuse is just a time bomb until
    the next the next crisis and we go through this all again. But by
    that time, there will be so little else that can be given to Quebec
    without dismantling all the country that what appears to be the
    inevitable will finally happen.
    
    Frankly, I think it's over ... if not sooner then only a little later.
    It will let Quebec decide what they really want for themselves and
    whether they can truly do it, and it will let the rest of Canada
    decide how they really want to run Canada without the added pressures
    of coping with a seperatist culture.  (Yes the west is separatist, but
    that is politics ... Quebec is a mind set).
    
    Stuart

    I wish our politicians had the spine to clearly put the cards on the
    table vis-a-vis "Sovereignty Association".
    
    Sovereignty means separation ... political, economic, currency, etc. 
    It means negotiating your own Free Trade deal with the U.S.  It means
    starting from scratch wrt currency, foreign affairs, trading, etc.
    
    It DOES NOT mean you can have all the powers you desire but still be part
    of Canada.  I like the author of the previous note feel (sadly) that
    there is little room for compromise here and that separation is
    inevitable given the current line of thought in Quebec ("We're waiting
    for an appropriate offer from the rest of Canada...").  If the rest of
    Canada does not understand Quebec, then surely Quebec also does not
    understand the rest of Canada if it believes we can be held to ransom
    with the threat of gives us ALL we want or we will take our marbles and
    go home.

    Re .44
    
    It's not that I don't think that there is room for compromise ...
    There is some, albeit limited room for compromise ...
    
    BUT and this is a big BUT to Quebec to compromise is to lose, to
    the rest of Canada to compromise is to lose.  This is a lose-lose
    situation.  This is why Quebec said it's Meech or nothing -- no
    changes.  It's why many provinces had such strong reservations about
    Meech and one took strong steps to oppose Meech.
    
    What we need is a way to put something together in a win-win scenario.
    And until such time as Quebec and the other provinces put forward 
    Canadian and Provincial constitutions that are not only good for the
    provinces, but also good for Canada then we are still going to be
    losers.
    
    This is the short-coming of most of the Commissions that have been and
    are looing at the country.  They are trying to tinker with what exists
    and the provinces are looing at what's in it for them.
    
    If there is to be a chance of saving the country then it requires the
    will of the people to support the idea of a single country with all
    its diversities.  A lot of the country is willing, but too much of the
    country is looking at this as a what's in it for me, rather than what's
    in it for Canada.  It requires a resolve to be Canadian, and frankly
    the picture as I see it now is that there are major portions of the
    population, whether they are in Quebec, the Maritimes or the West,
    that don't have that resolve.  In some parts of the country that
    resolve has occured because of greed and political maoeuvering.  In
    Quebec it has occured because of culture (and its related emotions)
    and again greed and political monoeuvering.
    
    Federal political ineptitude and a faltering economy for the last 15
    years have resulted in a situation where politicians cannot be
    trusted and the Quebec politicians have played on the emotions of
    culture and said to the Quebec people ... we can do better than
    the Feds if we manage ourselves, and moreover, we can preserve our
    cultural identity.  It's a perfect scenario for glory minded
    politicians.
    
    I believe it can be done, that Canada can be rebuilt.  It needs some
    fresh faces with clear messages.  It needs clear plain methodical
    resolve.  It does not need another roll of the dice.  It does not
    need deadlines to say "do-it-or-else", but rather deadlines to say
    "ok ... that isn't going to work ... let's find another way".
    
    It needs a willingness to build on proposals to win, not to compromise
    on proposals to lose.
    
    So, it still comes down to one thing ... do the Quebecois want to
    join with other Canadians, and build a new country called Canada
    to which they can proudly call themselves Canadians and Quebecois
    or do they want to go it alone and proudly call themselves
    Quebecois alone?
    
    I'd love to help build a new great nation, with or without Quebec
    (preferably with), but to tinker with a stumbling crumbling nation
    is no use at all.
    
    Stuart

    This makes me want to do whirly-twirlies while wearing my left over
    snow bags in the Grand Canal!

    Of course it does ... I wouldn't have expected it to do anything else
    for you ! :-)
    
    But then "You don't understand ... you cannot understand ... etc"
    makes me want to do whirley-twirlies with a gross of frozen mucklucks
    and wish the curse of the albatross on the speaker!
    
    Stuart

>>    But then "You don't understand ... you cannot understand ... etc"
>>    makes me want to do whirley-twirlies with a gross of frozen mucklucks
>>    and wish the curse of the albatross on the speaker!


    	If Meech had been ratified, maybe I could have understood...

    

    Naaaaaaa!

    Definitely Naaaaaaaaaaa! :-)
    

    Re .45
    
    Sorry Stuart, can't fully agree with your logic, from friends and
    business contacts that I have in western Canada the feeling is not one
    of "what's in it for me", kind of more like "not this shit again".
    
    Except for Quebec the rest of Canada has a win-win situtation, we all
    take our quota of immigrants, help the have-not provinces with transfer
    payments, support unemployment etc .... IF there ever is a referendum
    and the nationalists lose, it will only be another 4 or 5 years before
    it comes up again with another referendum .. from that respect I have
    to agree with you, it will happen sooner or later.
    
    I followed the Persian war fairly closely and my parents were in the US
    for the month of Feb., and the pictures, reports, articles etc all
    exhibited a National pride - yellow ribbons, cards, etc.  My parents
    were telling of driving thru towns with every house, tree, car with a
    yellow ribbon,  that's symbolism which shows "I'm damn proud to be an
    American"  what do we ever do in this country to swell national pride ?
    We haven't had a leader in the past 20 years who has done squat ... 
    The Quebec situation should never have been allowed to get this far.
    
    My biggest fear is that Quebec with get their cake and eat it to !
    
    /T

    Re. 46
    
    >This makes me want to do whirly-twirlies while wearing my left over
    >snow bags in the Grand Canal!
    
    I have been looking all over for the latest models that you can wear -
    do you have an advance seed-unit or are they finally available in
    stores ??
    
     ... in the Grand Canal!   Does this mean that it floats or is it the
    ice breaking model ??

    Yes, Yes and No.
    

    <<Yes, Yes and No.

Through a paradox (a fake fox with a hare-lip), Glenn has
managed (at great mental risk) to copy my well-known trademark
of conciseness.
    

    Is there someone else up there we can talk to?

    re whereever the last serious note was ....
    
    >    business contacts that I have in western Canada the feeling is not one
>    of "what's in it for me", kind of more like "not this shit again".
    
>    Except for Quebec the rest of Canada has a win-win situtation, we all
>    take our quota of immigrants, help the have-not provinces with transfer
>    payments, support unemployment etc .... IF there ever is a referendum
    
    Oh true, everybody's fed up with it all, but I'm talking about
    politicians here sitting at a negotiating table ... not the public.
    I'm quite sure the public, if they believed their politicians would
    listento them would be very willing to sort this out.
    
    It certainly looks like Quebec out of Canada could be a win-win
    situation ... except the Maritimes are now completely isolated ...
    Ontario will be more concerned with itself ... the west will feel
    even more isolated and western separatists will have a stronger
    weapon to separate "If Quebec can ... We CAN too!"
    
    Now who wins ?  No more Canada.
    
    Stuart

    >politicians here sitting at a negotiating table ... not the public.
    
    My misunderstanding .. I agree.
    
    >Now who wins ?  No more Canada.
    
    Scary thought  ... but somehow I believe that it will never come to
    that - hence my comment about getting and eating their cake to, we have
    a bunch of pussy-whipped politicians, they will give in.
    
    Jean, where are you ? give up on this discussion?  Jean, I've not seen
    in any of the press a summary of what seperation means (I have my views
    as to what it should include, but ..), can you summarize what you think
    the "average" Quebecer interpetes this as?    I'm looking for a
    position on Defense, Currancy, social programs, what ties to the
    Federal Gov't ?, emmigration, impact to free trade, etc.
    
    /T

    Well,
    
    	As you may have all found out by now, I am the ONLY one in this
    conference defending Qu�bec's position, I also may be the only
    Qu�becois still engaged in discussions on/around s�paration.
    
    	You keep saying that the rest of Canada will never understand our
    position, yet none of you have changed your ideas on what it is to live
    in a language other than english.  I for one don't really care if
    french is officially stamped out of the other provinces because it is a
    fact that it has been done, but I do care about Qu�bec and would not
    want to loose the language or the culture that has survived here.  If
    the only way to warrant this is to secede, then so be it! 
    
    	"get their cake and eat it too" It would have been a LOT better to
    declare Qu�bec french unilingual and the rest of Canada english than to
    try and force bi-lingualism on ALL of us and maybe we would not be
    facing this separation now or as you say letting Qu�bec have it's way
    to keep the country together.  Only the FEDERAL governement forced Bill
    Vanderzalm to read french on his cereal boxes, NOT QU�BEC!
    
    I truly beleive that Canadians (there ARE exceptions) don't
    "understand"!
    
    Jean
    

    Canadians will never understand Quebecois ... 
    Ontarians will never understand Newfoundlanders
    I'll never understand my neighbour
    I'll never understand my wife                    :-)
    
    What I am saying is that maybe "understanding" isn't what is required
    here ...  
    
    "Acceptance"  "Valuing Differences"  "Tolerance"  these are what is
    required and regretably few are doing any of it.
    
    We've thrashed the matter of cultural preservation to death before in
    here but to summarize my position, separation and legislation will not
    achieve what is wanted ... It will result in a cultural island, unable
    to relate to the rest of the world; it will result in isolation; it
    will result in more and more protectionist acts in terms of both
    culture and trade.
    
    Stuart

    
    >I for one don't really care if
    >..french is officially stamped out of the other provinces because it is a
    >fact that it has been done, 
    
    Sort of like Bill 101 right ?
    
    >but I do care about Qu�bec and would not
    >want to loose the language or the culture that has survived here.
    
    I agree, I would not want to see the French culture disappear ... but
    life goes on, the world changes, North America changes, Canada changes,
    the provinces change, regions change and I change - you can't stop it !
    As Stuart pointed out, seperation is not going to perserve the French 
    culture its going to destroy it, I fail to see how living in isolation
    is a benefit ...
    
    >Only the FEDERAL governement forced Bill Vanderzalm to read french on 
    >his cereal boxes, NOT QU�BEC!
    
    Don't stick your head out of the sand someone may mistake it for a golf
    ball, and ... 
    
    
    You still have not answered my questions  - what defination of
    seperation do Quebecers have ?
    I also have a new one - what is the benefit of seperation (from your
    point of view)?
    
    /T

    -1:
    
    What do you think is the benefit for the Baltic States to separate
    from the Soviet Union?
    
    What is the benefit for Germany to be reunited?
    
    What is the benefit for ...................?
    
    
    Sure Canada is not to compare to the Soviet Union of old, sure there
    are also very different reasons in terms of economics and politics, but
    the bottom line all over the world is, that cultural entities have the
    natural tendency to decide on their own faith, that they do not want to
    be influenced by foreign forces, be they military imperialism on top of
    a cultural one, like in the USSR/Baltics case, or be they cultural
    'only', like in Canada/Quebec. Even if there are some economical
    penalties to pay for the independence, like in Germany.
    
    Can you tell me why Quebec would be 'isolated' in case of separation?
    For me, the usage of this term in this context reveals the neglegence
    (i dont say ignorance) with bothers me in intercultural discussions and
    which might bother the Quebeqois ("you dont understand us..") as well.
    
    Denmark (a rather small country which dares to speak it's own language)
    is not isolated in europe (and there even much smaller, non-isolated
    countries).
    
    Not following this american way of un(i)-culture is not equal to
    isolation, not even in North America?
    
    BTW: Do you like the fact that many europeans dont see any difference
    between the USA and Anglo-Canada? (Even ones who know a bit about North
    America)?
    
    R.

    >>>   
        BTW: Do you like the fact that many europeans dont see any
    difference
        between the USA and Anglo-Canada? (Even ones who know a bit about
    North
        America)?
    <<<
    
    BFD. Many Americans and Canadians see no difference between any
    European countries, or their people, either.
    
    re: isolation. Denmark is a lot more isolated from Germany, than, say,
    Baden-Wurtemburg is. Does that help you understand this context of the
    word isolation better ?
    
    Scooter

     <<< Note 389.60 by KBOMFG::RFORST "Rainer Forst Engineering @ KBO" >>>
    
    R.
    
    I really don't even to pretend I understand the Soviet Union situation,
    but from the (very) little I do it seems that the Baltic States want to
    seperate for economic benefit ... ?  not at all the same as Quebec
    
>    Can you tell me why Quebec would be 'isolated' in case of separation?
    
    As Scooter explained ... 
    
    
    
        >(i dont say ignorance) with bothers me in intercultural discussions and
    
    Is this a cultural issue ?  that's why I asked Jean to explain ..  I
    think its being used as a front, Quebec doesn't want to seperate over
    culture - they want special previlages that the rest of the country
    feel belong with the Federal Gov't. It almost seems like " throw me an 
    easy one or I'm going to take my bat and go home" .. 
    
    Other than Hydro and hockey players, what does Quebec have to export ?
    They're mfg base is with dying industries ie: shoes, leather etc, and
    they rely heavly on the Federal Gov't for aerospace and shipbuilding.
    Well if the aerospace and shipbuilding is no longer their, then what ? 
    In the last round of seperation talks (around '82 ?) many major
    companies moved their headquarters to Toronto eg. Insurance, will the 
    rest go this time ?
    
    I try to understand, but fail to see how seperation of Quebec benefits
    Quebec or Canada.
    
    /T

    
    Economics:
    
    The FEDS can and HAVE made or broken industries all over the country,
    NOT just Qu�bec! With the flick of a pen they can stop the Caisse de
    D�pot et placement from buying Canadian Pacific (this has been done)
    They can change fishing quotas to give or retreive advantages to ANY
    province.  They can change the prime rate to keep inflation from
    galloping in Toronto while strangling economies in other regions and on
    and on
    
    
    Language and culture:
    
    Bi-lingualism, what a farce! Bi-culturualism, an even bigger one. all
    brought to you by your freindly federal governement.  Yet when cutbacks
    are announced for the CBC, they cut french service to a number of
    regions in Qu�bec and I'm not sure if you can still get french TV out
    west (at least not local).
    
    Re a few back:
    You keep saying that we will get an "advantage" over the other
    provinces, what pray tell IS that advantage?  is it speaking a
    different language?  is it being able to deceide from what country the
    immigrants will come from?  is it controlling our school systems?
    
    
    Jean
    

    re: .63 - advantages.
    
    Tell you what - do some reasearch, and come back and report to us where
    more than 75% of the DRIE, and before that, DREE, monies went.
    The replacement, ACOA, almost went the same route, until someone from
    out west (!) pointed out that the 'AC" stands for Atlantic Canada ...
    
    (Hint: DR*E were programs billed to "assist the
    economically/industrially disadvantaged regions of Canada ..." )
    
    Scooter
    

    The Baltics want to be separate primarily because of CULTURAL reasons,
    germans want to be re-united because of just that. Decide on the own
    culture means, like Jean points out, deciding on language, immigration,
    education. Those reasons are stronger than economic ones, try to accept
    that.
    
    .61: Baden-Wuertemberg is within the german speaking culture, with some
         distinct flavor, Denmark is a DISTINCT society with an own
         language (like Quebec). Or are you telling me, that we (germans)
         should tell the Danes "Look, we are 80 Millions, you are 5
         Millions, so you better speak german, then you would also be
         better off economically etc."?
    
         Are you telling me also, that many Americans/Canadians see no
         cultural difference between, say, France and Sweden?
    
    R.

    Meech Lake was this country's last chance to stay together, even if
    English Canada thought that Quebec would get too much. It's great to
    have ideals when it comes to politics but to make things work, you've
    got to be realistic. Both the English and the French held to their
    ideals, thus the break-up of Canada is inevitable.....

    

    	If Quebec does separate, they'll be putting toll booths on the
    Grand Canal!

    ;-)

    re .65
    
    Are you implying that the rest of Canada is telling Quebec "SPEAK
    ENGLISH" ?  NO ... far from it.  What the rest of Canada is telling
    Quebec is don't force people to use only French.  There is a
    humungous difference!  Visit Toronto and see stores with Chinese
    signs, Italian signs, see street signs in assorted ethnic languages.
    If there was a large concentrated French community in Toronto, you'd
    see French signs there too.  We see no need to oppress minorities.
    Apparently Quebecois do.
    
    
    
    

    I should add that we are far from perfect on this I know.  You can find
    hundreds of instances of the racial prejudices in all provinces, and
    prejudices against the natives is a disgrace to all Canadians ...
    anglo and franco.
    
    

    Not too long ago the french speaking minority of Saskachewan (less than
    2%) got a supreme court ruling giving them the right (that they
    probably had before the province was even part of Canada) to have
    french schools.  The FEDS even sent money (about 16 millions) up front
    to get the program underway, they are still waiting because the
    provincial governement does NOT want french schooling in it's province!
    
    In Qu�bec, it IS illegal to advertise in english ONLY (like it was done
    when I was a kid) bill 101 made it mandatory to advertise in french
    ONLY.  Now the facts:  if you take a stroll in chinatown, the signs are
    in chineese and sometimes (not often) in french, the same holds true
    for most ethnic areas in the city.  The only people contravening the
    law(s) are people living in english getthos (mainly in the west
    island) AND the federal governement.
    
    I seem to remember that we also ALL paid for the tar sands, the western
    banks who went under, the canadian wheat board... we will ALL pay for
    hibernia, pet-can....
    
    And YES, there will be tolls (locks???) on the grand canal, there is
    still a great debate whether we will accept canadian tire money at par.
    
    Jean
    

    Stop babbling ... what's your point ?  There has been examples of
    inequality of every minority in every province - always has been,
    always will be ... that's life, some politicians are just pricks !
    
    You seem completely wrapped up in your self pity and self-righteousness
    (sp?), history is history and no one can change it, the best we can do
    is improve from what we learned - stop bantering about the past with 
    specific little examples, (there are as many for as against) try looking 
    at where we're headed ...
    
    The majority of Canadians are willing to compromise their standard of
    living and ideals for the support and growth of other parts of the
    country - that's what's being a great country is all about and that
    what the Fed's are suppose to be doing (I don't always agree but in the
    end it all seems to generally balance).
    
    Now Quebec, someone wrote a few notes back that Quebecers feel that
    they are Quebecers first and Canadians (by accident) second .. reading
    your notes Jean really seems to make this ring true. Most are willing
    to compromise for Quebec to maintain (enrich) their heritage/culture - 
    but not at all cost. That's what you have to understand. Sovereignty, I
    don't believe, will benefit the country, Quebec certainly, but not the 
    country !  I'm offended by the arrogant, self-centered, etc, etc,
    Quebecers that only worry about themselves - I'm willing to help you
    maintain your culture, but don't hold a gun to my head ..
    
    /T
    
    
    
    

    OK, so public money was not used as it was supposed to in
    Saskatchewan ... What is the problem there ?  It is a lack of
    fiscal responsibility and a lack of teeth (or guts, I'm not
    quite sure which) in ensuring that the money was used as it
    was supposed to be.  This is not so much a matter related to
    languages as it is to the lack of accountability of governments
    since there are a good many special funds transfers for special
    projects between governments where the funds effectively get
    mis-appropriated, under all kinds of guises ... and the transferring
    government doesn't do anything about it.  The language aspect just
    serves to make this one more visible.
    
    It should not be illegal to speak, advertise or work in any language
    you want.  For dealings with a government department, if it isn't
    English or French, then if people don't understand you, then too
    bad, except in court where you are entitled to a translator.  Outside
    of government, anything goes ... if people don't understand you
    because you insist on speaking English to a French shopkeeper ...
    then it may be a loss to the shopkeeper, or the customer or both,
    and the same the other way around.  BUT there is no excuse for
    poor manners and insisting that someone a Francophone speak English
    when you speak French anyway, and vice-versa.  You use what is best
    for the situation ... that is the WONDERFUL thing about being
    multi-lingual.
    
    Stuart
    
    For years, I subscribed to a consumer magazine called Protect Yourself,
    an English version of the publication Protege Vous ... produced
    by the Quebec Consumer Protection Office.  They have decided to drop
    this version supposedly for economic reasons.  There seemed to be
    no consideration of whether subscribers would be willing to pay more
    (I would have been more than willing to pay extra).  I cannot help
    but believe this move was also influenced by the anti-English feelings
    running rampant in Quebec.  I'm not angry ... just saddened ... very
    saddened.  Just as I am with the whole crazy situation.
    
    
    

    Its a damn shame, seems to me that the politicians and red-necks have
    pushed the two solitudes a little too far away from each other.
    
    In the middle of the Meech lake hubbub, how many times did we hear
    various anglo politicians say:
       o Quebec is a distinct society and should have the means to 
         protect and promote it.  In fact we heard from some scholars
         that french culture is stronger now than in the 1960s!!!
       o No one needs to feel threatened by bilingualism in Canada -
         this is a federal **SERVICE** issue, not a reguirement for people
         on the streets, or people reading cereal boxes!!  Grow up people!
    
    Wouldn't it be a damn shame if the Quebecois realized after separation
    that we were ALL ----ed by the politicians!  I guess its a shame, but
    the adults have really screwed up this country - the kids know better -
    they are going into french immersion in record numbers - people protest
    when the BC Gov't lets a local school board get away with shutting down
    french immersion!
    
    Wake up people, Quebec is "already gone" and who can blame them?  It
    is not fair to hold them back, and it will indeed be cruel to bicker
    about payments and debts, assets, borders, and bridges - that is what
    will be left after the referendum.
    

    re: Denmark/Baden-Wuertemburg -
    
    Read the previous notes - the question was how would Quebec be more
    isolated - in this specific insatnace, it was not a cultural question.
    Denmark is more isolated from German society than Baden-Wuertemburg,
    plain and simple. If you want to discuss cultural isolations, come up
    with a different analogy model.
    
    re: cultural influences and their strength.
    
    Cultural ties are undeniably the strongest that exist amongst people -
    defying legislation and economics. If the Quebec issue were cultural, I
    would expect that those that fight for the French-Canadian culture
    would be fighting for those same issues all through Canada. We hear
    nothing/next to nothing about this from QUebec's mouthpieces.
    
    It is a power struggle at the political level - and the cultural aspect
    is being held up as a shield. If you do A - you'll destroy our culture,
    etc. The french culture will survive or die depending on the people of
    that culture - not on laws or political boundaries.
    
    Look at the extreme lengths that early Canadian (including Quebec)
    gov'ts went to deliberately *eliminate* native people's cultures.
    No accident or by-product or negligence, was that. And yet, the
    cultures of the First Nations still survive - battered, beaten, but 
    still alive.
    
    It seems incomprehensible to me that a culture so allegedly strong, as
    that of the Quebecois, could be so easily threatened with extinction,
    considering all of the attempts (good, bad or indifferent) to keep it
    alive, or promote it.
    
    re: Baltics.
    
    The attempts by the Baltics and the rest of the Soviet Dominoes to
    establish sovereignty is *NOT* a cultural one. Where have you been for
    the past 50 years ? The problems they have had have been purely
    political - human rights, economics, etc. You see, there is this small
    matter of a thing called the Communist system. And another small matter
    of prior independance, lost through hostile actions by the Soviet
    Communists, not through mutual convention.
    
    Scooter

	re .73

>    matter of a thing called the Communist system. And another small matter
>    of prior independance, lost through hostile actions by the Soviet
>   Communists, not through mutual convention.

	Of course, that independence was achieved when the turmoil of the
	Bolshevik revolution enabled the Baltic states to break away from
	the Russian empire. When talking about restoring the status quo ante,
	one has to answer the question "ante what?"

	Tony

    Has anyone thought about the Montreal Canadiens? If Quebec seperates
    they would change the name of the team? They would have to change the
    uniform also. This is too serious. If people realize what seperation 
    would do to the Canadiens they will stop it.
    
    Don

    no need to.
    
    Canada, historically, was once limited to that area in narrow strips
    along both sides of the St. Lawrence, from around Montreal somewhere,
    downstream to the gulf - Back in the days of Champlain and Henry
    Hudson, et al.
    
    The Canadiens could keep the name, with the historical connection.
    
    Scooter

    What about the Grand Canal?

    You wanna know what you can do with your blasted Grand Canal ?????
    
    Use your imagination.

re .78

But all of Canada would go with it!

    All problems discussed here (Quebec, Baltics etc.) are cultural first.
    
    Communism, economics etc. are tools to threaten cultural entities, they
    are secondary in this sense. Of course, they 'hurt' more, are felt more
    closely than the more 'abstract' cultural feelings, but the latter are
    deeper and stronger in the end, the recent developments all over the
    world reveal that clearly (last: Kurdes).
    
    This is - for example - why the arab world (people, not governments)
    was supporting Saddam Hussein although they knew that he was a
    criminal. They regarded the western effort as a cultural threat, not
    so much as an economical one (oil) or military one. I can't blame them,
    especially when listening to an american senator stating that 'our boys
    are defending our way of life at the golf'.
    
    For me, that is the key to 'understand' some country's or province's
    tendencies, which may look strange when being looked at with the
    restricted point of an economical and political point of view.
    
    R.

    
>    Denmark (a rather small country which dares to speak it's own language)
>    is not isolated in europe (and there even much smaller, non-isolated
>    countries).
 
	Switzerland is smaller, it's major languages are German and French,
 	with English for business. Is is isolated.
   
>    BTW: Do you like the fact that many europeans dont see any difference
>    between the USA and Anglo-Canada? (Even ones who know a bit about North
>    America)?
 
	Being European I beg to differ, the US is the US.

	Canada is different, many more people have relatives or friends in 
	Canada than they do in the US. Canada is looked upon in a much
	more concilatory manner. Canada does not try to impose it's will on the
	rest of the world.

	However Quebec is different.

	When you are in France, and you don't speak the language, the French 
	help by trying other languages, or using hand-signes, they are very
	helpful.

	If you are in the "French" parts of Quebec and don't speak "Quebec 
	French", you are ignored, or at the least, treated very badly.

	Heather	 

    Having come from Canada to the U.K., I went through the various
    "Canada is just another part of the U.S." treatment for years.
    Most people thought that what Scotland is to Great Britain, so
    Canada is to America.
    
    I have witnessed first hand, Frenchmen ignoring my futile
    attempts to communicate on many occaisions. I also know of Frenchmen
    ignoring some French-Canadians, pretending they couldn't understand. (This
    was in Strassbourg, just over the border from Lahr, Germany).
    If ever there was a race I was not fond of .......
    
    However, I hold fond memories of living in Quebec. I was only 4-5 years
    old, and I can still remember lots of it. I spoke fluent French then,
    as my best friends mother was a French teacher, and that is where I
    learnt it.
    
    Personally, I hate the term 'Quebecoise' and beg forgiveness of those
    who prefer to be called so, but I have always used, and preferred
    French-Canadians. This I will use, untill it is not true anymore.
    
    Visiting my father in Lahr, I have come to know many French-Canadians,
    and have gotten on very well with them. Obviously, politics were never
    the theme of discussion, so I find all these Quebec first Canada second
    comments surprising.
    
    I am saddened as I read this topic. I for one, hope that some common
    ground is found, to prevent Quebec separating, and doing so without
    upsetting the rest of Canada. 
    
    Stuart, have you ever thought about politics yourself ? Maybe, with a
    few like you, Canada will have a future.
    
    There is one burning question that I have though,
    
    Are there cruises along the Grand Canal ?
    
    Good Luck Canada,
    I have a feeling your gonna need it.
    
    Wayne

    >>    All problems discussed here (Quebec, Baltics etc.) are cultural
    first.
    
    Baloney. Culture is a strawman at best, and a non-starter at worst, in
    most of the cases discussed here. THe problem people have in seeing
    this is that, wrt Quebec, there *is* a cultural difference extant.
    There are several cultures within Quebec, as well. Only the
    French-Canadian culture is used to justify political power grabs.
    
    THe bald evidence of this is when statements emanate from la belle
    province along the lines of "we don't care if you make the rest of
    Canada speak french - we want our own laws here, " etc. etc.
    
    If culture clash was the real problem, then those that complain would
    do every thing possible to foster growth of their culture in other
    parts of Canada as well.
    
    Add to that the cozying up to the US that Quebec has been doing since
    Free Trade deal was struck - one of the largest culture sinks in the
    world. What happens to all the complaints about cultural integrity
    then? Hemming, haw, and redirecting of the question - oe "we need
    the business relationship to survive and prosper". It becomes a
    tautology - awfully strange for such a cut and dried case of "needing
    to protect our culture and heritage".
    
    The Quebec people are being taken for a ride. At one time, I used to
    try to convince people of this. Now, to be frank, I don't care. 
    There are a lot of smart and savvy people in Quebec that are going with 
    the flow, in the name of Quebecois culture. Maybe one day they'll wake
    up, maybe after it is too late. But I doubt it. Quebec is already
    gone, only the legal ties remain.
    
    My only hope now is that they wait until after Mulroney is thrown out
    on his butt, before cutting the legal ties, 'cos I'm afraid of what
    he'll do if he's still in power. If you know anybody who's in the
    Special Service Forces in Petawawa or out west, go talk to them. Ask
    them what they've been training for, over the past 6 months. I'll give
    you a hint - it hasn't been desert warfare.
    
    
    Scooter

I really don't understand how the present setup threatens Quebec culture.

They have, for example, banned the use of languages other than French on
external business signs in the province, and this is entirely legal under the
current constitution.  (Thanks to the "notwithstanding" clause.)  Regardless
of how strictly this is enforced, it seems to indicate that they have the
power needed to enforce protection of their language.

The federal government has recently come to a special arrangement regarding
immigration with Quebec.

Education has always been a provincial responsibility.  There's no case to be 
made that the current system threatens Quebec control of education.

Regarding the CBC - in fact local English-language production in cities as
important as Calgary was cut in the most recent Tory assault on the CBC (not
counting Crispo's appointment to the board).  This was not an unfair shot at
Quebec either.

The Prime Minister of Canada has come from Quebec for all but about 11 months
of the last 23 years, and governments have been dependent on Quebec support in
the House of Commons to maintain themselves in power for all that time.  To
argue that Quebec has been getting a raw deal (as, of course, various
politicians do) seems pretty disingenuous.  To argue that political sovereignty
is necessary to protect Quebec's cultural distinctiveness is, I suspect, 
equally so, given the way that culture has flowered under the present system.

I'm aware that Quebec governments for the last 25 years have been trying to
negotiate changes to the constitutional division of powers.  I believe that it 
is probably necessary to make some changes, though I don't understand the
current nationalist hysteria in Quebec.  (The misconstruction of the farce of
last June as a massive rejection of Quebec is especially puzzling.) But:  
(1) threatening to destroy Canada is counterproductive; it undermines the very
real goodwill that exists in most of the country; and (2) it will be very hard
to achieve anything positive in this country as long as Brian Mulroney remains 
in power.                     

    If Qu�bec is such a burden on the rest of the country, why are we not
    "separated" by all the other provinces?
    
    Qu�bec's farmers have already been threatened by other provinces of
    boycot of their products if separation occurs, I don't think this is a
    cultural issue, and it speaks highly of cooperation between founding
    nations of this country and the respect we get from other provinces.
    
    With this kind of response from "fellow Canadians", we may be better
    off dealing with Americans (United Staters) or Mexicans.
    
    
    Jean
    
    
    
    Grand canal notwithstanding of course
    

    You imply that everybody says that Quebec is a burden. What kind of
    burden are you implying ?
    
    You aren't even being consistant, Jean. What respect is Quebec not
    getting, and is it giving that same respect ?
    
    What happened to the protection of the Quebecois culture ?
    Do you now admit that it is a red herring ?
    
    Scooter

    Re -.1
    
    First you said that some gov. program (I forget the acronym) was
    sending money to "economicaly depressed areas" and it turned out that
    the area in question was Qu�bec!
    
    You give respect to those who respect you!  The "we will do this if you
    separate" come from people who are supposed to be our freinds, with
    freinds like that....
    
    The french culture is better taken care of by the people who live in it
    than by a federal governement composed mainly of anglophones.  If
    Canada as a whole treated it's culture as well as we do our's, it may
    have a chance to differenciate itself from the omnipresence of it's
    southern neighbor, as it stands now, to me, they is no noticeable
    difference.
    
    Jean
    

    A burden ??  actually Quebec is more like a pain in the as* right now -
    it doesn't imply in the least that the rest of Canada supports
    seperation, just the tolerance for this nonsense is getting lower.
    
    You also seem to be changing your tune regarding this as a cultural
    issue, are you agreeing that it might just be a political issue ?
    That the politicians just might be confusing the issues ?
    
    Canada has done more to promote multiculturalism than most other
    countries (including the US), if you think you will be better off in
    the US, then your head is in the clouds ... take for example the latest   
    incident in Florida (I forget the town) where many Quebec folks
    vacation/live - they were pushing to have the entire town changed to
    French ie. road signs, language, newspapers etc., it finally came down
    to a point where the governor just said "This is the US, we speak
    English, you can add french to the road signs but they stay in English
    and if you don't like it .. leave." (that obviously wasn't a quote,
    just paraphrased).
    
    Jean you folks are being snowed ....  I listened to Sharcraw (sp?) this
    morning explaining why he left the Block party, and basically he said
    that culturlism was being used as a reason for seperation but it was
    really just a few politicans out for there own gain and it was not in
    the best intrest of the province to leave Canada.
    
    Wake up, Canada is not against Quebec but when you're asking for 
    unreasonable concessions it makes it easy to justify that the world 
    is against you ..
    
     /T.

    
>    You give respect to those who respect you!  The "we will do this if you
>    separate" come from people who are supposed to be our freinds, with
>    freinds like that....
    
    Jean, do you realize that there are 26 million people in Canada ?
    (counting Quebec ..)  
    What did you expect ? remember the "Buy Canadian" theme ?
    
    The attitude is not completely unexpected,  
                - Quebec seperates from Canada
                - isolates the East coast provinces - they then have
                  decisions to make as to their future ..
                - the job of establishing a Canadian identity becomes a 
                  magnitude more difficult
                - will have reprecussions for years (decades)!
    
        --> you really thing people who veiw Quebec as the sole reason for
            Canada's prolems  in the future are going to be your friends ?
            
     Are you going to answer my question (what benefits do you see that
    Quebec would have from Seperation ?) ?
    
    /T.

    >>    You give respect to those who respect you!
    
   There's a clue in this statement for you, Jean.
    
    
    re: diversion of DRIE funds.
    
    The point is, my friend, that we have been told over and over that
    Quebec can pull its own weight. THat it is self sufficient. That it
    owes nothing to the rest of Canada that isn't balanced back. Hpw many
    jobs were built on that diverted money ? How much did the Quebec High
    Tech Industry benefit and grow ? - ask SPAR & CAE.
    
    Burden ? - in this case, not when it benefits the whole country, which it
    does, even today.
    
    But then, don't continue parrotting the drivel coming from the
    politicos that Quebec can stand on its own, evidenced by the record.
    Quebec may be able to go it alone, but it didn't bootstrap itself.
    
    In amongst all the hollering about , "Canada has to make up its mind"
    and "you don't understand us", maybe someone is looking at the
    accounting, the real books, not the second set, and saying hmmmm,
    maybe things are not the way they seem. But I doubt it. It's very hard
    for most people to think, while those around them are shouting.
    
    None of this matters, anyway. Quebec is history, with respect to its
    membership in the Confederation. Your politicians have already decided
    that. There will be an extremely bitter fight over the shape of Quebec,
    after the Big Move is made.
    
    All of Canada will lose, Quebeckers most of all. 
    
    And it can't be stopped, now. It's far too late.
    
    Scooter

   > All of Canada will lose, Quebeckers most of all. 
   > 
   > And it can't be stopped, now. It's far too late.
    
      Saddly, I think you might be right ..

    Heard on the news this morning that a judge in Quebec ruled that a law
    which requires lawyers to speak the same language as the folks they are
    defending is "unworkable" - this was on a case of three Mohawk Indians
    where the lawyer defending them did not want to speak English .... the
    Indians are appealing, saying that it will prohibit their access to a
    fair trial.
    
    And on Canada AM this morning there was a comment during that sports
    report that the Canadian anthem was booed at the football game yesterday
    in Montreal.
    
    Assho*es takes on a new meaning !

    I'm very much afraid that the number of a**holes is at least as high
    when eventually a Qu�bec-anthem will be played in Toronto, Vancouver
    etc.

    re: .93 Quebec is a part of Canada, not the reverse.  O Canada is still
    the national anthem in Quebec.  The incident in question was at the
    football game two weeks ago.
    
    BTW, the boos started at last night's baseball game, but were quickly
    drowned out by the applause from the majority of the 35,000 fans in
    attendance at the Expos game.  
    
    Does this mean football fans are radical separtists, while baseball
    fans are mostly federalist?   :-)
    
    Glenn

	re .94

	On CBC Sunday Morning they were saying that whereas the Alouettes
	had regarded football as having a predominantly anglophone audience,
	the Montreal Machine was marekting itself to francophones.

	Tony

    RE:94
    
    I believe your right - the reference was to the football game a couple
    of weeks ago, it was just referenced in the news yesterday. O Canada
    may still be the national anthem in Quebec (for now) but it is an
    indication of attitudes.
    
    >BTW, the boos started at last night's baseball game, but were quickly
    >drowned out by the applause from the majority of the 35,000 fans in
    >attendance at the Expos game.  
    
    >Does this mean football fans are radical separtists, while baseball
    >fans are mostly federalist?   :-)
    
     Well the Expos only had 9,000 at the game yesterday .. does that mean
     the federalists are going down the tubes ? (along with the expos) :-)
    
    /T.

    re .92
    
    In fact the prosecuting attorney (equivalent of DA in the US) didn't
    want to use English as requested and the judge for the case ruled in
    the prosecuting attorney's favour -- not the defending attorney.
    
    

	re booing the national anthem

	I think you will find that in Scotland booing "God Save the Queen"
	became so commonplace that the authorities now play something else.

	Also,
	some years ago I went to a public lecture at Edinburgh University
	given by a visiting Canadian professor. He explained that the
	French words to "O, Canada" should be understood in the context
	of Canada as it was as a French possession, i.e. Quebec.
	Is there an irony here?

	Tony

First, the national anthem was booed in Toronto at a baseball
game when it was sung in French a few years ago, I guess the
stadium must have been "polluted" by Qu�becois because English
Canadians would NEVER do such a degrading thing.


Next:

From an article that appeared in La Presse, Thursday April 11.

This is a study conducted by the Fraser institute based in Vancouver.

1988 numbers.  The article mentioned the proportions have not changed
much over the last 20 years.  Some years, Qu�bec pays more and some years
we receive more.

Per Capita in $

      		frm	to	gain	  *	gain
      		Ott	Ott	-loss		-loss


Newfoundland	6020	2277	3743	 647	3095
P.E.I.		7528	2502	3054	 711	4315
Nova Scotia	7680	3054	4626	 868	3758
New Brunswick	6042	2738	3304	 778	2526
Qu�bec		4220	3049	1171	 867	 304
Ontario		5331	4798	 532	1364	-831
Manitoba	5667	3229	2438	 918	1521
Saskatchewan	5627	2938	2689	 835	1854
Alberta		4031	4453	-422	1266   -1688
B.C.		4435	3955	 480	1124	-645

* Per capita debt (imp�t diff�r�) or debt that will be paid in the year to
  come.

The table shows that for $304 more than we pay right now, we would get
the same services that we get now, including army, senators, UIC, CBC...
It also shows that 3 provinces pay extra for the same services.

From the table, we see that British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario "pay"
more to the federal government than they receive BUT the nature of monies
spent by the federal government in each province varies greatly.  The
money "invested" in the maritimes is mainly for social programs like
unemployment insurance, Medicare... and these do nothing to spur economic
growth in these provinces.

In 1988, the federal gov. spent 415 millions vs 189 millions on research in
Ontario vs Qu�bec.

Ottawa spent 1.5 billion in Ontario vs 857 millions in Qu�bec to promote
industries and commerce, to fund start-ups and for tourism.

For transport and communications, it was 1.3 billion in Ontario and 696 
millions in Qu�bec.

For defence 4.3 billion in Ontario, 1.8 billion in Qu�bec (and 2.1 billion
in the maritimes with less population than Qu�bec).

The article mentioned that the provincial government in Qu�bec must 
fill in the missing money for research and development, industry and
commerce, transport and communication, tourism...


So if separation ever occurs, with the taxes we now pay, we could fund all
the "services" we now have (don't forget there is a LOT of duplication of
services between the two governments).  Note that we may not "need" an army
(Costa-Rica does quite well in revolution plagued central America without
one, constitutionally since 1948 but practically for a lot longer than that)
or a senate or a wheat board....

As you all can see, the economics of separation are not that great tax wise,
I am sure there will be instability in the economy for a while after and this
will affect our standard of living, compared to what some others are willing
to do to gain such a status, it is a trifle.



FROM "LA PRESSE samedi le 20 avril"

TITLE: La sombre histoire du fran�ais en Saskatchewan

1905 Creation of Saskatchewan (from the North West Territories or NWT)

1912 Foundation of "l'association Franco-Canadienne" to defend the rights
     of the French minority

1919 The government of Saskatchewan forbids teaching French for more than
     one hour each day!

1929 The government of Saskatchewan abolishes French from it's schools!

1934 The government of Saskatchewan allows one hour of French per day.

1967 The province allows the creation of bilingual primary schools.

1980 The uni lingualism of the province is contested before the courts.

1981 The province's superior court rules that the province is obligated
     to give certain services in French based on the NWT act.

1988 The supreme court confirms the 1981 judgement and declares that
     the province can free itself from this ruling by adopting a law
     to this effect.

1988 Saskatchewan adopts a law making English the official language of
     the province.

A few years ago, Alberta used the "notwithstanding clause" to stop
court attacks on it's English only court system.

And trough all this Qu�bec is viewed as the bad guy, we get treated
as racists, as assholes even (in this note file to boot).  I have
tried time and time again to present the point of view of Qu�becois
to "fellow" noters, and ironic as it is, only people from foreign
countries seem to understand that preserving our language and culture
is important to us.  Canada has demonstrated throughout it's history
that it has contempt for one of it's founding members and I guess I
am tired of saying the same thing over and over again, this will
be my last note here.  Some of you will say good riddance, we don't
need this whining frog, if that is your feeling then you may never
miss Qu�bec when we do secede.  What prompted me to leave the file
was the comment that Qu�becois (or French-Canadians if you prefer) 
were assholes for booing the national anthem PLUS the fact that
the moderator did nothing to stop such comments, thus condoning
the anti French bias so evidently demonstrated so far.


Alors salut!


Jean


Grand Canal notwithstanding of course.

If anyone needs information or help on Montr�al, I can still be 
reached at MQFSV2::DESROSIERS or JEAN DESROSIERS @MQO

    Jean, you have some legitimate complaints (even though *I* believe they
    are on shakey grounds), but in the middle of reasoned discourse
    I find it amazing that you would resort to such blatant distortion:
    
    >And trough all this Qu�bec is viewed as the bad guy, we get treated
    as racists, as assholes even (in this note file to boot).
    <
    
    The reply in question referred to *those that booed during the
    national* anthem. Not to everyone. Even you know better than that.
    
    ... maybe you should go back and read your entries about the Natives
    at Oka, if you want to hurl accusations about racism around. The
    moderator didn;t delete those, either ...
    
    Scooter

    "... people from foreign countries ...". He meant probably me. I think
    it is wrong to withdraw from a discussion, even if one has the
    impression that one cannot succeed in making one's point. It is pretty
    annoying, though, but i would continue to speak up.
    
    My general impression after having been in the US/CDN/Qu�bec every year
    since 10+ years for a while is, that the Anglo-American world is
    culturally quite ignorant, not so much because of an evil mind, but
    mostly because of being breathtakingly naive and uneducated, with
    notable exceptions, of course, and with some of the same 'defects' on
    the 'other side' as well, of course. But this general (and necessarily
    generalized) impression is really overwhelming for us here in Europe as
    well.
    
    Part of the problem is the amount of military and above all economic
    influence. The 'bigger' you are, the more ignorant you tend to be.
    I can very well remember who we (the germans; generalized term) behaved
    in 'underdeveloped' places like southern europe. This has improved a
    bit, also because -'they' told 'us' quite strongly what they felt was
    wrong.
    
    Same intention here.
    
    R  

>was the comment that Qu�becois (or French-Canadians if you prefer) 
>were assholes for booing the national anthem PLUS the fact that
>the moderator did nothing to stop such comments, thus condoning
>the anti French bias so evidently demonstrated so far.
    
     ... and this comment, I'm sure, is referring to me .. while I also
    feel extreme fustration with the "situtation" I would not just pack up
    and leave this conference because you cannot make a point.
    
    I never said (or ment to imply) that French-Canadians were assholes -
    the ones who are asses are the ones who booed, same as the English
    Canadians who, during the Constitution talks in Ottawa walked over the
    French flag - they are also asses. If you want to believe it is in
    reference to all Quebecois ... then you will live a long hard life.
    
    You were the only one in this conference from Quebec who engaged in
    discussion on this topic, you were the only one who could provide us
    English folks with a "education" on Quebec's position - instead you
    bantered with self-rightousness nonsense and how you were convinced
    Quebec could survive without Canada. Not once did you offer an
    explanation, a position, go back and read the responses, they weren't
    condemming your position just challenging it.
    
    In my opinion, you are being taken to the cleaners by your politicians,
    they are not intrested in the best option for Quebec and Canada - just
    their careers.
    
    /T.
    

>    In my opinion, you are being taken to the cleaners by your politicians,
>    they are not intrested in the best option for Quebec and Canada - just
>    their careers.
    
    Sadly, isn't this the truth the world over ?
    
    Wayne

    -1:
    
    YES!, but do you want to be a politician in order to change that?
    
    I admit, i don't.
    
    R.

    Rainer,
    
    Canada is not a very old country -- and it is made up of several
    different older cultures which have managed to co-exist rather well.
    It's what makes it so unique - we have managed to form a sort of
    World Community (as opposed to the European Community) under the 
    'control'(for the lack of a better word) of the Canadian Government.
    Generally every culture has given something to Canada and received 
    something from Canada -- ie. a (or the) Canadian identity.
    In other words -- Canada has a culture -- it's definitely different
    than the European culture and very unique and is very difficult for
    a European to see because they have their blinders set on their own 
    definition of culture -- or do you want to state that the native Indian
    Culture is no culture -- just because they didn't build big churches??
    So don't call the North Americans culturally naive and uneducated --
    unless you are willing to accept the same comments from somebody in
    Asia - whose culture is probably quite a bit older than the European
    culture and has a completely different definition for it!!
    As for the French and Anglo Canadian problem. Canada was first founded 
    by the French and then conquered by the English and as such has caused
    the problem that we have now. All other cultures ( with the exception
    of the native Indian ) came to Canada after the country existed and
    as such accepted loosing part of their identity to take on the Canadian 
    identity. The French never had the choice but that, unfortunately, is
    the way it was.
    As for a European comparison -- Denmark and Baden-Wuertemberg being really 
    poor examples --, I can offer South Tirol. For those that don't know
    what that is - it is a state (again for lack of a better word) in 
    northern Italy that is(was) german speaking and belonged to Austrian Empire-
    and which was given to Italy after the war. The Italian language and 
    culture was then forced down the throats (violently in some cases, I 
    might add) as well as some forced resettlement.
    Closer to home -- you mention the reunification of Germany -- what
    about the culture and lifestyle that the western part of Germany is now 
    forcing upon the eastern part of Germany. Or do you really believe that
    anything that East Germany has done in the last 45 years will be
    kept or nutured ? Honestly ? Or will it be the big brother in the west
    that will direct the little brother in the east because after all, big
    brother is paying !!
       
    Helmut 
    

    Helmut,
    
    	- Germany: Big brother paying, thus dominating --->
          
    		True, that is basically what i'm saying throughout, in
    		Germany or somewhere else. I hate the way west germany
    		'buys' the eastern part
    
    	- S. Tirol: True, all of that are known facts. What is the point of 
                    argument?    
    
    	- Baden-Wuertemberg was not brought up by me, so again no argument.
          Denmark was brought up by me, it is probably not a good
          comparison, right.
    
    	- Asia: Definitely has the older culture, no argument again.
    
    	- Building bigger churches is not a primary sign of culture, agree
          again
    
    	- One cannot attach weights or values to different cultures, that
          is trivial
    
    So far not a 'different view'. Maybe now:
    
    	- I have the impression that many (most) of the Qu�becois(es)
    	  i met do not see a canadian identity, rather a societ� distincte
    	  for themselves. To say,'they have no choice, that is the way it
          is', is hard to swallow then, i can imagine. I would not swallow
    	  that. Not to start a finger-pointing game, but i really doubt
          that the anglo-canadian community would swallow that with the
    	  circumstances reversed. It is easy to play the mellow and wise
          when you are at the 'better end' ("Look, why make so much
          trouble, that is the way it is..."). The 'better end' being an
    	  'anglo' language (and thus 'culture') as the smallest common 
          denominator, in this case.
    
    	- We are talking about cultural ignorance TODAY, not of old
          (see above the Asia point)
    
    	- We are talking quantity, not quality, that is, this ignorance
          is spread all over the world (see above Germany point), but on
          different scale of impacting others, that is why the
          Anglo-American type of cultural ignorance is the biggest or
          most visible and just is the most obvious to bash. The Qu�becois
          just are the poor guys being on the epi-centre of it.
    
    Because of this 'generality' of the problem i dared to speak up here
    in spite of being a non-canadian/qu�becois. I was expecting to be
    pointed to my 'foreign status' in this discussion much earlier.
    
    I strongly oppose the idea of a 'multicultural society', wherever it
    may be proposed. Living in dignity along with each other is for me the
    solution, the recent devel. all over the world (CDN/Qu�, USSR, YUG, and
    yes, also GER) point to such a (natural) tendency, i think.
    
    R.

	re .106

>    I strongly oppose the idea of a 'multicultural society', wherever it
>    may be proposed. Living in dignity along with each other is for me the
>    solution, the recent devel. all over the world (CDN/Qu�, USSR, YUG, and
>    yes, also GER) point to such a (natural) tendency, i think.

	I thought a multicultural society was supposed to be about living
	in dignity with each other.

	Also, at the time that the federations of Canada, Yugoslavia and
	the U.S.S.R. look likely to break up, western Europe (the EC) is
	moving _towards_ a federal structure.

	Tony

    .107:
    
    Yes, but not with a single 'culture' dominating as the lowest common
    denominator (as in US and CDN).
    
    This will never be the case in Europe.
    
    That is the difference the Qu�becois also might have in mind.
    
    You could not have helped me better to make my point.
    
    R.

    Rainer,
    
    I brought up South Tirol as a comparative example. What can the german
    speaking culture do there - in politics, schools, etc. It is Italy, and
    Italy decides what gets done there. With the resulting resistance that
    had built up there causing some, albeit a while ago, violence - blowing
    up power stations etc.
    As said before, South Tirol became Italian after a war, Quebec became 
    part of the English colony Canada after a war. South Tirol cannot
    dictate to Rome what it has or has not to do. It can't even threaten to 
    leave Italy and form its own state.
    Quebec was in a similar situation, had little or nothing to say. Until
    about 30 years ago -- now it looks to the rest of Canada as if it has
    to much to say - and I believe that is where the problem presently
    lies. 
    I don't want to get into the discussion of who is right and who is
    wrong here -- there are very valid points already made with facts that
    cover both sides of this issue. I just wanted to address your specific
    points because I feel you statements where a little unfair. Problems
    like this exist all over the world - the biggest difference here is
    that both sides are at least TALKING about it. Quebec, as well as the
    rest of the country, have the possibility to seperate - PEACEFULLY.
    That's what I find so special about this country and it would be a
    loss for everyone if it did seperate -- but, the people have the choice
    - they don't have to bring out tanks and mow down the demonstrators
    to force the government or people to do something. And please don't
    bring up the 70's -- I hope that is over and won't happen again.
    And please don't bring up what happened to the Indians recently, unless 
    to say that is how Anglo-Canada COULD have forced Quebec to do what
    they (Anglo-Canada) wished. That is exactly the type of situation that
    a civilized nation should not have to resort to - and because Canada, as
    a whole, is acting like a civilized nation, problems like these are
    going to keep on coming up and hopefully be solved in a cilivized
    manner.
    
    As always - those are my own personal (and bias) views .
    
    helmut
     
    
      

    Indians, 70's??
    
    Not brought up by me (if i remember well)
    
    Just to be exact
    
    R.

    I think that the idea of North America being culturally ignorant is
    a very complex issue and the biggest problem is finding an accurate
    way to describe the phenomemnon without it sounding like a put-down.
    
    Probably the best description is cultural isolation.  It occurs in
    many ways ... the geography ... the history ... the peoples.
    
    Remember that for North American settlement, the key word was survival
    and so culture developed around that -- small town cultures.
    
    Remember that early settlers came for a number of reasons ... many were
    outcasts in their own country so had a different view of their mother
    or fatherland.  They wanted to reject the coutries and hence the
    cultures that rejected them.  So, the small town and survivalist
    cultures were fine for them.
    
    In the opposite sense many settlers came to return profits to the
    homeland and their settlements often developed for a long 
    time in isolation.  Quebec is a strong example of this phenomenon, so
    there is a strong desire to retain the culture of the homeland.
    
    Fundamentalist beliefs tend to propagate easily under either of these
    conditions, so the cultures are thus simple, strong and strong willed.
    
    Remember too that the very geography of North America, with huge
    distances between small settlements tend to promote these things.
    
    So, I wouldn't call the North American cultures naive, or North
    Americans culturally ignorant, just that the basis of the culture
    is that of day-to-day survival and that gives an apparently narrow
    outlook, and hence there is a lot of what could be described as
    cultural illiteracy ...
    
    
    To talk about the melding of teh European Community and compare it with
    Canada, or other Federations is probably not valid.  Europe will
    probably fail for the same reasons as many other Federations of
    large physical proportion fail in the end.  The inablilty of
    federations to legislate with the needed sensitivity to the specific
    needs of the regions.  To quote the Americans ... "No taxation without
    representation".  Then like siblings, one region will then complain
    that they are getting less than other regions.  Europe is just the
    latest experiment in Federalism.
    
    Stuart

Stuart, you're right, this is not a simple issue.  As others have said, 
culture is a complex, ill-defined concept that means different things to 
different people.  In terms of the ethnocentric nationalism that has dominated
Europe for the past century or two, an ex-colonial patchwork like Canada
sitting next to the great, variegated imperial Republic south of us apparently 
doesn't make much sense.

Much of the appeal of the Quebec sovereignists is to that very nationalism.  To
many of the rest of us, the issues define themselves in somewhat different
terms.  Anglophone Canadians are not Americans, and the old British imperial
patriotism that used to characterize "English-Canadian" culture has been
declining for a long time.  The ideal of a tolerant, multi-cultural society 
big enough to contain a relatively homogeneous Francophone Quebec-based society 
has been a powerful one for the last generation or so.  To people who believe 
in such an ideal, developments in Quebec are particularly depressing.

I've just returned from a weekend in Montr�al.

I see that the folks there really do want all aspects of the French culture.

Even the very bad ones -- three things that have long been associated with
Paris and France in general:

	Urinating in public:  Saturday evening, in the St. Denis area,
	there were countless people behaving like dogs and peeing on
	the sides of buildings, on fences, and on parked cars.

	Spitting:  While roller skating, I was fortunate enough to hear
	someone loudly snorting before spitting a wad of mucus onto the
	sidewalk.  A quick turn saved my "propret�", and at least the
	filthy guy apologized.

	Strikes:  Last Sunday and Monday, such important attractions as
	the Botanical Gardens and the Aquarium were closed due to strikes.

Do you really want these aspects of French culture?

/john

    John
    
    You didn't miss much by not getting into the aquarium.  Last time we
    were there, it was a major disappointment.  A lot of the displays were
    not functioning.  For example when you wanted to read about certain
    types of fish, the lights behind the display were burned out, making
    reading in the dimly lit areas close to impossible.  As far as I'm
    concerned, it's being badly maintained.
    
    shawn

    Some can't wait.  On the West Island this past weekend, there were
    several signs, mostly in shop parking lots, with the English version
    of the parking info spray painted out.
    
    A teacher in my senior year in high school annotated my yearbook with a
    phrase that, for some reason, comes to mind...
    
    			"May you get all you deserve."
    
    Cheers...Gary

There was an letter in one of Montr�al's newspapers from a resident who
was upset because she had been assisting an American tourist with directions
in the M�tro when someone walked up and told her that this was Qu�bec and
that she should be speaking French.

/john

    John,
    Sounds like you had a great week-end, you were lucky to see such
    attractions ...
    
    All scarcasm aside, Montreal really is a beautiful city, with tons of
    things to do, unfortunately there are a few bad apples which spoil the
    barrel .. its becoming more common to have folks refuse to speak
    English (even though you KNOW they can), or as you experienced, someone
    saying that they should be only speaking French - its this behaviour
    that tends to raise blood pressures ...
    
    Would you go back ??
    
    /Tom

>Would you go back ??

That wasn't my point.

But in their desire to be French, do the Montr�alais really have to adopt
these bad habits?

Even the Parisians are getting rid of the two dealing with bodily fluids,
and a train strike in France was recently averted.

Yes, Montr�al is a great city; I have visited it many times in the past
and will continue to do so in the future.  But I'll also continue to
take note of the less-than-ideal situation with the language/culture
brouhaha.

    I'm missing the smiley face at the end of the recent entries here
    (since .113 or so). Do i have to assume that these entries are for
    real?
    
    If yes, i can't believe that such a serious discussion is spoiled
    by such an irrelevant and ignorant drivel, like talking about spitting
    and peeing habits etc. (Should i 'retaliate' by stating that in
    Montr�al you maybe spit on, while in Toronto (not to talk about the US)
    you may get a bullit or knife instead? Show me one major north american
    city - except Qu�bec! - were (statistically) all that can happen to
    you is the shocking experience of seeing someone pee or spit! Should
    i equate the anglo-canadian/american culture with drugs and murder like you
    equate the french with spitting and peeing? No!).
    
    Such arguments do not belong here.
    
    Back to the real topic: You should not be surprized that people in Qu�.
    pretend not to understand english when you approach them in english
    just like that, without any trial to speak their language or a few
    words of apology that you cannot. I always have the strong tendency
    react the same way when i experience such careless approaches here
    in my country (or when i'm in Qu�bec). Nearly nobody (except a few
    assholes) would refuse to speak your language when you say something
    like "Excusez, je ne parle pas francais/Ich spreche nicht deutsch".
    That is the bare minimum of cultural respect. If you can't provide
    that, you'll get the reaction you deserve.
    
    And this leads directly into the middle of the problem in Qu�. (and
    other parts of the world): Regard them as an own culture, not a cute
    minority, or you will have to regard them as an own country soon.
    
    He, who cannot/does not want to understand will be forced to do so.
    
    R.
    
    

    ... and before somebody tells me that it is illegal to equate
    anglo-canada to the US:
    
    Maybe (hopefully) it is illegal, but in terms of this cultural
    ignorance we are talking about here it seems to be awfully legal.
    
    R.
    

    Don't bother trying to 'retaliate' by using a comparison of 
    Montreal's crime with Toronto - Montreal
    has Toronto beat hands down in the areas of murder, violent assault,
    and robberies. Look it up if you don't believe me. You are right,
    spitting and urinating in public are quite minor, in comparison.
    
    THey do, however, shape perceptions. Take note - the person who entered
    the note complaining about this behaviour was *not* a Canadian - he was an 
    American visitor. I don't expect you personally to do anything about
    such behaviour and 'custom', but I do expect you to realize that
    
    >by such an irrelevant and ignorant drivel
    
    quite an arrogant statement to make. Montreal makes a lot of effort and
    spends a lot of money to project a 'cosmopolitan' image. It is
    perceived by the people who decide such things, as good for the City,
    and the province. The public behaviour, as described in recent notes,
    does not really effect that image if it is very isolated case of
    'drunken behaviour', etc. If it is common custom, such that a visitor
    gets treated with scorn when he/she exhibits some concern or disgust with the
    practice, just how long do you think a 'good' cosmopolitan image will
    hold up ?
    
    Or don;t you care ?
    
    Scooter

    >>... and before somebody tells me that it is illegal to equate
        anglo-canada to the US:
    <<<
    
    Why would it be legal, or illegal ?
    
    What does legality have to do with it ?
    
    It certainly is valid to compare US and Canadian Cultures. There are
    many influences. Just as Quebec is a very Americanized French culture.
    
    Scooter

    All this talk about culture is giving me a hankering for yogurt....

    Mr. Ambient Temperature Choke Cherry

I think the gentleman from Kaufbeuren may have misunderstood.

I would like nothing better than for Montr�al to be a wonderful center
of French culture just a 4.5 hour drive from my office.  Art museums,
restaurants, opera, cinema, fashions, literature, etc.

But on my last trip, three things which have long been specifically associated
with Paris (much more so than with most other cities in the world) were quite
visible.

Urinating in public in Paris was practically institutionalized until the
city decided in the eighties that it really needed to clean up, and removed
the open pissoirs.  Yes, people urinate in the street in every big city;
you'll always find corners that smell of it.  But in Montr�al, it was in
evidence like nowhere else other than Paris.  Walking from the Berri-UQAM
subway station to my hotel at St. Denis and Sherbrooke (a distance of only
three blocks), had I counted, there would have been at least thirty golden
showers active along the way.  Hey, maybe it's just that the bars in the
area don't have enough restrooms.  I don't know.  It's a matter of perception.

How many subway systems (other than Paris) actually have to post signs
that forbid spitting?  In most of the world, although there are people
everywhere who spit in public, signs are not required to tell people that
it's not acceptable.  Maybe the French don't spit more than others, but
there is, again, that matter of perception.

And strikes.  France is famous for something always being on strike.

It was the strike, much more than the peeing and spitting, that made me
wonder if Montr�al wasn't trying so desperately to be French that they
were embracing anything French, and doing so with vigour, regardless of
whether the things being embraced are the best aspects of being French.

/john

    How many cities actually have a subway system without washrooms as I
    understand is the case in Montreal?

    Perhaps someone more familiar with the system than I can comment, but I
    do not recall seeing any public washrooms on the London Underground.
    
    Regards,
    Wayne.

John,

If I read you correctly, it's either one or the other or both of these (;*{)):

1.  Cities who are into culture also have people who pee in the streets, or
2.  If you go to the equivalent of St. Denis and Sherbrooke in any city of
    a certain size, you will find those golden shots all over.

Seriously, I suppose that you would prefer having the culture without the
peeing and spitting, and I agree.  However, I don't think it really warrants
any discussion unless people were spitting at us, in which case I suppose we
should bop them on the nose or spit back.

The point that Rainer is trying to make is that our safety in big cities is
much more important than yellow snow, and I agree all the way.

I agree with Rainer that the language issue is the real agenda item here and 
also think that anyone who can't/won't even get out a simple sentence in the 
otherlanguage and doesn't at least try should be shot.  The last time this one
boiled up big time in here was the lady who spoke excellent French, addressed 
the Border lady in English, and was mad when the Border lady responded in 
French!  Figure that one out if you can...

BTW, based on my last trip to Montr�al at Xmas, I'm beginning to wonder if 
we're not making more of a stink of the whole language issue than the Qu�becois
are.  Practically everyone addressed me in *both* languages and then carried
on in wonderful Canajun English when they heard my European/Anglophone
accent.  

rick

	re london underground.

	there are loos in some stations - before you pay your money.

	I've used the ones at Piccadilly, and Paddington.

	I don't often go to London, so can't speak for the rest.

	Heather