Conference kaosws::canada

Canada doesn't have 9 provinces, it has 10.  The 9 english-speaking provinces
agreed to a deal but Quebec didn't attend the negocations as they were
boycotting such get togethers since the failure of Meech Lake 2 years ago.

Quebec has been reviewing the deal which is to be offered to them and will
comment on it today a 2:00 during a press conference

My guess is that wishy-washy Bourassa (the premier of Quebec) will give a
half-and-half answer on the offer.  Everyone will be left wondering what
Quebec really feels after his press conference.

The headline "Canada agrees on Political reform" really isn't correct yet.
Some provinces (namely B.C. and Newfoundland, maybe others) are planning on
holding referenda in the fall on the proposed changes to the constitution.

Even Brian Mulroney is cautious about his optimism on the proposal.  He
remembers Meech when, as he said it "He had an agreement with all the
provinces..."

Mario

    I think Mario has corrected most of the errors in the base note, but
    here's a couple of other points:
    
    There are not "9 english-speaking provinces" - Newbrunswick is
    officially bilingual.  The debate is really between Quebec and the rest
    of Canada.  Language is just a convenient, and divisive, way to
    characterize the situation - this is much more about a shift in power
    than a language or cultural issue.
    
    re: Mulroney's statement about having a deal previously and referendums. 
    Mulroney NEVER had a deal with "the provinces" over Meech - he had a
    "personal deal" with 10 Premiers who gather at First Minister's
    Conferences that have no constitutional basis.  What I mean is that the
    premiers (along with the Prime Minister, too) can only negotiate a deal and
    present it to their legislatures for approval.  Mulroney new that
    then, and he knows that now.  Unfortunately for him, some provincial
    governments changed during the ratification period, Quebec made some
    bad political moves that upset the rest of Canada, Meech Lake was
    exposed for the bad deal it was, the natives intervened and other
    things happened to kill Meech.
    
    Many provinces (including Quebec now) must hold public hearings and 
    referendums on constitutional amendments, according to the laws of each
    province.  Again, Mulroney knew this when Meech was proposed so he
    should have expected some negative feedback, and I'm sure he'll get
    some this time.  Clyde Wells (premier of Nfld.) has already said he
    will campaign for the parts of the deal he likes and campaign against
    the parts he doesn't like...
    
    Quebec probably won't be holding a referendum on separation in October. 
    Their law requires a referendum on separation (or sovereignty
    something) or on offers for renewed federalism.  Bourassa has already
    stated (fairly recently) that he wants (or prefers?) the referendum on
    renewed federalism.  I think he said the referendum will be on renewed
    federalism because I rememeber the Parti Quebecois folks were pretty
    upset when Bourassa made his statement, but I could be wrong...
    
    Regards,
    
    Lockyer
    

Right,

New Brunswick is bilingual, hence is an english-speaking province in addition
to being a french-speaking province.  That still makes 9 english-speaking
provinces, one of them being french-speaking also.  According to my calculations
we have 9 english-speaking provinces and 2 french-speaking provinces.  That
makes 11, no it makes 10, whatever...:-)

How's that for linguistic duality...  That's what this country's about right?
At least that's what the politicians say.

FWIW,

Mario

    Let's face it, we're a country that can't seem to make up its mind on
    what language to speak. I say we take English and French, toss 'em
    together and call it Hoser-eeze (take off eh?). That way everyone will
    understand everyone else.
    
    :^)
    -gs

    Bourassa just held a press conference.  Here's my summary:
    
    The "preliminary text" appears to "for all intents" contains Meech.
    
    The preliminary text does not represent a proposal, so he doesn't have
    a response, but he does have some questions - Quebec ministers are in
    Ottawa at this minute getting clarifications.
    
    He positioned Quebec as losers with respect to Senate reform. (an
    editorial aside - I have yet to hear any media talk about how Ontario
    will also be a "loser" with Senate reform - Ontario will also drop from
    24 to 8 senators...)
    
    Some of the areas he has questions about - Senate reform, devolution of
    powers, Quebec boudaries (didn't really understand this - sounded like 
    Quebec was going to loose of land, but maybe they were being asked to
    drop their claims over Labradour (sp?)), manpower training and culture
    (an analyst wanted to know if transfering culture to the provinces
    meant that national bodies such as the Canada Council (art grants), the
    Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a few others were going to be
    dismantled!).
    
    
    The 3:00 PM CBC news summed up Bourassa's position as basically
    enthusiastic about the progress that's been made, but he's got lots of
    questions and things are still "up in the air".
    
    To me (being an optimist), it sounded like he was basically happy, but
    wanted to do a little bargaining and that he was being supportive
    without  getting the separtists overly agitated at this time.  An
    analyst suggested Bourassa held the press conference today because
    Jacques Parizeau (leader of the Parti Quebecois) was out of town...
    
    
    Finally, I think Mario's prediction about Bourassa's position was 100%
    on!
    
    Back to regularly scheduled duties....
    
    
    Lockyer

    So, in simple terms, what does all this mean ?
    
    How does this affect Canada as a whole, and the provinces
    individually ?
    
    Wayne

    If Preston Manning, Clyde Wells and Ovide Mercredi all agree, it means
    Qu�bec gets a raw deal!
    
    Jean
    

    re .-1 "it means Quebec gets a raw deal"
    
    Yes perhaps, but I'm not sure what a "good deal" might mean to Quebec. 
    Does it mean it attains all of its nationhood goals, but still gets to
    be part of Canada?  I certainly can live with a more flexible
    confederation if that's what it takes, but I'm not sure that the Quebec
    press and PQ would label ANY deal a good deal.  As for Bourassa, who
    knows what he really thinks.  Don't like the deal?  Then come to the
    table and negotiate.  Don't expect the 9 other provinces to hand
    everything Quebec desires simply because they threaten to take all
    their marbles and go home.  Other constituencies also have legitimate
    concerns and without a Quebec presence they may get higher priority.
    
    Living in Ontario I view the triple E Senate with some concern, but
    quite frankly if that's what it takes to make the West and Maritimes
    happy then so be it.  Let's get on with the important issues and leave
    the constitutional crap behind!

    Quebec has no "raw deal" - it still has 3 permanent seats on the
    Supreme Court, plenty of jurisdiction (a la Meech), and the senate is
    fairly weak still, in my opinion.  
    
    One good thing about this process is that at least some concessions
    were made to get "the rest of Canada" together.  Although Clyde Wells
    has reservations about parts of the deal (I say Right On Clyde!!), he
    will not block the entire package.  
    
    I think its important here to not be stampeded by Quebec, their
    referendum, and the independentistes.  Think about what Canada
    **should be**, set up a constitution that works towards how things
    should be, not how you think Quebec wants them.
    
    Further on Quebec:
    
      o its tough to adjust the Canadian "deal" for someone who doesn't buy
        the concept of Canada as a nation.  We're not simply an economic
        free trade zone.
    
      o if quebecois view Quebec as their true Nation (in its full sense)
        then they really should secede.  But what is important is Quebec
        (and French Canadian) **society**, not the apparatus of nationhood.
        The loud roar you hear is from quebec politicians who want to run
        the apparatus, and from seperatists who can't stand a dual
        relationship in **any** aspect with the anglos and the rest of
        canada.

    I was studying the new proposition last weekend and I must say that as a
    Quebecois, I prefer much more the status quo to that deal. I'm sorry
    to tell you that there is no chance that the people of Quebec will
    go for it. 
    
    First, I would really like it if they would explain a bit more what self
    goverment means for the natives. In my mind that means that they
    have the right to have seperate territory, they have the right to
    impose taxes and of course create another government. Will that 
    government be at the same level as the Municipal, Provincial or
    Federal or completely remote? Don't get me wrong, I do feel that they
    should have some sort of government, but I would really like to know
    how much power that government would have before going for it...
    
    The other big thing is the Senate. The Senate does have a lot of power
    right now but don't use it because they are not elected. But if you have
    an elected Senate you could be sure that the Senate will exercise fully
    their functions. If you think that the country is hard to govern right
    now, Just wait! Take a look how difficult it is with 2 elected chambers
    in the U.S. . Do we really want to be like that.
    
    Also a Senate with a 50 % majority could stop an hydroelectric
    project in Quebec, if you think Bourassa will go for that, I have
    some swamp land in Florida you could be interested in!
    
    What I really don't understand is that we started the process so that
    we could find how we could accomodate Quebec in the constitution like
    we did with the other provinces in 1982 (like the "droit de
    veto" which was actually a idea of the provinces of Western Canada not
    Quebec). But instead of that we have tried to fix all the problems of this
    country at once. In my mind that's an impossible mission and that's why
    I'm afraid we will talk about the constitution for a long long time.
    
    Richard   
    

I agree.  This doesn't sound like a good deal for Quebec or Ontario.  I wonder
why Bob Rae agreed to it in the 1st place.  Having gotten 10 more seats in the
parliement doesn't give Ontario anything to make up for the loss of power in
the Senate.  It'll just give whichever party wins them a bigger majority.
Although I agree with Rae's position to refuse to attend anymore talks unless
Bourassa attends also.

I think Bourassa should now go back to the bargaining table.  This farce has
gone on long enough.  Now Orvide is all upset at Quebec for disagreeing with
what he thought was an agreement.  What does he expect?  The ultimate purpose
of all this is to get Quebec into the constitution in first place, as far as
the federal govt is concerned.  Senate reform, aboriginal self-government,
inter-provincial trade, etc. are all asides to please others at the same time.
I think that last time during Meech, too little was done to please others,
and now they're trying to do too much to please too many people.

IMO

/Mario

    Quebec is already in the constitution - the Supreme Court of Canada
    says so and the province of Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause
    of the Canadian constitution to "legitimize" language legislation that 
    the Supreme Court of Quebec declared was discriminatory or
    unconstitutional according to the Quebec consititution, so it is clear
    that the Quebec government recognizes the Canadian constitution.
    
    I believe Bob Rae agreed to an equal senate because 1) provinces are
    supposed to be equal in Canada (the original senate was created with
    equal representation from the 4 regions involved at the time), 
    2) Quebec clearly wants to be equal to the Rest Of Canada, which
    would put Ontario in a subordinate position with respect to Quebec,
    which wouldn't be accpetable, so he took the only other option -
    true(r) equality amongst the provinces and 3) there are at least 4
    provinces that want an equal senate and were (are) ready to block a
    deal to get what they want - better to compromise now rather than fail
    later.
    
    I find it absolutely amazing that Quebec is now claiming the proposed
    reforms would make any institutional change in the future almost
    impossible, therefore it's a bad deal!  Opponents of Meech Lake made 
    the same claim when every province was given a veto (remember, giving 
    each province a veto was Mulroney's way of giving Quebec a veto 
    acceptable to the other provinces) - specifically, the Triple E Senate 
    folks realized that if Meech was accepted, they would never get a 
    Triple E Senate and that is why they are pushing so hard for it while 
    they have the opportunity.  As usual, when the table is turned, Quebec 
    starts whinning...
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry
                      
     

Re: Quebec already in the constitution.

	Thanks Gary for the correction.  How inaccurate of me...

BTW, I know you know what I meant...Quebec never agreed to the constitution
although they are legally bound to it, right?

    Now Mario,
    
    Why do you think my correction was aimed at you...
    
    Yes, I know what you meant - my comments were really aimed at those
    that know better and choose to believe otherwise, and those folks 
    outside Canada who I assume have only been exposed to the 
    Federal/Quebec Government "Quebec was excluded from the Canadian 
    Constitution/Family" line of smelly stuff.
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry
    
                        

    I think I it was aimed at me :-)...
    
    Sorry but I still remember "la nuit des longs couteaux".....
    
    Richard

    Actually it was not aimed at any one person in particular...
    
    But now that you've raised the infamous "night of the long knives",
    
    I think there's great similarity between "the night of the long
    knives", the Meech debacle and what's going on now.  In each case, one
    or two provinces got isolated (Quebec in '82, Manitoba and Newfoundland
    in Meech and Quebec again this time and it looks like Joe's getting
    isolated too...), to the point that a deal acceptable to all was or is
    not possible.
    
    I think the only significant difference is that clearly this time
    Quebec isolated itslef.  The rest of Canada played according to
    Quebec's rules, but Quebec doesn't like the outcome!
    
    Don't you think it was pretty pathetic when Bourassa tried to get in 
    on the discussion on the very last day when he found out what the 
    premieres were going to propose?
    
    Garry
    

    I actually approve the idea of Bourassa. The strategy was to arrange 
    everything in advance by informal discussions. So that the next
    Premiers conference would be a assured success and that Quebec would
    not risk to be isolated during the discussions. 
    
    It seems that Joe Clark is now in real trouble. His mandate was to get
    a package that would bring back Quebec into the process. But instead
    of that he tried to get "the deal" that would satisfied everybody. 
    
    The result are not very good, til now even the federalist like Dufour
    reacted very badly to the new proposal, even Brian Mulroney didn't
    really approve the deal, but said instead that it could be a interesting
    beginning of a new discussion. The good note is that Bourassa said today
    that he will be back at the negociation table after he received some
    clarification on the deal. 
    
    Richard

    What is so interesting about all of this is how so much is tied up
    in the intended meaning of selected words ...  We all agree that
    Canada was formed of "two founding nations"  (Modern Canada that is ...
    Ovide Mercury will definitely contest this notion ...).  To most of
    the country this means the French and the English peoples and adds
    no additional meaning.  To Quebecois, this means the "nation of Quebec"
    and the "nation formed by the rest of Canada".  The concept of distinct
    society also falls into this interpretation trap.
    
    Notice how the Quebecois politicians conveniently forget about the
    rest of the francophonie in the rest of the country ... to the rest
    of the country they deserve every bit of equal respect under the idea
    of two founding nations as does a francophone in Quebec.
    
    Moreover, notice how the Quebecois politicians intensely dislike the
    idea of the country actually being 3+ founding nations ...
    francophonie, anglophones and aboriginal peoples.  When the aboriginals
    want to be recognized as a distinct society, the Quebecois politicians
    instantly wanted the clarification on what they wanted as a distinct
    society ... just what the rest of Canada asked of Quebec and didn't
    really get.
    
    It is therefore clear to me that this whole debacle is not about
    founding nations ... it is not about distinct societies ... it is
    not about language ... it is not about culture.  Pure and simply
    it is about POWER.  The politicos are doing an excellent job keeping
    the pot stirred when it comes to using emotive issues.
    
    What Quebec politicians really want is a Canada that looks like this and
    anything else removes power ... hence the objections to an equal or
    equitable senate ... the senate would look something like this: -
    
    			rest of Canada	    --  Quebec
    
    			100 seats		100 seats
    			(divided up as the
    			provinces so choose)
    
    They see themselves totally in this Quebec and the rest of Canada
    scenario for everything ... thus usurping the bulk of the federal
    powers.
    
    When you examine Quebec's reaction to the entire process in this
    light, their attitudes are easily explicable.  But I do not believe
    that Canada was really formed under this premise ... I believe it
    was intended to be an equal alliance of 10 provinces where no
    province was intended to command more power than any other province.
    That said, modern demographics of the country indicate that this is
    really not reasonable, especially when you consider that a province
    like PEI has a population less than 1/3 of the Region of
    Ottawa-Carleton.  And yet, a less populace province like PEI or
    Newfoundland can be trampled on very easy with policies designed for
    Ontario or Quebec.
    
    So how does one balance the need for effective regional representation
    with the reality that it is inherently unfair that large provinces
    can overlegislate small ones, and small ones can submarine the needs
    of large ones.  Clearly the senate is not the only body that needs
    reform ...  All this argument over the senate is a bandage for a
    lower house that is driven by party politics and is unrepresentative
    of most Canadians be they Quebecois or Westerners or aboriginals ...
    
    Stuart
    

    Stuart,
    
    While I agree with your analysis that this is all about POWER, I have
    to strongly disagree with about the concept of "deux nation".  Canada
    was not formed by the coming together of two nation or even two
    linguistic (sp?) groups.  All of Canada at the time of conferderation
    was 100% a part of the British Empire!  The concept of "deux nation"
    began many years after confederation - I think it started in the 1920s
    or 30s, but I'm not sure.  In any event, "deux nation" is a concept
    (Trudeau would probably call it a myth) started by Quebec politicians,
    many years after confederation as a way of getting more power from
    Ottawa.  I'm certain I can provide some references about this issue...
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry

    It interesting to see how different are our view of the history of
    Canada.... Some people seems to forget little things like the Quebec
    Act for instance....
    
    Richard

    
    
    I think you'll find that I said that Canada was considered the coming
    together at confederation (or that general time period) of equal
    provinces ... containing French and English peoples.  Even though
    Canada was a part of the British Empire, there was recognition of
    French society.  Granted in some areas it was opressed, just as
    English society is rejected in Quebec.  I am not exactly sure when
    the concept of the French and English being founding "nations" came
    about, but most certainly, this was a recognition of the heritage
    and not an admission of separate legal identities for the French in
    Quebec or the English in the rest of Canada.  The only recognized
    legal identities were the provinces and territories.  There certainly
    was recognition of the two major cultural units that formed Canada
    at confederation ... although it certainly didn't have the prominence
    then that it has now.  Then it was a matter of founding a nation
    that wasn't to become a part of the United States.
    
    The idea of the English and French as founding nations was to provide
    recognition to these distinct lingual / cultural groups wherever they
    were in Canada, not to define statehood onto any group.
    
    So yes, the current concept of separate nations is purely political
    which is exactly what I was trying to say before.
    
    Stuart

    The Quebec act, if memory serves was a mechanism to allow it to
    use the French civil code rather than English common law ... thus
    if you will, recognizing certain amounts of Quebec's historical
    place, but it really didn't change the idea of equal provinces
    in Confederation.
    
    Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    Stuart

Re: .23

	"English society being rejected in Quebec???"

I don't think so Stuart.  You've been watching a bit too much of Newsworld
and The National.  You can come and live and Quebec and you'll likely find
that this is totally untrue.  You'll probably come back and comment on the
sign law I suppose?

Where I come from and all the places I've been to in Quebec, the English get
along great with the french and they happen to have a much easier time living
in their own language than many Canadians think.  The English media is largely
to blame for this kind of thinking from English Canada.

In my opinion the only valid comments about living in Quebec can only come from
someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time here to visit or work and
live.  Notice I said work AND live, not just work, for the benefit of those
who travel here everyday from Ottawa.  Even most of them are not in a valid
position to comment since they've never lived here.

/Mario

    Sorry that you expounded so much on that Mario ... I knew my
    generalization was going to bite me without clarification.
    
    I certainly have spent more time in Quebec than an awful lot of
    Canadians and I have only on odd occasions been treated disdainfully
    for being an Anglo (and for those who don't know me, there is no
    question I'm an Anglo ... English accent and all!)
    
    What I really meant was the rejection of English society in Quebec
    by those Quebecois who believe that any Anglo influence will destroy
    French culture etc and Quebec politicians.
    
    Stuart

    I too agree that the whole deal is about power, but let's face it, the
    english in Canada screwed up real bad when they let the clergy control
    the education system in Qu�bec, this is why we still speak french and
    french is but a memory in many parts of Canada and used at home only in
    other parts.  The "Canadian" governement also screwed up when they let
    Maurice Duplessis control the tax money which used to be sent to Ottawa
    and then distributed to "all" canadians.  When I say "all" it really
    means selected members of the establishment or if you like the ruling
    class which at the time in all provinces was of british descent.  In
    Qu�bec now, there are rulings for public spending calling for "contenu
    Qu�becois" if the proportion is not attained, the money is sent where
    it will do the most good for the residents of THIS provine first.
    
    As it is now the child has grown up (again) and is quite ready to go at
    it alone even if it means economic hardship for a time (which BTW is a
    LOT less to pay than what we see on TV every day now).
    
    And for those who may not remember "la nuit des long couteaux", ALL
    provincial leaders had agreed to face Trudeau as a solid block with the
    same demands, at the last minute they ALL turned against Ren� Levesque
    to follow Trudeau like good little followers they were.  Now years
    later ALL premiers again agree in Meech lake to again kick us in the
    face, we may have been stupid to even go to Meech, but not to
    participate in these latest talks is wisdom learned from being shot
    down twice in a row.
    
    One of my teachers once told us "il faut toujours donner une chance au
    coureur" Meech WAS that chance.
    
    Jean
    

    Re: "deux nation" - the problem with this concept is that it is the
    "thin edge of the knife", just like Meech Lake and the distinct society
    clause.  Almost everyone will agree to the concept of deux nation and
    distinct society - even me!  The problems begin when the concept (or
    approval in principle) gets implemented - the concept of "deux nation"
    has, and is, been expanded to confer true nation status for Quebec.  What
    started as a quaint cultural description is now being used to rewrite
    history and the structure if Canada.  If the distinct society clause
    does not give Quebec special status or any additional powers, why is 
    there so much argument over the composition of the clause and it's 
    location in the constituion?  Why should any one province be named in 
    the constituion and others not?
 
    
    
    Re: "night of the long knives II" - Quebec can only blame itself for
    the current situation.  Canada followed the process as unilaterally
    defined by Quebec.  If Quebec wanted to affect the negotiations, they
    should have been at the table!
    
    
    Let's face it, this whole debate is because Quebec can not accept the 
    fact that it is just one province out of ten.  Sure their is a cultural 
    distinctiveness in Quebec that should be promoted, protected and 
    preserved, but not at the expense of the rest of the country.  Quebec
    should take a lesson from Ontario about compromising for the greater good
    of Canada.


    Regards and welcome back Jean!
    
    Garry 
    

    Jean,  I think that you really should stop thinking on Meach as
    the be all and end all to save Canada.  The rejection of Meach was
    not a rejection so much of Quebec as a rejection of a proposal
    flawed in its conception and development.  Not that the contents of
    the Meach proposal were really that bad, but there was insufficient
    realization amongst all the provinces as to what it really meant.
    
    I liken it to an insurance salesman coming into your home and
    presenting you with what he considers the best possible policy
    when you haven't really looked at other policies and other
    companies.  Put simply, we felt that we were under pressure to
    sign something we weren't really certain of and got cold feet.
    That is not the same as rejecting Quebec and it is a real shame
    that it was presented to Quebecois by their politicians in this
    manner.
    
    We can all look through history and say we screwed up all over the
    place ... but that's not what is important. What is important is
    that there is really more to unite this country than to divide it.
    To look at the history of Quebec and the other provinces is to look
    at the history of Canada, and conversely to look at the history of
    Canada is to look at the history of our provinces.  Unlike a lot of
    the other countries of the world that are separating ... they often
    have histories which are often independent of their neighbours and
    their current political alliance country .... like the USSR.  So you
    cannot really compare separating Quebec with separating Russia, Ukraine
    and so on.
    
    Stuart

    My first choice is still that Quebec stays in Canada but I must say
    that the solution is maybe actually some kind "souvrainete" for Quebec.
    Think about it no more subject of confrontation between Quebec and the
    ROC. Quebec got a view of Canada that the rest of the country will
    never accept, this is maybe the only solution, just a question of
    time... Why not? So we could settle this once and for all and
    concentrate on more important issues like the economic growth... 
    
    I know that I will probably get hang for this, but this is the only
    permanent solution I could see right now that would settle the dispute.
    
    Richard

    It is a reasonable proposal actually, although one I don't believe in
    because I don't believe that it really would end the bickering between
    Quebec and the rest of Canada, not to mention the fact it does not
    solve the problem of the committments of the Crown to natives in and
    out of Quebec, not does it solve the problems of the aboriginal claims
    to the vast part of Quebec, nor does it solve the problems unique to
    such areas as the Outaouais, or the Francophonie of the rest of Canada.
    
    Stuart

    RE: .19
    
    I agree, Stuart.  In my opinion, a truly EEE Senate is a half-***ed
    job.  As I said earlier, start by defining what Canada **should** be. 
    It should not be a balkanized set of economically weak, segregated
    provinces.  There is much that pulls us together, and only Canada can
    maintain that.  
    
    The two awful ironies with the "power to the provinces" approach
    executed by Mulroney:
    
       1.  Will the French culture more readily survive in an isolated weak
           province?  Don't hold your breath.
    
       2.  Will Canada survive as a cultural entity without French?  Well
    	   don't look now folks, but we've been sold out economically, and
    	   without the two founding nations/cultures, we're on a one-way
    	   street to a culture consisting of "Studs" and "Bud".
    
    Trudeau had it right - but as much as the quebecois admired his
    intellect they despised him emotionally - he stood up against the
    overheated nationalists and quebec's power hogging hypocritical
    policiticans.
    
    
    Pieter

    re .25
    
    Mario:
    
    I'm sorry I don't agree.
    
>Where I come from and all the places I've been to in Quebec, the English get
>along great with the french and they happen to have a much easier time living
>in their own language than many Canadians think.  The English media is largely
>to blame for this kind of thinking from English Canada.

>In my opinion the only valid comments about living in Quebec can only come from
>someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time here to visit or work and
>live.  Notice I said work AND live, not just work, for the benefit of those
>who travel here everyday from Ottawa.  Even most of them are not in a valid
>position to comment since they've never lived here.
    
    
    	Just talking to the remaining anlgos does not prove your point.  I
    suggest you look at statistics of the population decline in the anglo
    community since (around) 1976.
    
    Really the shoe fits on both sides, Mario: the anglos **did** behave in
    a less than perfect way when they supposedly had a disproportionate
    influence in Quebec.  I think reasonable anglos, even ones who have
    left can admit to that.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, and
    reasonable francophones could admit that there has been a less than
    perfect attitude towards anglos and other minority groups.
    
    Even Levesque and Parizeau have come on the anglo media from time to
    time, trying to sooth things (remember bill 101, bill 176, and other
    associated sparks?).   Let's be honest here!
    
    Pieter
    

    �galit� to an anglo in Qu�bec is being able to function and live
    WITHOUT having to speak a word of french, is the same true in the rest
    of Canada? is it true in a city so close to the province of Qu�bec that
    ALL residents "should" be able to at least understand french as a
    communication language at least, this city is of course Ottawa the
    "nation's capital" from which emanated our famous language laws.
    
    Trudeau's views on Canada were that he could make it all the way to
    leader of the country in spite of his cultural and linguistic
    background and this is what he tried to impose on ALL of us.  Why
    should I care if the farmer in Medicine Hat has a box of rice crispies
    with french all over it, is he going to learn french to read the other
    half? no! not anymore than the poor hunter in Lac-du-Cerf is going to
    learn english to read the half that the farmer reads.
    
    As for fraternit�, I have all the respect in the world for my fellow
    contrymen, as long as THEY give me the same respect and do not treat me
    as inferior for my views, language and culture.
    
    Kings shaped this country when it was formed, politicians representing
    the population are shaping it now.
    
    Jean
    

    
Jean:


>    �galit� to an anglo in Qu�bec is being able to function and live
>    WITHOUT having to speak a word of french, is the same true in the rest
>    of Canada?

I think that *might* have been true up until the early 70's for some
anglos.  I think they managed to survive in pockets like the west island
without having to face the french fact.  Francophones dealing with these
people at that point used to (or were told to) be understanding and
attempted to deal with these anglos in english (in a business context).

As the 70's went on, many anglos left, the anglo pockets shrunk, there was
a less definite (and smaller) anglo customer base.  So there was not such
a need for catering to anglos.  On top of this, it was socially
unacceptable to "cater" to anglos by speaking english first, unless it was
clearly tourists, or business where the customer was known in advance to be
anglo.  And anglos of course had no reason to complain, they had had it too
good for too long.

The rednecks out west didn't help the situation.  They felt Bilingualism
and Biculturalism was a sop to all the francophones in the government
and the civil service.  They saw it as a sop to Quebec voters by a federal
govenment needing Quebec votes badly.  They saw it as a way of grabbing a
high percentage of federal gov't jobs (and federally regulated jobs) for
the francophones, (since there was "no call for" bilingualism outside of
Quebec).

The fact is, that the redneck anglos have something in common with the
attitude you've expressed.  Namely, linguistic division - no french outside
of quebec, no french in quebec.  Egalite and B&B come down to this:
acceptance of the other guy's language, recognizing it where its in the
minority, and honoring it where its in the majority.  No one's forcing the
farmer to speak french or read the french words on the cereal box.  

When the farmer goes to Quebec, he should (ideally) try to understand and value
the differences.  When francophones travel to Prince Rupert, they
don't expect everyone to speak french, but they expect to be treated as
individuals, as Canadians, and not discriminated against.  You can't
legislate language (despite Bills 101, 178, etc) and you can't legislate 
morality.  B&B is, for the fed government, a set of services, paid for
by taxpayers, and one can argue about all services and cut off the funding.
But as an expression of the national will, B&B is there to encourage us
to recognize the two major founding cultures.  It's what we are as
Canadians, or at least what we should strive to be in practice.

I think Trudeau's sights were set a little bit higher than what you claimed. 
He did unquestionably have a vision for Canada, one that included the two
cultures.  One that did not include a separate nation-state called Quebec.

Hope I haven't offended, Jean.

Pieter

>    Kings shaped this country when it was formed, politicians representing
>    the population are shaping it now.
    
    I question part of this ... politicians representing political self
    interest (vis power) are shaping it now ... very few politicians
    seem to represent the population any more ...
    
    Stuart

    No offence taken, but I living in Montr�al still see these UNIlingual
    individuals and this is closer to the next millenium than 1970 was,
    what progress has been made so far?  While it is true many die hard
    anglos did leave, I have seen a resurgence of english when the PQ was
    defeated in the last elections and even more when bill 178 with it's
    quagmire of interpretation was introduced.  At least with bill 101 the
    message was clear "advertise in french!".
    
    Maybe off the subject, but; in the saturday edition of La Presse, there
    was a caricature of Brian Mulroney sitting in a tree cutting off one of
    it's branches on which Qu�bec's flag was attached.  The branch was
    sitting in the air and the tree was falling.  The caption read:
    "Le Canada se s�pare du Qu�bec... et tombe chez le voisin"
    Loose translation "Canada separates from qu�bec... and falls on it's
    neighbor" 
    
    Interpretation: If Qu�bec DOES separate, the other provinces will be
    absorbed by the US.  If you look NOW, you will find that english
    Canadians are culturally so close to americans as to make the
    distinction a matter of looking at their passports, no so for Qu�becois
    (at least not the majority of them).  Is the difference between Yancks
    and Cannucks the writing on the cereal box? (which 75% of the
    population can't understand anyway)
    
    As for valuing difference, why can't visitors accept the fact that
    french is the language here?  this is why our sings are in french, the
    safety factor isn't even a consideration, after all if I remember
    right, all the sings I saw in Mexico were in Spanish, in Holland they
    were in Dutch, in France  they were in French, in Portugal they were in
    Portugeese, in Hong-Kong, they were Chineese and English, but the
    english was so small you had to stop to see it and my brother told me
    all the sings were in Japaneese in Japan, so why expect english on
    OURS?
    
    Jean
    

    As something of a global traveller, I am interested in this apparent
    belief that countries can be swallowed up by others.  To many people
    around the world, Canada and the USA are virtually the same thing.  To
    others they are significantly different to have earned Canada its own
    reputation, specifically as diplomats and peace keepers in the global
    arena.
    
    While Canadian and US cultures do seem superficially the same, there are 
    significant deep differences that Canadians would have a hard time being 
    absorbed into the USA.  We could after all say the same thing about 
    Britain ... to many anglos in Canada, Britain is our heritage, but a 
    Canadian couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be "British", just
    as a Quebecois could not be a Parisienne in spite of the common heritage.
    
    Canada and the USA were founded in different ways for different reasons
    including culture and beliefs.  A lot of those differences in culture
    and beliefs still hold today.  Many of them are why I returned to
    Canada from Britain in 1981 and not to the USA.
    
    As long as there are minorities, there will always be inequities.  The
    sign laws of Quebec are however an infringement on rights.  There is
    nothing whatsoever that would prevent you from putting your signs up
    on stores in English Canada in ANY LANGUAGE YOU CHOOSE.  (Even some of
    the English signs only barely resemble English!)  Now granted we are in
    the position of being a majority language, but in general terms we are
    not afraid of cultural change ... and we've discussed this at great
    length before, so I don't want to rethrash this.  However, it would
    be wrong of anyone to go into an area where the native language is
    not their own and expect service in their own language.  If they get
    service like that it is a privilege and not a right.  I regularly have
    to deal with predominantly francophone customers in my job.  My French
    is not good enough to hold a fluent conversation, so I routinely ask
    if they speak English and I make a point of thanking them for doing so.
    
    What many of us in English Canada don't realize is that the effects of
    French Canada on our culture and society are far greater than French
    on the cereal box, whether you are in Ottawa or in Nanaimo.  It doesn't
    matter if an Ottawan doesn't speak French, nor if a Gaspesian doesn't
    speak English, but these two people are both FAR closer to each other
    as Canadians than the Ottawan is to being American or the Gaspesian is
    to being French (from France).
    
    Stuart

    Quite frankly I don't care, nor should it be a matter for government
    intervention if I:
    
    a) live in Quebec and don't speak French 
    
    b) live outside Quebec and don't speak English
    
    I'm the loser if I don't want to be part of the mainstream culture. 
    For me the working language is French in Quebec and English outside of
    Quebec (of course there are exceptions)
    
    If an Anglo can function in Montreal without speaking any French or a
    Francophone can function in Toronto without speaking English than why
    should I be upset?

    Hey Boys and Girls,
    
    	Canada is 1 Country:  French......ahahahah!
    
    	traduction:  
    
    	Canada est 1 seul pays:  Francais...   ahahahah!
    
    
    	Raymond
    

    Canada is many coutries ... aboriginal!
    
    

    What you must understand is the cultural identity of new residents who
    may not have been told the "facts of life" by the CANADIAN embassy in
    their country of origin.  We (all of us) have to pay for these people
    to learn french when they come to Qu�bec because they beleive Canada is
    an english speaking country, they sometimes do adopt the language and
    culture, but very often they opt for english because they beleive they
    will be in a better position to leap across the border to the promised
    land (the US of A).  
    
    After living in Qu�bec for a few years, they find out the US's glitter
    isn't that good and they stay here, but they still keep their adopted
    culture and expect ME to adapt to THEM!!!!! after all they have rights
    don't they because THEY ARE CANADIANS.
    
    Some of our "demands" are related to immigration, right now we can't
    control or influence immigration, it is all done by the federal gov. 
    We want to be able to set the people straight BEFORE they come here!
    
    If the preservation of french culture was THAT important to
    non-Qu�becois, they would take the necessary steps to do it right, not
    say that we cry and whine when we make demands related to our culture. 
    As I said before Canada has not proven it can do this with any success,
    so in the future WE must do it by whatever means we devise
    notwithstanding clause and all.
    
    Jean
    

    This is not unique to French Canada ... exactly the same thing holds
    in English Canada ... and a prize example of that is the turbaned RCMP
    officers carrying their ceremonial swords.
    
    Stuart

    
    
    	I gotta ask about this one Jean.
    
    I don't understand your comments about landed imigrants forcing you to
    learn their culture?  Has some form of government legislated that you
    must learn the following language and religious practices?
    
    If Quebec is worried about the expense of putting new Canadians through
    language training, why are they so keen on raising their quotas?
    
    If I am enterpreting this correctly, you would be far happier to just 
    close the door and have them go else where.
    
    I suspect that they would like to learn english instead because they
    feel that it will provide them with greater opportunities in the long
    term.
    
    When I go to Toronto I am amazed at how the character of the the city
    has changed.  There are more cultures their than I can count.  There
    are signs I can't read, language I can't understand...its great!
    
    Who needs the expense of travel when you can get the same exposure
    by going to Spadina street or the like.
    
    
    Scott
    
    

>    Some of our "demands" are related to immigration, right now we can't
>    control or influence immigration, it is all done by the federal gov. 
>    We want to be able to set the people straight BEFORE they come here!
    
>    If the preservation of french culture was THAT important to
>    non-Qu�becois, they would take the necessary steps to do it right, not
>    say that we cry and whine when we make demands related to our culture. 
>    As I said before Canada has not proven it can do this with any success,
>    so in the future WE must do it by whatever means we devise
>    notwithstanding clause and all.
>    
>    Jean

RE: .42
    
Jean:

With all respect, isn't control over immigration using a hammer to kill a
fly?  Don't you really mean by controlling immigrants Quebec would select
or reject people based on their cultural background?  More specifically,
would this selection/rejection be based primarily on already speaking
french, or **not speaking english** ??  That's more than preserving and
promoting french canadian culture - that's exclusion...

Canada has not proven it can preserve and protect the french canadian
culture?  I will answer that in two cases:

Within the province of Quebec:  you surely cannot argue that the culture
in Quebec is not strong.  I know that the official languages commissioner
will agree, as with a Universite de Montreal professor, who wrote a more
objective study of exactly how the language has strengthened over the
last three decades.  Now, I suppose you will say that Canada has no role 
in this, that the "government" of Quebec did it all.  Well, they were
involved.  But they didn't lead.  Dr. Laurin did a wonderful job of
building up Bill 101 to strengthen the legal system in protecting the
french language.  Too good, in fact.  He went a little too far.  And tell
me, when did the government of Canada ram English down quebecer's throats?

As for anglo canada: Any sensitive person can see where the federal
government (**NOT the provinces**) have promoted the french language - the 
CBC/Radio Canada, NFB, Federal services, RCMP, the list goes on.  in
fact strong national institutions, and how important they are in our lives
not only promotes french, it makes us canadian!  And as I said before,
being canadian (to me) means B&B in the best sense: not being **frced**
to speak both languages - just to accept, honor and appreciate the best of
both cultures!!  I can't say that Quebec adopts this view.  

In fact Quebec
actively does **not** promote the french language and culture hors de la belle
province.  It was irritating just prior to Meech seeing Bourassa touring
the provinces, pushing back on francophone groups in the west, saying "be
happy in your province, Quebec has no jurisdiction here".  Clearly this is
a political stance - he wants to divide Canada along language lines to make
deals with anglo premiers.  It's easier (in both anglo and franco cases)
not to have to deal with minority groups...  Needless to say the leader of
the Societe Franco-Colombien was not amused.  Dare I say, she was...

   "non plussed"

Pieter

    I meant ME adapt to their ADOPTED culture (american if you will).
    
    We don't have to promote english (american) culture in Qu�bec, TV,
    radio, newpapers and 250 million others speaking the same language
    are doing a good enough job.
    
    What is meant by setting people straight BEFORE they emigrate to
    Qu�bec, is to tell them outright that over 65% of the population of
    Montr�al is french (15% english, 20% allophones) and over 90% of the
    people OUTSIDE Montr�al are french.  Outside of Qu�bec, the reverse is
    true, over 90% of the population is english speaking and 100%
    understand english.  AFTER they are presented with these facts, let
    them choose where they will live fully aware they will have to learn
    french to function in Qu�bec and ALSO learn english to go outside of
    the province.  If they choose to live outside of Qu�bec, we will
    welcome them as we do all tourists.
    
    I know some people (immigrants) who were very much against learning
    french claiming it was harder than english to learn, yet these people
    spoke their native language PLUS a couple of others as well as english
    why is their mind so closed to french when it assimilated three or four
    other languages?????   I learned english, I can speak it, read it and
    write it, probably better than some who were schooled in english, I can
    communicate in spanish after spending a few months (over the years) in
    spanish speaking countries, am I different??  I just think it's a
    matter of interest and acceptance, I am interested in others and I guess 
    some (most?) Canadians are not or they just beleive they don't need to
    communicate to appreciate other cultures.
    
    As for supporting french outside Qu�bec, I am supporting the views of
    the present leader or as we used to say "hors de l'�glise, point de
    salut"  These people have chosen to live in english communities, they
    must accept the fact that for them french will be used at home only,
    and they can count themselves lucky to be able to receive TV and radio
    in french.  
    
    The language/culture has evolved to the point it is now well defined
    with borders (french in Qu�bec, english outside).  The federal
    governement had very little effect on this evolution except to keep
    some pockets of french outside of Qu�bec.
    
    
    Jean
    
    
    

    
    
    	I have a feeling that the french speaking people in New Brunswick
    may have a different opinion then yours.  
    
    
    Scott

    I'd go so far as to say that a good percentage of the Francophonie
    outside Quebec feel separated from their own kind because of a power
    game in Quebec.  This is not a matter of language and culture ... if
    it was you'd be asking for "distinct society" type status for all
    francophonie in Canada ... not just in Quebec.
    
    Remember, not all of these people "left" Quebec to live in the English
    Canada ...  The franco population of Manitoba settled there long before
    we divided our country along the language boundaries of Quebec.
    
    Did you know that over 60% of the population of PEI has francophone
    roots ?  Drive the roads of PEI and look at the names on the mailboxes.
    
    Quebec's politicians over the years have "fostered" this French-English
    antagonism at the Quebec borders in the name of language and culture
    while totally ignoring the language and culture of their kindred souls
    throughout Canada, AND in the North Eastern USA too!
    
    Stuart

    C'mon, you don't expect the people of this province to be on the
    lookout for the preservation of french outside of our borders.  When we
    try do preserve it INSIDE our borders we are labeled racists,
    facists...  
    
    You may THINK people of New-Brunswick are francophone, but the sad
    reality is quite the opposite.  True SOME are unilingual french, the
    proportion may be less than 1% and that one percent may be made up of
    young children or VERY old people, however 99% understand english and
    over 80% are unilingual english, it is only a matter of one generation
    before the assimilation is complete.
    
    Jean
    

    That's sure not the impression I got having just travelled through
    New Brunswick ... the francophonie are very active at presering their
    Acadian French culture and language.
    
    When you are screaming preserving French language and culture and
    then ignore the not insignificant Franco popluous outside Quebec
    then it becomes clear that the language and culture issue is a
    smokescreen.
    
    Stuart

    
    I am a Canadian who was born in Montreal of a french heritage on both
    sides of my family. I can trace my roots back to the early 17th century 
    in Quebec and even back to the south of France. I always spoke french 
    at home but I was educated in english from kindergarten on.
    
    My father`s decision to educate me in english was based on his opinion 
    that to be raised french as well as educated in french would ALMOST
    surely mean that my life would be spent inside of Quebec. He also said
    that it would be irresponsible for him as a father to limit my horizons 
    in this regard. 
    
    Now before anyone goes on to judge my father`s opinions and actions 
    one way or another, you should know that he is a pro-french,
    pro-Quebec, dedicated seperatist.
      
    I always respected his decision to send me to school in english since
    it went against his should we say "patriotic" sentiments.
    
    Benoit

    Look at Parizeau ...  Impecable English, educated at the London
    School of Economics ...  
    
    There are reasons though that your father may have taken the English
    education line ... until relatively recently, Quebec was not
    considered an "industrial and eceonomic force".  The outlook for
    jobs in Quebec was considered limited ... to meet the need for
    jobs in industry and economics, it was necessary to look outside
    Quebec ... and therefore to also speak English.  Moreover, technospeak
    and moneyspeak is for the most part based on English.
    
    To go back to the idea of Quebec deserting the rest of francophonie
    in Canada ... remember too that the Acadians played a huge role in
    the development of Canada as a distict society.  A lot of them who had
    settled south of the border returned to Canada with US Independence.
    
    Canada is full of distinct societies ... full of founding nations ...
    after all we wouldn't have had a nation at all if it were not for the
    Chinese "coulees" who were responsible for much of the building of
    the western railway ... or the Irish navees who built the railway
    across the east and into the plains.  Let's not forget ANY of them.
    
    Stuart

    Most of you (except .42) do not understand the difference between
    well defined cultural entities living together in mutual respect
    and an ugly, shapeless (and thus basically culture-less) soup
    (aka 'melting pot'; you know where, you want that???). If the bulk of the immigrants 
    would prefer
    to learn french for economical reasons instead of english, none of
    the anglophones would advocate this 'many-found.-nations' crap. It is
    a simple power/interest game. And (implicitely) calling those who
    do not want to give up their cultural identities for trivial economical
    reasons racists/nationalists is not worth any discussion.
    I always looked at Quebec as a microcosm of what is going on in Europe
    (where i come from). Charles DeGaulle was right, the only way something
    as a United Europe will take place is a "Europe-of-the-Fatherlands".
    In the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia in one way, in the US/Cdn and the ex-
    western europe (thank god we now have the chance to get away from this
    westernized (=americanized) western europe) in another
    way  'melting pot' ideas (sure with one single dominating force) was/is abused 
    for power and interest games.
    And to make that clear: I would be the 1st to punch the nose of every
    single of those (ex-WEST) german yuppie/'business'-scum in who now
    spread into Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. and wave with the D-Mark and
    have those people 'adopt' to their way. 
    

    Rainer,
    
    Congratulations on your provocation ... you seem to enjoy that don't
    you !  It is plain that you make the association that Canada and the
    USA are virtually identical cultures from your belief that we share
    the US concept of the melting pot.
    
    It is plain you haven't read what is written here ... and moreover
    you do not seem to understand the great lengths we go to in Canada
    to accept minorities and accept their cultures and moreover promote
    their distinctiveness in this country.  One of the important things
    that makes Canada so different is that we do not see ourselves as
    a melting pot.  We see ourselves as many cultures living together
    under one banner.
    
    Yes there are those who espouse the melting pot concept ... but we
    have for the most part avoided it and I hope we continue to do so.
    On the other hand there will always be cross pollination of cultures,
    but this is not the same as a cultureless soup.  Even our American
    neighbours are not the cultureless soup that you seem to believe.
    Travel the USA and you'll see many cultures.  Where you do see melting
    pot cultures are cities ... where people are too busy "getting ahead"
    than enjoying life for themselves.  You'll see the same effect in any
    city around the world ... be it Shanghai, Peking, New York, Berlin,
    Sydney ... you name the city and look closely and you'll see your
    melting pot.
    
    We do not have to have separate countries to have separate cultures.
    We do not have to have isolation to have separate cultures.
    
    These are what Quebec cultural separatists espouse ... but most
    Quebec separatists, I'm sure, are not cultural separatists, they
    are political separatists riding along on the power trip of their
    politicians.
    
    Cultural separatists are essentially ultra-conservative people,
    terrified of change, often lacking in sufficient self respect so
    that they fight to protect their culture instead of fighting to
    promote their cultures.
    
    Canada is far more than an economic union like the EEC ... it is a
    socio-political union ... it was not a union formed at gun point like
    many of Europe's united countries ... (yes ... if we go back to Wolfe it 
    was ... but at Confederation it was a voluntary union ...).
    
    Stuart

    and just to continue on a little from what Stuart said....
    
    "a voluntary union one of whose aims was to avoid being annexed by the
    United States and thus end up as a melting pot".
    
    What was it that some sociologist called Canada back in the 60s...
    
        " a Vertical Mosaic"  I still don't understand that.
    
    Thanks for your input Rainer but you're far from an expert on Canada
    and the solutions to its problem just like I wouldn't pretend to offer
    solutions to Germany's problem of assimilating your "prodigal
    brothers". Stick to being a hockey guru :-)
    
    Ted. 

    Stuart,
    
    	What does it take for the french culture to find it's way in the
    minds of "Canadians"?  
    
    	As far as I know, we have a stronger cultural background than
    english Canada, we have more artists and more artistic activity brewing
    in our province than all the other provinces put together.  The reason
    is quite simple, to make it in artistic centers, you must tap the
    biggest market you can reach so if you speak english, you go south and
    entertain english audiences all over north america.  If you speak
    french, you make your mark in the province of Qu�bec, even francophone
    artists from other provinces come to Montr�al where they can make a
    living at it whereas they would just falter in their place of birth due
    to lack of artistic support (ex: Daniel Lavoie, Hart Rouge, Edith
    Butler...).
    
    	No amount of promotion will make a "Canadian" BI-cultural,
    especialy with such a strong cultural neighbor (the US of A). 
    Canadians can't even say if the artist they are listnening to is a
    Canadian or a United-Stater, all they know is "if it's in french, then
    it must be from Qu�bec"!
    
    	As far as discerning between an American (United-Stater) or a
    Canadian, I can tell you there ARE SOME differences, but minor ones
    which are more closely related to the area they live in than in their
    toughts or cultural identity.  A Canadian living in Victoria has as
    much in common with his fellow countrymen living in St-John's than an
    American living in Bangor has with his countrymen living in San-Diego.
    
    Jean
    
    PS I will be on vacation, so don't be surprised if the file is quiet
       for a while.
    

    If by bi-cultural you mean everyone can live, enjoy, appreciate etc
    each other's cultures, then that is not what living in Canada means.
    If you mean the ability of the cultures to co-exist with respect, and
    not try to throw the cultures into a melting pot, then that is what
    Canada is all about.  In fact we go well beyond bi-culturalism ...
    we extend our respect in the form of multi-culturalism.  Living in
    Canada means that we can all enjoy our own cultures without the fear
    of that culture being repressed by governments, their laws, and side
    effects of their laws.  Canadian law goes out of its way to attempt
    to protect the cultures of others.
    
    But don't for one minute think that a multi-cultural country is going
    to remove bigotry and racial intolerance instantly.  We have a lot
    more tolerance here.  In many countries, you are expected to join
    the melting pot.  For example, until recently, if you moved to the
    USA and acquired American citizenship, it was required that you formally
    renounce ANY AND ALL previous citizenships.  Canada makes no such
    demands.  In Canada, you can be what you want  ... and Canadian.
    Such an attitude generally makes newcomers want to be Canadian first
    and "x" second.
    
    Stuart

    My dear Stuart,
    
    Multi-culturalism is an utopia. That you like it or not Canada is a
    melting pot. The only place I have visited that you have 2 or more
    culture in one country where there is no possible melting pot is in
    Belgium and that is because they have litterally separeted the French
    the Dutch and the Germans. 
    
    Richard

    Who said it was a) perfect and b) that the cultures wouldn't interact ?
    
    What I am trying to say is that in Canada, we do not encourage the
    "melting pot" approach that was embraced for many decades south of
    the border.  We actually encourage multi-culturalism.  If you want
    to retain your "Inner Zambigolian" culture, then you are exncouraged
    to do so.  If, on the other hand, you want to assimilate and join
    a melting pot, then you are free to do that too.
    
    If you leave your native country for a new country, and you want to
    maintain your old culture, then there is no way that you can isolate
    yourself from the cultures around you.  Today, with modern
    communication and the growing acceptance of mobility of peoples,
    cross-pollination of cultures on a global scale is inevitable, change 
    is inevitable.  To resist change results in isolation and eventually
    extinction.  Cultures must be promoted to be maintained and yes, the
    culture you are promoting to save will look radically different 100
    years from now, for far more reasons than simply cultural cross-
    pollination.
    
    As for your description of Belgium, on my several visits, that is
    not what I saw.  I did not see the separation you describe ... yes
    there are regions of the country that are predominantly one ethnic 
    group but it's not really any different from Canada.  The only major
    difference is that the population density being that much higher
    results in more distinct ethnic boundaries.  The same thing applies
    in Britain ... there are very distinct cultural and language (usually
    accent, but also regionalisms)  differences between major towns
    separated by maybe only 10 miles.
    
    Stuart

    To continue a thought in my last note ... Britain has been around
    for many more years than the French and English in Canada.  English
    regionalisms and accents and cultures have not disappeared.  The
    Welsh still have Welsh accents; the Scots still have Scottish accents
    even though migration of peoples has gone on between the two countries
    for hundreds of years.
    
    Would most of you know what a "Chip bu'ee" was ?  A chip buttee (the
    glottal stop is common in areas of England) is a sandwich unique to
    a part of Northern England ... it's a sandwich with a filling of Fries!
    If you go to Northern England, you'll hear of it regularly ... on
    the other hand you rarely hear of it in Southern England and a good
    proportion of Southerners wouln't have a clue what you are talking
    about.  We're talking here about areas of a country closely linked
    by rail, major highways, air, national TV and radio ... areas that are
    only 4-5 hours apart by rail ... a comfortable day's drive.  
    
    Thousands of people travel daily between areas of the country ... and 
    still areas retain their ethnicity.  If ever there was the potential
    for the melting pot ... it's there but it hasn't happened.  In fact
    in Wales, there has been a growing trend to the return of the nearly
    extinct Welsh language ... so much so that it is once again being
    taught in schools and is leaving the home and returning to the work
    place.
    
    People lose their cultural heritage only if they choose to give it up
    or are forced to by their governments.  Canada does not do that.
    
    Stuart
    
    
    of the

    Stuart,
    
    If I understand you correctly somebody from anywhere in the world that
    would immigrate in Canada could continu living is on culture. But in
    fact, for exemple, the law doesn't permit polygamy in Canada, and we
    both know that it's in fact a way of life for a lot of people on this
    little planet.
    
    About Belgium, when I was in Brussels I made a study on what kind of
    political system they had. To my big suprise I found out that the 
    separated the cultural group. Have you tried to speak French on the
    Dutch side, beleive me don't try it (except maybe in Bruge)! a good
    exemple of how seperate the regions are you can't buy land in the
    French part if you are Dutch and vice versa.  
    
    Richard  

    Sorry Stuart,
    
    But a chip buttee is fairly well known down here in southern Enhland,
    but this is due to the mixtures of the two cultures (north and south).
    
    I will always remember the Scots family that lived near us in Osgoode
    (Ontario). They were third or fourth generation (or fifth or sixth ?), 
    and not one of them had been back, and neither had any of their 
    ancestors that they had known. Yet they all spoke with a broad accent, 
    played the bagpipes, and threw the greatest hogmanay parties I have ever 
    been to. However, despite their obviouse 'Scotishenes', they were well
    integrated into the community, and were well like and respected.
    
    Of course, it was fairly easy, as they did not have to learn a new
    language, and therefore had the danger of loosing their own. But how
    did they manage to maintain their accent ?
    
    I myself, have not been nack to Canada since 1971. If I spoke to you,
    you would say that I have an English accent. But to the people around
    me, they can all detect the 'twang' of an accent, and all of my friends
    and colleagues consider me to be a 'Canuck'. For 20 years, I have
    managed to maintain my own culture, whilst still being a good British
    subject.
    
    It seem to me that Culturalism, and Patriotism can exist, but its
    easier if you remove the politics.
    
    Wayne (who apologises if this sounds like rambling, but I know what I
    am trying to say)

    OK Richard ... of course, someone will find the exceptions ...
    I can throw one back at you if you wish.  Canadian law prohibits
    the carrying of concealed weapons, and yet we allow, for example,
    Sikhs to carry their ceremonial daggers.
    
    What is worth noting is that a lot of the countries where polygamy
    exists are actually now trying to discourage the practice.
    
    Wayne, I lived in Southern England about 5 years before I discovered
    what a buttee was, let alone a chip buttee!  I that was when in
    university residence with a Scouse in the flat!
    
    I know of several English people in Ottawa who actually have strivven
    to maintain their Englishness in terms of accent and culture ... they
    actually trade on being English.
    
    Anyway, all I wanted to do was to show that for the most part Canada
    allows this cultural mosaic, and I strongly believe that there is a
    place for the Francophonie within and outside of Quebec in the Canadian
    confederation at no more risk to their language and culture than being
    an independent country.
    
    Stuart

    Stuart, I'm with you...
    
    For anyone who doesn't consider Canada's appreciation for other
    cultures, consider:
    
    o great popularity of French Immersion education (in Victoria,
      supposedly where we have nothing in common with Canada!)
    
    o Sihks joining the RCMP and retaining their rights to wear turbans
      as part of their uniforms
    
    o a truly progressive approach (not final yet) to recognition of native 
      rights, not in small part to help give them a basis from which their
      culture can be maintained
    
    o asiatic culture - this surely cannot be seen as "squished", or 
      "stamped out" - it is thriving in Toronto and Vancouver.  Vancover
      has the second biggest "chinatown" on the west coast...
    
    Pieter
    

    Pietr,
    
    It is more than tolerance when school boards, particularly in the
    Toronto area, actually started classes after hours called Heritage
    classes in which children from different ethnic backgrounds can learn
    language and culture of the land and peoples of their heritage.
    
    Stuart

    Just to update the situation for those not getting Canadian news,
    Bourassa joined the other 9 Premiers and the Prime Minister at
    his retreat on Harrington Lake (a stone's throw from Meech!) to
    determine if they could get a procedure together to discuss the
    constitution together ...
    
    Nobody seemed to come away optimistic.
    
    Seems to me that everybody has dug themselves into a trench and
    are looking at the little things rather than the whole pictuire.
    
    Stuart

    Joe Clark annouced today that the deal on the Senate reform was not
    going to be approved by the federal government. The deal is dead.
    
    Richard

Richard:

I'm not sure that's what I heard.  I heard Joe Clark recognizing that the deal
re the senate would not fly in Quebec.  I didn't hear anything about the
feds giving up.  Although I must say that the fed cabinet ministers from 
Quebec (Bouchard, Masse, et al) have a **very big** influence on what the
public attitude of the feds will be...

Pieter

    Pieter,
    
    What i've heard is that about 5 prime ministers accepted the Senate
    proposal because they tought Quebec was approving that change. When
    they have heard Bourassa's comments about the deal some prime ministers
    retrieve there support on the deal (like the PEI P.M. sorry forgot his
    name :-)). That's why I said the deal is dead, the Clark factor was
    just an approval of that.
    
    Richard

    Well as part of my vacation, we travelled to Niagara falls, then up to
    Sauble beach (lake huron area) and back to Montr�al trough Algonquin
    park and Ottawa/Hull.  For an official bi-lingual province, I did not
    see too much of any french during my travels, no highway signs in
    french, no directions in french etc...  Some of you may say "what does
    he expect, this is Ontario!" yet YOU ALL expect sings in Qu�bec to be
    at LEAST bi-lingual, so think about it when you visit here, the sings
    are for the local population, not the tourists and if IT IS different
    than what you are used to, enjoy the difference.
    
    As for melting pots and discussions of same;  melting pot works when
    the added ingredients are not constituting the main part of the dish. 
    A small example: you make soup, most of the soup is water, you add all
    kinds of ingredients to make it taste good, but if you add just a tad
    too much salt, it is fit to throw away.  Melting pot works the same way
    all the extra ingredients make for a nice place/country/province/state,
    add a LARGE population of immigrants and the same place is now a
    ghetto.  Just look at Florida, they had to pass a law making english
    the official language because there are soo many Cubans and spanish
    speaking people.  California also had to regulate in the same way.
    
    I am sure when people from Qu�bec emmigrated to the US they wanted to
    keep their culture and language (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Mass...) at
    first they managed to do it because they were in great enough numbers,
    but now it is all but erased except on store windows when the name has
    not been translated (Leblanc --> White).
    
    Melting pot also worked well when communications were more restricted,
    now you can tune in to spanish stations in Inuvik (in the hotel room in
    Missisaga, they had the Mexican all news station ECO), anyone can
    publish a small newspaper or newsletter in any language for fractions
    of what it used to cost previously.  In the early 1900s, these tools
    were not in place, the only way to retain culture was by word of mouth
    from generation to generation or by joining cultural or religious
    groups (if the density was great enough).  This is why regionalisms
    stayed so well defined in the old countries, this is all going away
    now, in the US, thick southern accents are few and far between (in
    younger people at least) all this due to radio and ESPECIALLY TV.
    
    As far as multi-culturulasim, it is just a word, no one is
    multi-cultural anymore than bi-cultural, you can be multi-lingual but
    to say you enjoy all aspects of the other cultures is utter nonsense,
    you may choose the best parts of those cultures, but not embrace fully
    all the culture because very often these cultures have opposing views
    on many subjects.
    
    enough for now
    
    Jean
    

    >french, no directions in french etc...  Some of you may say "what does
    >he expect, this is Ontario!" yet YOU ALL expect sings in Qu�bec to be
    >at LEAST bi-lingual, so think about it when you visit here, the sings
    
    Welcome back Jean ...
    
    SET FLAME /THERMONUCLEAR 
    
    DON'T YOU DARE make the YOU ALL generalization ... You know it's not
    true.
    
    SET NOFLAME
    
    I for one don't expect highway signs in English in Quebec ... (although 
    STOP is not just English ... but that's another matter again.)  When
    I write to an address in Quebec, I do not translate the address into
    English ... If I am going to write to 5, Rue Des Rosiers that is what
    I write.  It really bugs me when I see road signs  "Rue Queen St."
    One thing I was taught many years ago was that you don't translate
    names.  I wouldn't consider calling you John Waterer as you wouldn't
    call me Garcon Rouisseau.
    
    If you think that cultures die when they become a tiny island in a
    larger culture, look at the Creole and Cajun cultures in Louisiana.
    Yes, they are NOT what they were many years ago when the French went
    to Louisiana, but they have NOT disappeared into the meltingpot
    of American culture.  OK, you may not like what these cultures have
    become but then a conservative Frenchman in Paris would be dismayed
    at what has happened to French culture ... and it's not just the
    influence of English.  A conservative Englishman in London is similarly
    dismayed at the cultural changes there too.
    
    Stuart

RE: .70

Jean:

1.   I do not expect all signs in Quebec to be bilingual.  I expect:

     - the government signs (eg highway) and official communications to
       reflect the official language of the jurisdiction.  In Quebec
       that's French, in Ontario that's English.

     - individuals to have the right to post signs and communicate in 
       any language

2.   I expect "minorities" to be served by their governments on a "best
     possible effort" basis, not on a mandatory basis.  That is, if I
     run a Francophone school district in Alberta I expect reasonable
     support from the government if I have sufficient numbers of students.
     I expect where there are 2,000 francophones in a province that
     francophone schooling is too much to ask for.

3.   Ontario is not officially bilingual.  New Brunswick/Nouveau Brunswick
     is.

Language is and should not be an "instrument" - it is an extension of
peoples culture.  One chooses to support and promote languages, by
offering services to people, and recognizing their language/culture.  One
does not advance the cause of protecting a given language / culture by
repressing others, restricting which languages people can speak or display
on signs.

Pieter

    Jean:
    
    As noted in the previous note Ontario is not officially bilingual.
    I hope you had a good time while visiting our province!
    

    OK, maybe not "YOU ALL", but "many people"
    
    As for repressing language, ALL Canadian provinces are guilty of doing
    it, Qu�bec for it's recent language laws (of which I approve of) and
    other provinces for their past repression of french (of which I am
    saddened but can't do anything about).  
    
    D�sol� de t'avoir insult� St�phane Du Ruisseau (Your name translates
    better than mine, you MUST have some french in you)
    
    Jean
    

    Let's be honest here, the majority generally will repress ANYTHING
    they don't understand, usually from fear of the unknown, let alone
    language.  So it really is something to be relatively proud of that we
    are actually as accepting of a bilingual state as we actually are.
    Obviously we could do better ...
    
    Brook is of Anglo-saxon derivation rather than Norman to the best of
    my knowledge, but because it represents such an identifiable geographic
    feature, direct translation is easy.  In English naming, it will have
    originally been derived from "who lived by the brook" or if you will
    "au cote du ruisseau".
    
    Interestingly, there is a very famous English family of nurserymen
    named Waterer, who are quite famous for their roses.  These family
    might well have been of Norman descent.  Given their occupation,
    their name translates remarkably appropriately!  Who knows, you
    may actually be related!
    
    Stuart