Conference kaosws::canada

    Look into the Czech and Slovak separation a couple of years ago.  Also,
    I think Pakistan split from India shortly after the Brits pulled out.
    
    Garry
    

       Bangladesh separated from Pakistan in the 1960s or 70s.
       
       Belgium separated from the Netherlands in the 19th century.
       
       

                                                 
Breakup of Czechoslovakia gets attention in Canada

(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

TORONTO (Oct 22, 1995 - 19:54 EDT) - Could Canada go the
way of Czechoslovakia and peacefully break apart?

With public opinion polls showing a chance that Quebec might
vote for separation on October 30, the so-called "Velvet
Divorce" between the Czechs and Slovaks is the subject of
lively debate in Canada.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) television has aired
twice in French and once in English a long documentary
analysing the breakup of former Czechoslovakia in 1993.

It focused on such hot issues in the Quebec debate as what
happened to the currency of former Czechoslovakia, trade
between the Czechs and Slovaks, the impact on the economy of
the smaller partner Slovakia, and the fate of passports.

Predictably, both Quebec nationalists and Canadian federalists
saw in the analysis of Czechoslovakia what they wanted to.

"The federalists say it proves separation is a disaster," said
Michel Cormier, a CBC correspondent who worked on the
documentary. "But some (Quebec) sovereigntists say it shows
that separation can be done."

Canada's national news magazine, Maclean's, published an
article under the headline "The Lessons from Prague,"
beginning with a complaint from a Czech coach that the quality
of ice hockey had deteriorated since the split from Slovakia.

Canadian academics have jumped into the fray, publishing
reams of comparative studies on secession movements around
the world in an attempt to predict what could happen with
Quebec.

A widely quoted book, "The Secession of Quebec and the
Future of Canada," by University of Western Ontario political
scientist Robert Young, reaches back to 1867 and Hungary's
split from Austria; Norway from Sweden in 1905; and Singapore
from Malaysia in 1965, for examples of peaceful secessions.

But the former Czechoslovaka merits a full chapter complete
with a step-by-step analysis of the political jostling that led to
the formal break into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on
January 1, 1993.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien referred to
Czechoslovakia twice in a speech last week in the provincial
capital of Quebec City, warning voters not to believe Quebec
separatist Premier Jacques Parizeau's promise that Quebec
could continue to use the Canadian currency after separation.

"Can Mr Parizeau...guarantee that a separate Quebec would
keep the Canadian dollar for longer than 39 days, as was the
case for Slovakia after the separation of Czechoslovakia?"
Chretien asked, referring to the collapse of the Czech and
Slovak monetary union soon after separation.

On the trade issue, separatists have used the case of
Czechoslovakia to counter Chretien's claim that an
independent Quebec would have trouble quickly joining the club
of trading nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and
would therefore find the door closed to its exports.

"The Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted (to the WTO)
within months (after separation)," Quebec Deputy Premier
Bernard Landry said in a speech last week.

Experts say, however, it would be wrong to read too much into
the experience of the former Czechoslovakia. "There are lots of
differences between Canada and the Czech Republic and
Slovakia," said political scientist Young.

Czechoslovakia had just emerged in 1989 from four decades of
Communist domination, a stark difference to Canada which has
been a stable democracy since its formation in 1867.

Czechoslovakia was in the throes of converting to a market
economy from a backward system of central planning, while
Canada is a member of the Group of Seven rich industrial
nations.

The national institutions of Czechoslovakia, from political
parties to the courts and Parliament, were weak while
Canada's are strong and well developed.

And Czechoslovakia had only a small national debt, while
Canada has one of the highest debt loads of major industrial
countries, and the red ink would have to be divided between
Quebec and Canada.
    
    ---------------------------------------------
    
Chretien supports Quebec as 'distinct society'

(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

MONTREAL (Oct 22, 1995 - 19:54 EDT) - Canadian Prime
Minister Jean Chretien, apparently trying to answer criticism he
opposes special status for French-speaking Quebec, said on
Sunday that he supports official recognition of the province as a
"distinct society."

In a joint statement issued in Montreal with Quebec provincial
Liberal leader Daniel Johnson, Chretien, who is in New York for
the United Nations 50th anniversary celebrations, repeated his
support for special protections in the Canadian constitution for
the French language and culture.

"We state without equivocation that Quebec is a distinct
society," Chretien and Johnson said. "We note that both of us
supported the inclusion of this principle in the Canadian
constitution every time Quebec asked for it."

The unusual joint statement seemed to be an attempt by
Chretien to slow the momentum of the Quebec secession
movement ahead of the October 30 referendum on Quebec
separation from Canada.

Latest opinion polls show the separatists pulling slightly ahead
among decided voters.

Many Quebec voters say they do not want an independent
country but are frustrated the Canadian constitution does not
include special protections for their language and culture.

Two attempts to revise the Canadian constitution to give
Quebec such special status failed, in 1990 and 1992.

Separatist leader Lucien Bouchard ridiculed the statement from
Chretien, saying it was not a serious offer.

Speaking to several thousand supporters in Quebec City on
Sunday, some waving Quebec flags and chanting "We want a
country," Bouchard urged them to vote for separation so that
Quebec can negotiate with Canada as an equal partner.

Chretien has said that a vote for sovereignty is a one-way
ticket out of Canada.

    
    The confederacy succeded from the United States in the 1800's.  They
    were pointedly convinced to reconsider.
    
    Norway seperated from Sweden. (Late 1800's?)
    
    Most others were colonies getting their independance.
    
    
    Marshall
      

    I beleive that the breakup of our country would have a great negative
    affect on all Canadians. And I am not at all clear as to exactly why
    some Quebecers would want a devorce. And when the seperatist are ask why
    there answers where always vague.
    
    	Also due to false statements in the news people seem to think that
    French Canadian or English Canadian is a true statement it is
    completely false. (If you where born in France you are French, if you
    where born in England you are English, if you where born in CANADA you
    are what ? That's correct "Canadian" ect. ect. ect..... Very simple to
    see and understand why do we always get this wrong.
    
    	Two cents worth from one Canadian (Frustrated)

    I saw the documentary on Czech/Slovakia and found it pro-separation -
    although there were certainly elements of pain encountered during the
    separation.  
    
    I don't think many Quebecers know what exactly they want.  Just like
    most people who vote in any election aren't really sure what they are
    buying ; they only see the media images and sound bites.  
    
    However, while I'm sure a separate political entity will provide some
    benefits to their culture isn;t that what the *province* of Quebec
    already is?  Being a separate country doesn't prevent another country's
    influence on your own.  Just look at the US imperialism via Hollywood
    and consumer products.  Isn't there already two official languages in
    this country?  Doesn't QUe. have a different basis of law that is
    accepted and used all over Que?  Geez, what more do you want for no
    risk!?
    
    Flame off

    Cree held its referendum and 96% voted to stay in Canada. The chief
    said if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. Could somebody help me to
    understand why PQ insists that Quebec can separate from Canada but
    nobody can separate from Quebec. They keep on saying this is an
    international law, what is this law?
    
    M.K.

    I have no idea, but if the PQ think they're going to have an easy time
    of it, they're dreaming in blue and white.

    As a proud Canadian, currently working for Digital In the USA, I feel
    strange being away from the country today as Quebec votes in the
    Referendum. After weeks of hearing that the support was around the 40%
    range it was a shock for me to hear over the weekend that it was now
    too close to call.
    
    I would rather that Quebec remain part of Canada. I believe it is an
    integral part of the country that has contributed much and can continue
    to contribute much to a great, great country. It would be sad to see
    that such a noble experiment of two major groups living together in
    relative harmony and peace should fail. And I cannot quite grasp what
    Quebecers seek since French language and culture seem stronger than
    ever. The threats to it will not go away because Quebec is an
    independant country, the world is getting smaller each day with the
    influences of one country penetrating other countries at sometimes
    frightening speed. That is not going to change if Quebec is independant
    unless it chooses to shut itself off.
    
    But then I am not from Quebec so maybe I just will not understand. I
    am what might be called a minority person so I do have some
    understanding of what it's like to live as a minority but it seems that
    Quebecers don't have that problem within confederation, the list of
    great politicians, business leaders, union leaders, artists from Quebec
    being what it is.
    
    I choose to believe hope will prevail today in Quebec, and I predict a
    54% to 48% NO vote.
    
    Mike

    
    <----  Some'o'those folx gonna be voting twice there, Mike?
    
    :^)
    
    I agree, however; I believe that the undecided voters will swing the
    result over to "Non".
    
    Regardless, I wish the Qu�becois the best in whatever route they chose.
    

    	OOOOPS 54% to 46%. 
    
    I was thinking 52% to 48% at first but changed my mind in "mid type"
    
    Regards
    
    Mike
    

    sold some DEC stock last week.  Will wait till later this week before
    cashing them.  Might as well make the best of a bad situation.
    
    - Letter to the editor in Saturday's G&M - (paraphrasing) - "if quebec
    leaves could they take Toronto too, and leave Montreal?"  :^)
    
    - editorial cartoon recently indicated that one benefit of a 'yes' vote
    will be to increase consumer demand in NB and Ontario.  That's one way
    to kick start the Toronto housing market!
    
    D

I heard that if Quebec decides to separate from Canada, then
the Cree will form Creebec with its 90+% of Quebec, become
a province of Canada and put all the French in its province
on reservations.

As strange as it sounds, the concept was not put forward
entirely in jest either!  (No, it is not a figment out of
my imagination)

Stuart

    Has anyone heard whether the voting turnout is heavy or not ?
    
    Michael

    

    Can't see Quebec separating after the enormous sacrifices by
    Canada/USA this last week.......


    


    	Allowing the lowly Canadiens to win 5 games straight.
    
    
    
    	But, if they really want to to be just a one hockey team town....
    
    mike

I`m from Germany but I follow this thing quite interested. I heard in 
todays news, that 93% voted and that 50,4% voted "non" and 49,6% voted
"oui". Puuuuh, that was close! 

Stefan�

    Yes Stefan, I heard the same.
    
    Looks like nobody wins..
    
    Some public disturbance in Montreal as well.
    
    Vincent.

    Well, I am pleased that the vote turnde out as it did ... it says two
    things ...
    
    1) That the majority of Bouchard's Quebecois (as opposed to Parizeau's
    concept of Quebecois) do want to stay in Canada ... albeit not under 
    the status quo ...
    
    2) That the closeness of the vote should serve as a wake-up call to
    the rest of Canada that it was closer than they ever dreamed, and that
    it is time to work on that new federalism that everybody has talked
    about but nobody is prepared to do anything about!  Not tomorrow ...
    but today.
    
    It will only take the separatiste movement to work on the commerce and
    other ties unilaterally to ensure that sovereignty will not result in
    fiscal ruin and the tide will probably turn.
    
    Perhaps, to prevent this, anglo and allophones should move to Quebec
    instead of from it to help prevent separation?  That certainly would
    upset Mr. Parizeau.
    
    We had a good dose of the analysis down here on the US C-Span channels
    who were rebroadcasting the CBC and Peter Mansbridge (who incidentally
    is no longer going thin on top !  Sheesh ... he's nearly BALD!  2
    years !)
    
    Stuart

    re:disturbances, some scuffles/fisticuffs among a few hundred yes/no
    young people (I can use that term now in my advanced years), and arson
    at Daniel Johnson's campaign riding office - noone hurt.
    Parizeau's (sp) defeat speech certainly raised more than an eyebrow !
    Qelle nerve!  I guess he's not long for the political life.

As a Quebecker I must say that today I am embarassed to have Parizeau as the
premier of my province.  When I heard his speech I stopped dozing off and nearly
fell off the couch.

He is a disgrace to all of Quebeckers and makes all of us look bad to the rest
of the country.  As long as he is in power, Quebec and Canada is in trouble.
I believe he will do everything in his power to prevent any further 
constitutional talks from succeeding because that will mean that his separatist
cause will never be achived.

Parizeau took a divided province and cut right through it's heart with a
2nd stabbing.  Big mistake.

Pierre Berton called him a racist and said "If this is the kind of person 
we have to deal with to unite the coutry after this, God help us."

Bod Rae concluded that alcohol had something to do with Parizeau's speech.  He 
called it the worst speech he has ever heard in his entire political life from
any premier in Canada.

Although I don't share the views of Lucien Bouchard I believe he delivered a
very statesmanlike speech, accepted the democratic process that took place and
pledged that all Oui losers do the same.

I count myself lucky today that the leader of the PQ party was not Lucien
otherwise the Oui would likely have won.  

Clyde Wells did not say no when Peter Mansbridge suggested "Distinct society".
He seemed ready to talk.  I hope he is this time because it's partly because
of him that we had a close call last night.

Now Mr. Parizeau please start spending a little less time and money on
separation and start working on building something positive in Quebec for
a change.

Vive le Canada uni.

/Mario

    Mario:
    
    >>I believe he will do everything in his power to prevent any further
    >>constitutional talks from succeeding
    
     So who do we in the ROC talk to ? Lucien may seem more reasonable, but
    he too has an agenda that would not be served by an accommodation with
    Canada.
    
     Is Canada doomed because the people of Quebec have no representation
    that is willing to cut a deal ?
    
    							Derek.

Derek,

I have always believed that in 1982 the biggest mistake Trudeau made was to
try to *change* things, after the 1980 referendum, by repatriating the
constitution while there was a separatist government in power in Quebec.

Chretien is now in a dilemma.  If he does it now then he is doomed to fail
because Parizean is there.

If he waits until there's a Liberal government in Quebec then it will take
at least 3 years since Parizeau's mandate is only 1 year in the making and the
separatists will way "We told you so, the federal is not offerring us anything
they promised".  His credibility will be at stake.

It's Chretien's call.  I hope he knows what he is doing because if I was him
I'd have no idea what to do.  I guess that's why he's there and I'm here.

/Mario

    I too was extremely grateful to les Quebecois for their vote last
    night. But I believe that the closeness of that vote really means that
    Canada gets one last chance to fix things. I don't see how we can even
    hope to do something without recognizing Quebec as a distinct society,
    which it obviously is. But will the other political leaders like Wells,
    Manning, Klein etc. ever go for this ? This is where the impasse is.
    
    This will be the minimum price for keeping a united Canada. If this
    can't be accomplished, the next time Quebec votes to leave. The yes
    vote has moved from 40 to 49%
    
    Let's hope our political leaders get it right this time.
    
    Vive Quebec. Vive Quebec en Canada

    I think that the other provinces and the Feds MUST aim anything they
    do directly to the people of Quebec, rather than their elected leaders,
    so as to show the people of Quebec that Canada is serious about their
    Quebcois brothers and sisters.
    
    Then the only way I can see of "sidestepping" Parizeau is through a 
    national referendum process, where the results of each province are 
    distinct, if the Elections act will allow this.  Then if the results
    in Quebec show that the Quebecois like what Canada offers, then the
    provincial government would be very unwise to reject it.
    
    Stuart
    
    Stuart

    I have to wonder if Parizeau was really out of control last night, or
    was he perhaps at least partly trying to scare or intimidate
    non-members of his "peuple Quebecois."  He certainly made it clear that
    his idea of the Quebec people doesn't include those of other languages
    or ethnicities.  As Mordecai Richler wrote a few years ago, when these
    people chant "le Quebec aux Quebecois" they aren't talkiong about
    people named Berger or MacGregor.
    
    As other have said, I don't see how you can possibly negotiate with
    this guy.
    
    -Stephen

    
    Parizeau has stated he will resign as Premier of Qu�bec.
    

    So what happens now:  Bouchard becomes leader of the PQ, & they have a
    provincial election on an independence platform?  Is this what they
    meant by their hints that "next time" will be "sooner than people
    think?"
    
    -Stephen

    They won't call an election, a bi-election to get Bouchard in perhaps.

    CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE
    
    >>have a provincial election on an independence platform?
    
     Looking at the electoral map, that is what I said when they made
    >>their hints that "next time" will be "sooner than people think?"
    
    
    							Derek

What happens now?  It's too obvious.  This is Plan B as was concocted by Lucien
and Paribozeau:


	Bouchard quits the BQ to enroll in and win the PQ leadership race.

	Either the BQ gets another leader and continues in the federal 
	parliement or the BQ disbands, allowing Reform to take on official
	opposition and we have elections in 52 federal ridings in Quebec.

	Bouchard gets himself elected provincially and becomes premier of
	Quebec.

	Bouchard leads for a few months and calls a referendum election where
	we elect MPs and vote on sovereignty at the same time.

Quebec has been without a true *governing* body for the past year and continues
to be for the next 6-12 months.  Separatist governments never cease to amaze
me...

The economy continues to suffer, the jobless rate in Quebec continues to
be well above 10%, and budget deficit continues at around $5B.  I haven't
seen any concrete measures in the last budget that would address the real
problems in this province the same way Alberta, Ontario, and NB have done.

The majority has spoken.  Would a real leader please stand up and start taking
care of business???

/Mario

    Mario,
    
    Haven't you been listening?  All the problems Quebec is facing are the
    Feds fault - Ontario and the other provinces are acting because they
    are buddies with the feds; they're the same guys who stabbed Quebec in
    1832, 1867, 1912, 1867, 1980, 1982, Meech, Charlottetown and Oct 30...
    
    Seriously, I think there will be another referendum/election (don't
    really care what the mechanics are), but the question will be MUCH MUCH
    clearer - I expect it to be about separation, pure and simple.  If
    another fuzzy question is proposed by Quebec, I believe Canada has the
    obligation to step in and ensure a proper question, before the voting
    date is set.  I would like to believe the next vote in Quebec is to
    accept (or rehect :^() a proposal from Canada - but I don't think it
    will be possible to negotiate with the government of Quebec and I would
    be totally, but positively, surprised if Canada went around the Quebec
    government directly to the people of Quebec.
    
    As others have said, thebest thing to do right now is probably NOTHING
    - let things cool down for a while and let some solutions get tossed
    around.
    

    
    RE : -1 
    ...Seriously, I think there will be another referendum/election.....
    
    How often can they ask for a referendum on the same subject (to seperate or
    not) ? 
    
    Moshe Yerushalmy
    
    

    
    
    
    Salut,
    
    Man what a stressfull evening that was, I don't care to go through
    that again. I voted NO and was on the edge all evening.
    
    We all really don't need this crap, there are more important priorities,
    like air, food and water. Next time, all of Canada votes, "what goes around
    comes around". If 27 million people are affected by this then 27 mil
    should have a say. 
    
    I don't think Bouchard will leave Ottawa yet. The Commons represents
    his platform to directly hit the Feds in the face. He must be seen in
    Ottawa fighting like Pierre Lemoyne D'Iberville for Quebec, ah ah en
    garde! Monsieur L'Orange will make him look like the ultimate Jedi
    defender.
    
    Besides, if he goes to Quebec right away, he'll be faced with the hassle
    of actually governing something, signing papers and all that boaring
    stuff, taking kitchen heat for economic and social issues.
    
    This would cut time out on his personal game of chess with the R.O.C.
    51% of Quebec is now also a part of the R.O.C. or the R.O.Q. and no longer
    have a say in this either. 
    
    Lucien's coat of armor would surely become stained from the pressures
    of being in power and he would eventually loose the religious aura the
    separatists and Quebec media have bestowed upon him. I've seen people in
    this province who really think he is the JFK of Quebec or the next
    best thing to Elvis(I gotta find my baby!). I see him more as
    the obsessive captain in the story of Moby Dick. Canada is Bouchard's
    "Great White Whale", and unfortunately Sovereignty the ship's crew
    that destroy themselves in the end because they followed their leader's
    stubborness into the abyss blinded by his gripping charisma. 
    
    The euphoria behind this man is astounding considering, he creates
    only to destroy his alliances, be it to the multitude of parties he has
    served(?), his friendship with Mulroney and the recent power plays he's
    instigated within the P.Q. His alliances have always been temporary.
    
    
    Now with this referendum, his first defeat, he's managed to help rip
    Quebec apart and stress out the country. He's the catalyst, the
    focal point of all these energies, the son of the "sorcerer's apprentice"
    (Mulroney). 
  
    I suspect he'll stay in Ottawa until the Feds offer something to
    Quebec. It won't make any difference what it is, they will reject it
    anyway and setup a referendum-election which they can win and Bouchard
    will slide comfortably into the premier's chair without a scath 
    looking evangelical, so "C'mon down to Jesus!".
    
    In the meantime, they'll either use an interim leader like Chevrette,
    Landry, or Beaudoin or import a someone like Marcel Masse(the most
    expensive minister Mulroney ever had)who speaks french and english very
    well and knows the federal system inside out, particularly the perks,
    or maybe Masse will join the Block after St-Lucien becomes premier,
    who knows? 
    
    As far as discussing with these people? What's the point? They
    aren't interested, they'll $hit on anything the Feds or Provinces
    come up with.
    
    Canada must survive and look out for itself now and act quickly to
    preserve certain federalist territories within Quebec, and insure a
    link to the maritimes. "This will never go away" so said Bouchard.
    I believe him, if they win, it's time to divide Quebec. There is no
    other -political-  solution. I respect and want them to have their own
    country, but I intend to keep mine. 
    
    The Outaouais region:
    
    I will never accept Quebec citizenship, nor do I have intention
    of leaving my roots, my native region to these people, neither do
    80% of the people in this region, we are the mirror image of the
    Saguenay, Lac St-Jean area, as militant in our views only we support
    the federal side. All the political mechanisms are in place for
    L'Outaouais to say, goodbye to Quebec. All of the mayors on both
    sides of the Ontario/Quebec border were standing on stage at the
    NO rally at the Museum of Civilization in Hull, Quebec on the eve
    of the referendum sending a clear and dry message to the P.Q. and B.Q.
    
    I do not share the insular vision of tribalism that some separatist
    silently believe in. Some of these true colors have surfaced periodically
    during the referendum campaign, Pierre Bourgeault made racist comments
    prior to the referendum and was kicked out, Bouchard spoke of the need
    for more white, french speaking babies and was completely forgiven for such
    a remark, he was tired and may have had a freudian slip. Parizeau was not
    forgiven for his remarks after a little drink maybe? After all only
    angels can make such statements. I understand he may have been heart-
    broken but what a way to finish your political career. 
    
    What I resent the most, is, because I embrace Canada as my country first
    and am french, well, that puts me in R.O.C. category. Our 50.6% of the
    vote here on October 30th didn't mean a damn thing to these people.
    They carry on like it was a dress rehearsal. They need to hit a hard rock
    in reality at some point in time and I sincerely hope the federal forces 
    stand up to them and tell them this is what Canada WANTS for a change. 
    
    If they go,
    
    I guarantee you the separatists can kiss the Outaouais region goodbye,
    with it's national park, well over one billion $$$ in federal properties
    including McKenzie King Estates which this former P.M. gave to the
    canadian people, and the Canadian Museum of Civilization and a lot of
    qualified engineer's and bilingual professionals, a nice big chunk
    of land. 
    
    The Outaouais is more linked to Ontario than to Quebec, the latter has
    always ignored us. The Outaouais region has always been termed by Quebec
    city politicians as the "a$$hole of Quebec". Well listen well as
    someday the a$$hole will speak.
    
    In order to woo us their way, the Quebec Govt' built us a wonderful
    cultural institution that will help develop and sustain our french
    culture, a gambling casino, thank you so much. We are near the end
    of the century and we still have to go through Ontario to get to
    Montreal, so excuse me if I feel closer to my neighbors in Ontario
    than I do to my compatriotes in Gaspe. We work together and intermesh
    our lives everyday with no shots fired, I speak french and english and
    often interchange words. Some people in Quebec pity me for this,
    it is so sad, I have been assimilated by the great english vortex.
    
     I guess the separatist are scared to become this way, to mix with the
     english or people of other cultures, as english and others have to do,
     to take a good look at the planet we live on, and ask themselves what
     they can contribute, and get with the program.    
    
    Also say goodbye to Cree and Inuit territories which is nearly half the
    province in the north. This is not fiction, Canada will enforce their
    borders and I'm sure the Cree can cut a power line in the middle
    of a cold winter's night.
    
    Canada will not let the atlantic provinces go that simply, they will
    surely secure access to the maritimes. This would cut off direct access
    of the U.S.A. to a new Quebec. There was a strong showing of NO in the
    regions that follow along the U.S. border.
    
    Montreal might not want to be a part of this new nation, they
    may decide to hold a referendum of their own and decide to join
    the Outaouais and form a new province called "Quebec West".
    This would leave the east of Quebec and north shore to form their
    new country. If a referendum were passed in Canada on this right now,
    I would vote YES! 
    
    If the separatist don't pay the debt, the R.O.C. might seize some
    assets like Hydro power.
    
    So why can't they see this. I know many sovereignists personally, people
    I respect because I find them warm and intelligent. But when we
    talk about this they don't seem to see this side of things. They don't
    want to hear it. There not leaving with the furniture or the whole
    pie. Borders are made to be re-designed. Jean Chretien stated last
    year, "Quebec's borders will remain the same, as long as it remains
    a part of Canada".
    
    It's has if they've been granted immunity from the laws of economics
    and human nature and see the protection of a savior in Bouchard.
     "You won't do this, it's just a bluff".
    
    
    One thing's for sure, they're in for some big surprises and a hard time
    from the R.O.C. and the R.O.Q., stay tuned, a colorful time is about
    to begin. It's amazing what one man can accomplish, when he puts
    all of his time and energy into it and doesn't have to pay for
    the consequences. 
    
    
                                        Mes deux francs quebecois,
    
                                                Salut
    
                                                 J.P.             
                                          
                      
    
    

    {applause}

    Quite a note!

    
    re: 966.34 Thanks Glenn...

    J.P.
    
    >>This would leave the east of Quebec and north shore to form their
    >>new country. If a referendum were passed in Canada on this right
    >>now, I would vote YES!
    
     I believe this to be the real answer for both sides. Too bad, because
    I don't see the powers that be in either Quebec or Ottawa settling for
    a compromise. In politics it is all or nothing. 
    
     Thank you for your continued support of the great country we call
    Canada J.P. If not for you and like minded people, the xenophobes would
    have won the day.
    
    							Derek.

    Unfortunately I beleive that in the final analysis JP is correct and
    that there may never exist in Quebec a government that is willing to
    truly negotiate with the Feds and the other province on true
    constitutional change, with the give and take necessary for true
    negotiations. If the bottom line is a new country then there is no room
    to compromise and to renew the Canadian federation.
    
    Of course that would be a tradegy.
    
    However if this is the reality, then Canada must ensure that the
    Maritime region is not cut off from the provinces west of Quebec. If
    the Cree voted to stay in Canada would they have the territory that
    would enable Canada to remain contiguous ?
    
    Mike

    <more applause>
    
    Thanks for the refreshing note - it's encouraging to see that not all
    folks in Quebec buy St-Lucien's brand of politics. Too bad the "north
    shore" concept likely will never be voted on - by the _whole_ country....
    
    Pete

    reg that there may never exist in Quebec a government that is willing
        to truly negotiate with the Feds
    
    Isn't what Bourassa did during Meech Lake and Charlotte town, or
    Levesque did before "la nuit des longs couteaux"?
    
    Richard

    
    
    Sorry for grammar mistakes in 966.33
    
    The Quebec that you and I knew prior to October 30th is dead.
    The tension of the referendum has only accomplished one thing.
    The division of the embryo into sibling rivalries. It's all down
    hill from here, what a sad situation. The separatists took Le Quebec
    to the edge and broke it in two. Quebec is finished! How incredibly
    stupid and short sighted.   
    
    The racist remarks Parizeau made on referendum night disgusted just
    about everybody. The 5% ethnic vote the P.Q. worked so hard to achieve
    will most likely dissipate like vapor and they'll have to start all over
    again in this department. What disgusts me even more is if Parizeau
    did decide to quit if he lost, doesn't this demonstrate the compassion
    he has for his people? He help fabricate this crisis, and now because
    the situation doesn't suit "L'Intendant",  he washes his
    hands of it and walks away, how typical,  what a man! Let the little
    people pick up the pieces. At least Rene Levesque had the courage
    to govern the province after the 1980 vote.
    
    Well,  hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more! 
    
    In time Lucien will do the same to his people if he cannot fill
    his own personal-political ambitions. When all this milk goes sour,
    people will be broken hearted, emotionally wrenched, full of hate
    and anger, now that's a country. Lucien will quietly leave the stage
    like a great actor, an academy award winning performance and will
    be considered by his own as the Louis-Joseph Papineau of the twentieth
    century in Quebec, a true Patriote. 
    
    His historical epitaph will probably read, he took us all the way
    to the very gates of heaven, we reached out to touch our glory then
    all fell back down on our asses.  
    
                                              Salut J.P.
    
    
    

    >Quebec is finished! How incredibly stupid and short sighted...
    
    JP:
    
    	To me, that statement is "incredibly stupid and short sighted"...
    
    I agree with most of your statements in previous notes, but not this!
    
    Ray.
    

    
   >  reg that there may never exist in Quebec a government that is willing
   >         to truly negotiate with the Feds
    
   >     Isn't what Bourassa did during Meech Lake and Charlotte town, or
   >     Levesque did before "la nuit des longs couteaux"?
    
    In 1972 Bourrassa accepted in principle the Victoria accord which
    granted Quebec it's Veto, more teeth than Meech or Charlottetown's
    "distinct society". Bourassa flew back to Quebec and began to flip
    flop on the issue caving into nationalist pressures. Hence 23 years
    later, here we are. I'm not placing the blame squarely on him but
    an opportunity was missed and in consistency with his personality,
    he said yes then said no, then said nothing. 
    
    If I remember well or someone can correct me if I'm wrong,
    Lucien Bouchard left the PC caucus over Meech and crossed over to the PQ
    at a very crucial time for the accord, thus helping scuttle it.
    
    He is one of the main reasons why Charlottetown didn't go through,
    Charlottetown was defeated in Quebec by popular vote. He and Parizeau
    fought it to it's death with the help of an old foe. 
    
    Trudeau was against the Meech concepts because he believed it would
    have made the country ungovernable since 10 provinces would have to
    agree on anything to make a change. In the history of confederation
    the provinces have agreed only once, all at the same time, Meech Lake.
    The current constitution uses a 7/10 rule. Seven provinces and a certain
    percentage of the population are required to make a change, sounds more
    logical to me. 
    
    As far as the "la nuit des longs couteaux", I've always had a problem
    with this interpretation of events. Maybe because I believe that in
    life, nobody screws you, you screw yourself.
    
    The P.Q. in 1980 sincerely never intended to sign anything with
    Trudeau even if the deal would have been cast in gold.
    Levesque made a pact with seven provinces, a deal that they would
    present a common front against the Feds, Davis and Hatfield.
     
    They assured each other that no one member of the pact would make
    a move without consulting the others. 
    
    During the nationally televised negotiations at the Conference center,
    Trudeau handed a carrot to Levesque and stated something like, 
    "you like referendums, let's have a Canada wide referendum". Levesque
    jumped at the opportunity to the surprise of the seven premiers he
    signed in blood with.  Man you should have seen the look on these guys
    faces. Without being malicious, he broke his word and lost their faith
    and was left isolated. The 7 rpovinces turned against him.  
     
    
    To help things even more, all the R.O.C. premiers were staying at
    the Chateau Laurier Hotel with their staff. Things being what they
    are, people like to mingle and have a drink.
    
    The PQ staff, arranged for Levesque to stay at the Plaza de la
    Chaudiere hotel on Montcalm street in Hull, I guess to make a 
    nationalist statement of pride, us and them.  So Levesque was
    isolated from the rest of the delegations and didn't get to play
    cards with everyone else.
    
    So the "Night of the long knives" should maybe be renamed to
    "The day I shot myself in the foot!". The P.Q. went to Ottawa
    and weakened Quebec. To save face, conjured up a story called
    "la nuit des long couteau".
    
    Ironically today, Bouchard stays at the same hotel as Levesque
    did when he's in town. One thing's for sure I'd take Levesque
    back over Lucien any day. I found Levesque more democaratic, more
    honest, less manipulative and not self-centered. 
    
    Levesque himself rejected independence in 1984 while Lucien pursues
    the "Final Solution".                  
    
                                              Salut J.P.
    
    

    Re; Meech & Charlotetown (how do you spell it anyway?) and we can back
    to Victoria before that:
    
    The problem is that when the Government of Quebec is at the
    negotitating table, they have to worry about the Separitists at home -
    they always have to worry about getting enough to shut the Separatists
    up!  How many times has something been agreed to or almost agreed to
    and then torn up because the "folks back in Quebec" let the negotitator
    known it's not acceptable...  Look at the Victoria Conference where
    Quebec was given a veto, Robert Bourasa agreed, went back to Quebec and
    then called the PM a couple of weeks later and said "So, sorry, but
    it's not enough!"  By the way, this the actual truth of how Quebec lost
    its "historic veto" - Canada didn't take it away, Quebec turned it
    down!
    
    Anyway, at the negotiation table, you're always really dealing with the
    hardline separatists because no Quebec government really has the guts
    to accept a compromise...

    
    
    Ray,
    
    
        >Quebec is finished! How incredibly stupid and short sighted...
    
    >   JP:
    
    >        To me, that statement is "incredibly stupid and short
    >       sighted"...
    
    >     I agree with most of your statements in previous notes, but not
    >     this!
    
    
     
     I meant finished, as in, united as one, as a family that share
     the same values and vision. That to me is what's finished.
     That part of Quebec was destroyed October 30th. We are now divided.
    
    
                                               Salut J.P. 
    

RE: .40 >>The Quebec that you and I knew prior to October 30th is dead.
    >>The tension of the referendum has only accomplished one thing.
    >>The division of the embryo into sibling rivalries. It's all down
    >>hill from here, what a sad situation. The separatists took Le Quebec
    >>to the edge and broke it in two. Quebec is finished! How incredibly
    >>stupid and short sighted.

I don't like to get involved in political debates anymore but the above hit 
home. I was born in Quebec but raised in Ontario.  My mother tongue is 
french. I went to french schools, grew up listening to french radio and tv 
and reading french newspapers.   I've seen first hand the destruction spread 
by the Separatist movement as I watched it destroy my own family (I come from 
a family of nine kids).   In the late sixties, I saw two uncles get into a 
fist fight over the issue.  They did not talk to each for years.  Just last 
Friday,  a brother and a sister of mine got into a very heated argument over 
the referendum.  I think irreparable damage was done to their relationship.

My first recollection of Separatists goes back to 1960 when I first heard of the
FLQ (Front de la Liberation du Quebec).  At that time, the FLQ were blowing 
up the big red mailboxes found on street corners putting peoples lives at 
risk.  They chose mailboxes because of the symbolism...the service was known 
as Her Royal Majesty's Postal Service or some similar name. The FLQ was made 
up mostly of university students.  Many viewed them as some kind of Robin 
Hood group and many young french quebequois and quebequoises thought of them 
as heroes, as the liberators.  They were compared to the french resistance of
WW II.

The FLQ came very much to the forefront again in October of 1970 when they 
kidnapped  British Diplomat James Cross and MPP Pierre Laporte.  Again, some 
people (including in my own family) viewed them as heroes.  But then they 
killed Pierre Laporte, one of their own!   That was a grave mistake that 
basically spelt the end of the FLQ in Quebec.  

Coincidently, shortly thereafter,  the Parti Quebecois was born.   Many of 
the FLQ followers joined or supported the Parti Quebecois.  Some of them
were very visable in the last referendum campaing. Radio Canada even 
interviewed Paul Rose. In the last referendum campaign, the true colors of 
the PQ emerged.  The comments by Bouchard (we need more babies from french 
women) and Parizeau (us and them...) truly reflect the mentality of 
Separatists.  Parizeau said what many of that sixty percent that he kept 
referring to really believe.  Hell, wasn't it a PQ government that initiated 
a program where the government was giving money for giving birth.  The more 
kids you brought to this world, the more money you got!  Yet at the same 
time, they want to control immigration.  After Monday, it's pretty obvious why!

When will the 'pure laine' Quebecois and Quebecoise wake up!  You can't live 
in a vacuum!  The battle of the Plaine d'Abraham is long past.  There is 
nothing to be gained by fighting it again.  La France abandoned the French 
settlers then and it still does not give a damn about them.  The Separatist 
movement is a barrier to expantion of the mind.  When I saw the faces of the
Separatist on television as the NON side was gaining I felt so sad. Honestly, 
it reminded me of the faces of the German soldiers and the German polulation 
in those old films dating back to the end of WW II.  They've bought into 
a bad deal. 

Many years ago I believed that French Canadians had a legitimate cause.  This
was probably due to my overexposure to the Quebec press and in particular 
Radio Canada.   Somehow, I was able to liberate myself from that mentality.  
A few years ago  my brother in law half jokingly said that I was a 
"maudit assimil�".  I responded that maybe so but at least I was living 
"mauditement content"  or damn happy for those of you that don't read french.
What I ment by that is that I no longer had that burden on my shoulders or in 
my heart.

French has been allowed to flourish within Canada.  The Canadian Constitution
and the Canadian Government have protected the french language and the french
culture very well. Anybody who denies that, has blinders on. Just look at 
the number of Anglo Canadians who are fluent in french and the richness of
the arts in Quebec.   Contrast that to what happened to the French that 
settled in Louisiana.   

Unlike J.P., I still have hope.  I believe that Parizeau has set the
movement back significantly just as Laporte's killing set back the FLQ.
I'm sure that many who were duped by Parizeau and Bouchard will not repeat
the same mistake.  It is now clear that the issue is Separation not Sovereign
Association.  And lets not forget that 40% of "us" the Pure Laine 
Quebequois and Quebecoise voted NON. That's a rather significant minority.
The Separatist leaders have said that they want another referendum soon.  
This shows contempt for the people.  People are tired of it.  Even those who 
voted OUI have got to be tired of it.  Emotionnally, they've been pummelled.  
A vote soon might be good for the Federalists.


Bernie. 
    

    
    
    re: .45, Bernie I still have hope, that's why I strongly believe
    more than ever, that Canada must take a real stance for itself and
    stop trying to accomodate the selfish desires of people who are
    still living in a century past. The separatist are the children
    of Duplessis, les nouveaux Jesuites. They want to run their country
    like just like a damn church. I want to live in an industrial nation
    and modern society. I'm not going to set my mind back fifty years to
    help them along with their xenophobia and hope that someday, they suddenly
    wake up and stare at life from a more objective point in space.  
    
    We have to get past this childish english and french bull$shit. This
    is the end of the twentieth century. We don't have time to screw around
    with this no more. We need to repare and prepare our society for
    the next century. It's time to get the show on road so that globalization
    doesn't canabilize our society because we couldn't respond to it's 
    challenges because like dogs and other mammals we were too busy
    marking our territory. 
    
    So my message to the separatists is E V O L V E or stay like barking dog.
                                       
    
                                                    Salut J.P.

    J.P.
    
    How do we Evolve? 
    
    Don't tell me we should stay like this, that's not evolution that's
    stability.
    
    Should we create the NAEC? (North America Economic Community), that's a
    global kinda of idea. Let's say Canada, USA and Mexico, one money,
    right of free circulations of good and people, etc.
    
    Richard

    Re: NAEC -
    
    This would surely be vetoed by the Republic of Quebec - can't have all
    those non-francophones and ethnics with money freely able to migrate to
    Quebec, not to mention they wouldn't want to encourage francophones to
    leave Quebec...
    
    Quebec will either be assimilated into North America or become a
    northern bannana republic, which they seem well on the way to becoming,
    given the actions of its top elected officials over the last few weeks!

    RE: Banana Republic
    
     Don't forget the election irregularities. People who throw out votes have
    no right to call themselves democratic. 
    
    						Derek.

    
     J.P.
    
        > How do we Evolve?
    
        > Don't tell me we should stay like this, that's not evolution that's
          stability.
    
        Isn't stability with some changes better than a reckless
        ride to nowhere? Have we been so opressed in Canada that it
        warrants slamming a recking ball into the lives of 27 million
        of it's people? Do we really need this adventure? In most
        countries they take out the guns for this kind of stuff.
    
        I'd rather avoid any step in that direction no matter how
        far fetched or how distant in time it may be. We aren't immune
        to social strife, we just haven't experienced it yet, so
        we take what we got for granted. A country is built over a long
        period of time. Just because you don't have everything you want
        right now doesn't mean that other generations won't move in
        that direction with a fresher frame of mind and new ideas to
        go with it.  
    
         
        Let me ask you this? Do you honestly believe that the present
        generation of B.Q and P.Q. want to truly create a society for
        all Quebecers regardless of ethnic backround? I don't believe
        this is so. There are and have been too many signals to the contrary
        over the past three decades. There have been many signals before
        and during this referendum. I don't want to associate everyone
        in the separatist movement as a fascist or a racist but I truly
        believe some very good people are being misled and are going to
        be really heart broken if this pot boils over. 
    
        I think one of the biggest obstacle to evolution in Quebec is it's
        media.
    
        They have replaced the catholic priests of 30's, 40, and 50's.
        The Quebec media is a powerful vehicle that blankets Quebec
        francophones from the outside as the church did. They breast-feed
        the siege mentality to their compatriotes. They always use the
        words "les anglais", "others" or "le Canada Anglais" to describe
        social situations. The english are always a threat. We will be
        sucked into a black hole, our culture will disapear. We are 
        surrounded by a sea of english.  Sound familiar to "Nous irons
        tous aux enfers". Well give me a bucket cause I want to puke! 
    
        This is intimidation of the worse kind. My aunt shot herself in
        the head in the 50's because a priest giving a sermon in a church
        pointed to her when he refered to women in Quebec who "empechent
        la famille" prevent themselves for becoming pregnant. He would go to
        her home and lecture her, till she had a nervous breakdown.
        Well didn't le seigneur Bouchard say that women in Quebec are not
        having enough white babies just recently? Doesn't that sound familiar
        to what I just stated.
    
        I don't know, but Levesque, Trudeau, Leger, Pelletier all fought
        for dear life against Maurice Duplessis and the church? They
        fought to break us out of this rut. Can't you see that we're in 
        a way, heading back to this time. Can't you see that the B.Q. and P.Q.
        are not the representation of the modern francophone? They are
        more an ugly reminder of that insular world disguised with
        flowers and peace signs and oh yes, a flamboyant young leader
        who speaks with fire-brand passion about the injustices of the
        past and he's so emotional when he goes at it. Are we scared
        yet? 
    
        But under the sophisticated surface, their's a little ugly truth
        to it all,  "les estie d'anlais tabarnaque", that's what it's all
        about. It's a hell of a principle to build the foundation of a
        new country on and surely doesn't represent a step in the right
        direction of evolution so I'll take Chretien's minor changes.  
    
        I don't believe that nationalism based on the discrimination
        of other cultures is a very good starting point for any new country.
        My great uncle fought in a world war against this kind of crap.
        I believe that if you want to be a modern francophone, you get
        rid of this crutch, you bury the hatchet and you contribute
        with others. to a bigger whole and get with program.
          
        A few weeks ago the PLO and Israel signed a mutual aggreement
        after years of war. They have been watching this referendum 
        closely. An reporter from Israel said on RDI that if we can't
        live together as french and english, " what possible hope do we
        have?" So Canada's being watched by the world right now, has
        a reputation, is part of the G7, has a seat on the UN security
        council, is part of NAFTA, NORAD. Seperatist leaders don't have
        an agreement on any of this. They got nothin' and can't give you
        nothin', because there is nothin'. 
    
    
                                            Respectfully J.P.
    
        
     
       
        
        
    
        
    
       
        
    
        
        
    

Story in today's paper by Allan Thompson, SouthamStar Network, quoted in its
entirety:

Just days before the referendum, the Bloc Quebecois appealed to Quebecers in
the Canadian Armed Forces to transfer their loyalty to Quebec armed forces the
day after a Yes vote.

On Oct. 27, Bloc Quebecois Leader Lucien Bouchard's office sent a press release
to all military bases in Quebec, calling for creation of a Quebec military and
the beginning of a new defence staff the day after a Yes vote.

"The day after a Yes...Quebec must create immediately a defence department, the
embryo of a defence staff and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian
Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces," said the release, dated
Oct. 26.

The statement said a Quebec military would need "all Quebecers presently
enlisted in the Armed Forces" and promised they would keep their "rank,
seniority and retirement funds as a means to ensure a better transition."

It also hinted that the government of a sovereign Quebec would be counting its
pennies, quoting Bloc defence critic Jean-Marc Jacob, the MP for Charlesbourg,
as saying "It is unrealistic to think ofmaintaining or creating a costly
military (army, navy and air force) similar to the Canadian structure, given
the current economic situation...especially in light of the Quebec population's
marked tendency to favor a more peaceful option than the rest of Canada in
defence matters."

A Defence department spokesperson confirmed the press release.

As opposition leader, Bouchard is privy to special briefings from the Defence
department and the current chief fo defence staff, Gen John de Chastelain.

A spokesperson for Bouchard, Isabelle Rondeau, stressed the release represented
Jacob's position, not that of the Bloc caucus, and said the party has sometimes
distributed MPs' policy positions on Bouchard's stationery.

"For the moment it's not the Bloc position, it's Mr. Jacob's position," Rondeau
said.

"That doesn't mean Mr. Bouchard dose not endorse the position, but for the
moment it's Mr. Jacob's position."

    Dear J.P.
    
    It seems that you beleive that I am for a seperate Quebec, well let me
    tell that I am not. But I do beleive that Canada cannot survive
    the way it is right now for another 100 years, so we have to do
    something. We have started with the NAFTA agreement something that could 
    evolve into the NAEC, the questions is how far should we go? I know I
    will get bash for saying this, but I consider myself as a North
    American before anything else, my values, belief are mostly North
    American. If I look at the political changes that are happening
    in Ontario, Alberta and at the Federal level compared to the political
    changes that are happening in the USA, you can say that we all are
    moving towards a common trend. I am not saying that the movement is good
    or bad, I am just saying that we all are going into the same direction.
    A North American direction.
    
    As you have maybe notice, I was very much influenced by the idea of the
    EEC. The creations and evolutions of super economics blocs (the Europeen 
    one, the North American one and the Asia one) are the way to go.
    
    
    Richard

Having lived for two years down here in Colorado Springs, my beliefs about
the differences between Americans and Canadians have been both confirmed
and strengthened.

It is easy to believe that Canada and the USA are very similar ... but there
are vast differences of culture, attitude, politics, religion and so on that
separate the two countries, apart from just a line on a map.

The America you see on television is only a glimpse ... and it is quite
inaccurate of the majority of people.

Things you associate as the same are quite different.  Concepts of freedom,
liberal thinking and so on are vastly different from what you are used to.
To be perfectly honest, a lot of American's would have a hard time with
Canadians ... not understanding them ... Canada would be a very distinct
society in N. America!!

Many of the problems negotiating and getting the Free Trade Agreement (the
original treaty) are actually attributible to the different socio-political
thinking of the two countries ... not just the simplistic ideas of Canada's
social programs.  The social programs were the tip of an iceberg of 
mis-understanding.

Concepts of things like crime and punishment here are different.  The more
I see, the more I believe that Canadians would not wish to be another of
the United States, nor do I believe that Canadians would be accepted en masse
by Americans.

So, the idea of considering ones self as North American is not particularly
useful.

Stuart

    
    >  Dear J.P.
    
    >    It seems that you beleive that I am for a seperate Quebec, well let
    >    me tell that I am not.
    
         I never explicitely said you were a seperatist. And if you were,
         I would admire your courage to speak up in this notes conference.
         I'm sure there are some out there who don't care to speak for
         their side maybe because they don't want to ruffle any feathers
         or just don't have any valid points to support their arguments.
         Nevertherless discussion of various perspectives is very healthy.
         So if I've offended you in anyway please accept my apology,
         I don't believe you are a seperatist.
    
         It was the "night of the long knives" that triggered my reaction,
         I've always believed this to be a nationalist invention to cover their
          own failure. . The P.Q. in at the 1980 conference never intended
         to negotiate in good faith. Why is this so hard to believe by the
         majority of Quebecers and why do Quebec journalists still hang on
         to this creation and use it like a venomous poison?
    
          Through the years the Quebec media has "e-promed" "la nuit des
          long couteaux" as a defacto-historical event in Quebec and has
          brainwashed people into thinking this really happened. 
          Nobody dares to speak against the media-priesthood in Quebec in
          fear of receiving fifty lashes and a one way ticket to hell.
    
          Helene Jutras, recently published a book(Le Quebec qui me tue)
          of dissenting opinion to the PRAVDA Quebecoise. Members of the
          press immediately labelled as a heretic.
          Daniel Latouche of "La Presse" called her an idiot because she's
          sees life from a non-nationalist perspective. She voted yes 
          because she wants them to leave.
    
          As far being a north american. I've always considered myself
          to be one and I don't have a problem with that. I just don't
          want the violence that is plaguing other countries to come
          up this way. Life's to short.
    
         You mentioned we needed change. Maybe give more power to the
         provinces. How much more power do they need? Give Quebec "distinct
         society", I don't agree in giving one group or another a special
         status based on ethnic grounds. I believe Quebec's gotten a good
         deal from participating in Canada in 300 years of history. Every
         province is distinct, every person is distinct and together we form
         a unique blend.
        
                                                           
                                                 Salut J.P.    

    re: .53
    
    Margret Atwood once called the US-Canadian border the longest one way
    mirror in the world, we look south and see the Americans, they look
    North and see themselves. 

>    Margret Atwood once called the US-Canadian border the longest one way
>    mirror in the world, we look south and see the Americans, they look
>    North and see themselves. 

I see where she is coming from, but I don't think that is strictly true.
Canadians look south and see something like themselves ... and Americans
look north and see something like themselves, but the  border seems to
not pass on the things that are different.

Some Americans already see Canada as just an extension of themselves ...
and Canadians look south in envy ...

The differences in ideology are quite distinct once you live in both ...
of course different areas of the US also have different ideology too ...

One of the things that really astounds me is an American's concept of
freedom ... and yet I see more laws and threats of law here than I ever
did in Canada.  The one I find disturbing is the threat of law ... "Doing
or not doing X is punishable by whatever".  You see this all over the place
and it is most troubling.  You almost get the impression that the "law"
believes that everybody is GUILTY before proven innocent ... and you must
be guilty of something ... they just haven't figuredout what yet.  It is
a perfect environment for faillure.

Stuart

    I don't know, Stuart... I think some people on both sides of the border
    see the differences and miss the similarities, others as you say don't
    pick up on the very real differences.. This is probably true of most
    borders.
    
    To get back to the topic, I can't see how erecting a new border between
    Quebec and the rest of Canada can help but increase misunderstanding. 
    Certainly the appearance of a frontier where there was none before will
    anger many.
    
    I know my own patience with all this is fraying... I read in the paper
    today that Bernard Landry sent a letter to foreign embassies the day of
    the referendum, urging them to recognize the "new state."  Landry's
    browbeating of an immigrant hotel clerk the night of the vote
    discredited him as effectively in the eyes of non-separatists as
    Parizeau's rant did Parizeau, but I'm sure there are many in Quebec who 
    feel all these antics are perfectly justified, normal behaviour.
    
    I think I'm beginning to move toward the position of those who say that
    if we do end up eyeing each other suspiciously over a new border, it
    won't be in the same place as the current provincial border...
    
    -Stephen

    I am a Canadian living in the USA and a minority in both countries and
    despite the many economic similarities between the USA and Canada, I
    also see the great differences in ideology that makes the countries
    different. But since economics is, probably more than ever, the driving
    force defining society the point of view which looks at a "North
    American" perspective is perhaps more valid than ever. However I think
    it would take a while for me to start viewing myself as a North
    American that also takes into account Mexico.
    
    On a seperate note (no pun intended) I am disappointed to see some
    evidence of Quebec nationalism turning xenophobic. I once believed, and
    would still like to, that French Canadians were among the most
    enlightened groups in Canada in fighting bigotry etc. Hopefully these
    recent sentiments just reflects the disappointment that many Quebecois
    feel from having gone through a very tough internal struggle.
    
    Regards
    
    Mike
                                                

>    different. But since economics is, probably more than ever, the driving
>    force defining society the point of view which looks at a "North
>    American" perspective is perhaps more valid than ever. However I think
>    it would take a while for me to start viewing myself as a North
>    American that also takes into account Mexico.

While the economics are a binding force between Canada and the USA, it is
also very divisive at the same time.  People here keep looking North at
Canada's social programs and say that this is such an integral part of
Canadian Economics, and look at social programs with such distaste that
they want nothing to do with Canadian economics either.

Alas, a lot of the speculation that Canadians considered when the Canada
US free trade treaty was designed, that the US wanted Canada's resources
is probably true ... If it wasn't for resources, Canada probably would
not be one of the USA's largest trading partner.  There are enough on-going
trade disputes to confirm this.  Canada is TOLERATED as a trading partner
because it is physically close and the language is the same ... not because
we are economically best of friends.  (Look at the Canadian dollar value to
prove that!)

What does this have to do with a separate Quebec ?  Plenty ... US companies
doing business in Canada seem to resent the costs of doing that business,
for meeting the costs of Canadian Social Programs, for meeting bilingual
labelling and so on now.  THere are FAR more ties to Mexico and other Spansih
speaking countries than there ever are to Quebec.  Businesses are very
afraid of Quebec doing what it does to the rest of Canada in terms of the
impediments it currently places in the way of conducting business ... they 
fear a separate Quebec will be far worse.  

Bottom line ... Quebec in NAFTA ?  No way!

At the same time Americans fear how they will have to deal with a
dis-united Canada ... Not just for now ... but what about the future ...
Will they hvae to deal with the Countries of BC, Alberta, the Maritimes
and so on?  Will these separate countries look to become part of the
USA ? (There is a very strong WE DO NOT WANT THEM syndrome here.)

So a separate Quebec could spell economic disaster not just for Quebec
but for all of Canada.

Stuart

    
        Speaking of being different. I think the next statement explains
        very clearly what Quebec separatists values are based on.
    
        In TIME magazine, November 13/95 issue with Rabin on the cover.
        There's a section on the Quebec Referendum.
    
             A quote in big bold letters from Lucien Bouchard's 80 year
             old mother:
    
             "I've never met an english-speaking Canadian. But I'm
              sure they are just as nice as any other foreigners."
    
              How deep...
    
    
                                               Salut J.P.

Chretien is proposing the following:

Distinct society for Quebec, resolution in the House of Commons.

Veto for 4 regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, West

Transfer of power over manpower training to the provinces, without the money!!

It looks as though he will not touch the constitution, most likely because the
PQ will not agree to anything he offers anyways.

/Mario

    While I recognize that Quebec is distinct, I can't support a Distinct
    Society resolution or constitutional recognition until someone explains
    what it means in terms of powers and rights (I make the same statement
    re: Native Self Government).  If distinct society gives rights to Quebec
    or (Quebecers) that diminish the rights of other Canadians, then I
    would oppose it.  To put it more bluntly, if it moves Quebec towards
    equality with the rest of Canada (as opposed to being 1 of 10
    provinces), forget it!!!
    
    I'd support a limited veto for Quebec, but only if it was strictly
    applied to "cultural" issues such as language and civil code.  There
    should not be a veto that could affect any issue that could be constued
    as "constitutional".
    
    If the feds shouldn't be into something like manpower training, they
    shouldn't send any money to the provinces unless national standards are
    set and the money is to help the "have nots" achieve the national
    standards.  If the feds have zero to say about something, then there
    should not be an obligation to send money - if the provinces want
    juridiction, let them raise the money to support their desire for
    power and control.  On the other hand, if a province wants the feds
    involved (collect taxes explicitly for a program and to administer that
    program), that's fine as long as the arrangment is EXPLICIT.
                                                                

    The "distinct society" resolution in the Parliament, as I understand
    it, would be a purely symbolic recognition that Quebec is different,
    specifically with respect to language & culture and the civil code. 
    It shouldn't affect the constitutional distribution of powers at all.
    
    The commitment to enforce a constitutional "amending formula" requiring 
    consensus among 4 "regions" of the country (Ontario, Quebec, the West,
    and the Atlantic provinces) doesn't change much either; realistically,
    any constitutional change in the short term would need at least that
    much consent. And B.C. and Alberta, which consider themselves more than 
    just elements of a big Western "region," have already expressed discontent.
    
    The business about transferring responsibility for manpower training
    programs to the provinces while continuing to fund the people using the
    programs directly from Ottawa isn't clear to me at this point.
    
    It looks like Chretien is trying to make what reasonable concessions he
    can without getting involved in constitutional discussions.  They may
    have some symbolic significance, but whether they'll be perceived as
    amounting to anything without being "constitutionalized" is debatable.
    
    Of course, constitutional discussion with the separatist government of
    Quebec is impossible, and they will do what they can to destroy the
    credibility of anything the feds do.  And the deficit-driven
    "decentralization" of federal programs which appears to be looming may
    well produce major federal-provincial arguments over money that will
    put these issues ina new context, very soon.
    
    -Stephen
    

    sorry peoples I did my essay on TQM instead. Thanks for the help it was
    interesting reading the comments here.