From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:33:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bt9Awo.5Fn.1
	<1992Aug19.195714.5565@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Aug19.195714.5565@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

   In article <wL7qPB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

   >Let's admit it,  we are ALL foreigners here, except the Aboriginals.

   I thought of that last night, while watching the National's coverage of the
   Tuesday conference, during which they outlined the divergent viewpoints of
   Alberta and Quebec.

   Bourassa holds that Canada was the product of "two founding
   nations," while Mr. Getty's Canada is an equal federation of member
   states. The Quebec view seems flawed in that it completely ignores
   the contributions of the First Nations, and makes absolutely no
   allowance for the changes wrought by the expansion of the nation
   beyond French and English Canada.

   If the Americans had held views similar to that of Mr. Bourassa, it
   is likely we'd be subject to a stream of complaints and threats to
   succeed from any one of the original thirteen colonies, since their
   political representation, like that of Quebec, was constantly
   'watered down' as the nation expanded across the continent.

Those feelings did exist, but then they fought a war, killed lots of
their compatriots, and settled down to nation building.  (Apologies
for the extremely gross oversimplification here.)

   Personally, I hold with the Alberta view, which seeks greater
   equality. If I understand what Mr. Bourassa had to say last night,
   it seems to be that Quebec should be entitled to fifty per cent of
   the reins of power, regardless of population shifts, new provinces,
   or anything else. I reject that assertion completely, in favour of
   a bicameral system of representation that includes both population
   (Commons) and geography (3E Senate). If the voters of Quebec are
   unable to budge from Mr. Bourassa's view of Canada, then it's time
   to wish them well and cut the cord.

My view sits somewhere in between, but let me put myself in the
pro-Canada Quebec nationalist view (which Bourassa is currently
emulating).  Quebec represents 25% of the population.  Why should it
only get 10% representation (eventually as small as 8%) in one of the
houses of Parliament?  Geographic isolation is NOT what distinguishes
Quebec from the other provinces.  (Which is the problem that the
pro-EEE provinces are trying to address.)  Quebec speaks a different
language than the other provincial governments.  Most Quebec residents
already consider themselves a (ethnic) nation with a (political)
nation.  Quebec is different because it considers independence an
option!


Had Canada "developed" the Prairies (Man, Sask, and Alberta were
developed by the Federal government) consistent with what some
Canadien nationalists had argued for in the decades following
Conferederation.  We would have 6 or 7 bilingual provinces right now,
and the secession of Quebec would have far less currency.


There are a number of political futures for Canada.  Perhaps the best
understood would have Quebec becoming its own country with none but
diplomatic representation in Ottawa-sans-Hull (yet another
hard-to-imagine scenario).  It would then be in a clear position to
negotiate at the same level as the Government of Canada.

However, such a situation, in my mind, is a lose-lose scenario for all
the factions in (what is now) Canada.  The Quebec public does not want
to go that far (at least not yet) and the rest of the Canadian
populace seems willing to make certain accomodations to keep Quebec in
Confederation.  I happen to believe that Quebec's distinctness has a
better future within Canada than without.  I look towards the 15-20%
of French Canada outside Quebec, as well as the portions of
francophilic "English Canada", as communities that derive direct
benefit from having French Quebec remain in Confederation.  Also,
Canada without Quebec is not "Canada" anymore.  Someone has already
mentioned that it becomes much more (nominally) Protestant.  It would
probably be officially unilingual.  Depending on how you look at it,
either Ontario would have far more influence, or outer Canada would
have more influence.  Certainly the entire political makeup of the
country would change; Reform would not longer be viewed as a regional
party, for one.  (I've already said how I would have trouble
recognizing either Canada as my country.)  I also believe that two
Canadas would have less (total) international (diplomatic and
economic) influence than one Canada.


The other (political) extreme would be to have Quebec be a province no
different than any other.  Of course, Canada has never functioned
under such a model, so I don't completely understand why it is brought
up with such seriousness now.  Even in the most opportune of times
(perhaps the first half of the 1960s?), a Quebec much like any other
province would have demanded a more bilingual Canada (this was the
route taken by Trudeau) than what we had then, have now, or likely
will ever have.  WHENEVER A WESTERNER EXPRESSES AN OPINION AGAINST
ENGLISH-FRENCH BILINGUALISM, THEY ARE HELPING TO CONVINCE QUEBEC
NATIONALISTS (not synonymous with Quebec independentistes) THAT CANADA
IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THEM.  (In this sense I am very much a
Trudeau-ite.)


One possible way to appease both factions is to further decentralize
power.  Canada is already one of the most decentralized federations on
the planet, and it is unclear what the affects further
decentralization would have.  However, the majority of Canadians seem
willing to allow a certain amount of increased decentralization, by
granting Quebec certain powers that the other provinces could request
if they wanted (thereby keeping a certain amoung of provincial
equality).  Recent polls taken of Quebecers show them willing to make
certain concessions to remain within Confederation.  A majority of
Quebecers have a personal identity that includes being Canadian.



I have ignored the First Nations so far, frankly because I have a
poorer idea of how Canada should be changed to more directly include
them.  Granting provincehood to the regions of the North is a good
start.  An Inuit Nunavut is like a French-Canadian Quebec in my mind:
a homeland within a country.  But what do you do with the native
communities in the southern provinces?  Someone mentioned granting
them powers equivalent to municipal governments.  Last time I checked
municipal governments had virtually no power that the provincial
governments did not explicitly grant them.  The communities are to
far-flung and small to have full-fledge provincial status granted to
them.  The so-called "third-level of government" outlined in the
recent accord is very vague.

Another issue is that there is no one voice for the First Nations.
The Metis, for instance, clearly have a different agenda than the
Assembly of First Nations.  Whatever their opinions, almost all
Quebecers of all (non-Native) persuasions recognize Bourassa as their
representative.

In my mind, a final constitutional solution to the issue of Native
self-government is premature.



--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA