From: mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:08:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, CA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: teal

In article <=16-W3_@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
[discusses how Russia backed off of land claims from the Ukraine, and
how the world does not support Serbia's land claims from Bosia-Hercegovinia]
>How is Canada/Quebec significantly different from these cases?  How

The major difference I see is that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were
essentially artificial unions whose peoples did not enter into on their
own free will.  The unions were involuntary and maintained by a force:
communism. Once communism fell, nothing was left to keep them together,
dissolution was natural. Canada is certainly an artificial creation,
but arguably one that 6 out 10 provinces entered into freely, the other
4 being created by the will of the original 5, but still the
inhabitants of the 4 were supportive of Confederation. In the case of
Canada, only one province appears to be seriously agitating for
release, unlike the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, were every nation but
one wanted out. Certainly it is not a situation where every province
but Ontario wants to leave Canada, at least not yet.

All ten provinces entered into the union freely. All ten provinces
therefore share in the assets and liabilities of the union.  So for one
thing, Quebec has its share of the national debt to deal with when it
separates. An IOU is likely not acceptable to the other 9 plus Ottawa.
I'm assuming that the statesmen of Canada and Quebec can work this out
amicably. That leaves land ... the revenue producing variety.

>will we get the Quebecois and/or the world community to back our
>claims to (what is now) Quebec territory?

English speaking Quebecois arguably have as much right to separate
Mount Royal from Montreal and Quebec as the whole of Quebec does from
Canada.  Quebecois will have a glorious opportunity to start their
nation debt free, yielding a AAA rating from Standard and Poors.  Our
creditors *are* the world community, and would like to paid more than
75 cents on the dollar. They will most certainly back our claims, or be
willing to assign 1/4 of our debt owned to them to Quebec ... in pesoes
from the People's Republic of Quebec.

Anyway the preceding is a just a devil's advocate argument for significant
changes in the borders. However, I do strongly believe that the border
between Labradour and Quebec is one of things that would absolutely
have to be settled. Otherwise at minimum relations will be hampered
over this nit the way Japan and Russia argue over those islands (forget
the name).

>>>Was it perhaps co-authored by Slobodan Milosovic?
>>
>>Who?
>>
>Did I screw up the name so bad, or are you just totally out of it?
>(Hint:  consider Yugoslavia.)

I depend on CNN for my news, having decided that newspapers are bad for
the environment, and Sun doesn't seem to pick up clarinet, so I 
rarely see his name in print. I understand your hint.

>...mark young

	-Mike Eisler
	mre@Eng.Sun.Com
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7427 can.politics:8341