From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Toronto Sun: another case of paranoia???
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:01:41 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BxKsxr.GB8@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tdwebste@sparta.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster) writes:
>Your parallel does not correspond. 

Of course it corresponds.

>The separation of Quebec from Canada would break Canada up, so Canada 
>would nolonger exist. Two new countries would be formed neither of which 
>is Canada. If one part maintained the name it still would not be Canada.

I can argue that before the british decided to steal Canada from the
french, Canada WAS what is now Quebec (and even Ontario and the
Maritimes). It didn't stop them from using the word "canada" for the
new country.

>There is no reason why a compromise can not be made within a
>federation suitable to all of its members. It may be difficult, but does
>not need to be impossible.

Agreed, except that it such a compromise appears impossible. There is
a hardening of the positions, and greater and greater intolerance
towards Quebec and francophones

>Also people within Quebec can be divided into two groups, separatist and
>federalist. 

That's a bit simplistic. There are separatist who don't want to have
anything to do with "anglo"-canadians. They are sovereignist who wants
to keep an economic alliance with canada, they are federalists who
wants more autonomy for Quebec. The distinction between the last two
groups is sometines very small. They are also a few
federalists-a-la-Trudeau who are totally against any giving of powers
to provinces.

>I don't remember where I said I only like Quebecois resembling
>anglo-canadians. In fact I would be disappointed if french-canadians
>resembled anglo-canadians. Separatist are a different matter, they are
>like enemy agents bent on the destruct of the country. They are
>equivalent to an agressive foreign enemy. On the other had I have no
>problem with cooperation with peaceful foreigners.

The so-called "separatist" are just as quebecois as the others. Most
of them are not ennemies of anyone: they just want to control their
own destiny. (And don't give me that "Trudeau/Mulroney/Chretien are
quebecois stuff). If the quebecois decide to separate (and it's up to
the quebecois to decide, no one else), there is absolutely no sense in
trying to make it harder than it is. Both sides have much more to gain
by making the transition as smooth as possible. One has to be crazy to
think that making threats will prevent a secession (at least, in the
long run). Quebec bashing/Canada bashing have the opposite effect of
what is intended by the people who do it.

>>Canadian behaviour is like a kid doing it his way and not taking into
>>consideration to what his brother's saying.
>
>You may have a point here. However using separatation as a threat to
>obtain one's way is counter productive. After a while the threat becomes
>hollow, leaving you no choice but to carry it out. It am not saying that
>you may not have legitament concerns, but this is surly not the way to make
>them heard.

The PQ is and never was using separation as a threat. It is its
legetimate option. Bourassa, however, with his ridiculous threat of
separation (that everyone in Quebec knew was bluff) created a lot of
dammage. It made Quebec look like a jerk for the rest of Canada. It
was totally irresponsible from Boubou to use such a tactic.

>I am going to assume that you want this family to work. Do you think 
>holding one's breath is very productive? Quebecois have the precarious
>situation of desiring to maintain a unique culture in media cultured world.

I see only one possible solution, that could be one any of the two
sides of the "independance" issue. A strong centralized federal
government will not work for Quebec. It's up to the other province to
decide if they share enough in common to make such a system work for
them. Assymetrical federalism would be the only hope for a unified
Canada if the other provinces decide that they need such a unity in
Canada, a unity that Quebec is not interested to. If, on the other
hand, the other provinces decide that the Confederation of Province
approach is more appropriate, then a major decentralization of power
to the provinces will be needed. Hard-liner separation would be of
course very dammageable, for both sides, and is what will happen if
the current trend continues. CSQ underestimated greately the feeling
of alienation that took over quebecois after the rejection of Meech.
It is not forgotten. The other possible side of the solution  would be
a smooth transition to independance, with of course major cooperation
between the two on grounds of common interest. This is a sort of
extreme assymetrical federalism. Personnaly, I think that this option
will eventually prevail, but I am not shutting the door to the other
ennumerated, provided that they are done well.

>I also agree that blaming Quebec for all the problems of Canada is a
>little rediculous. Just as rediculous is Quebec blaming all of its
>problems on Canada.

RIdiculous indeed.

>Unfortunately I have to agree we are not so very tolerent after all. It
>applies both ways.

Yep. The first step in mutual respect is to see that intolerance
exists. 

Ciao!


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics