Conference kaosws::canada

  Suddenly it matters to you what the rest of Canada thinks about what
    Quebec thinks ? What brought on this sudden change ?
    
    Scooter

    OK Jean, I'll bite ...
    
    I am almost becoming resigned to the idea that Quebec will seek some
    sort of separation from Canada ... not because of the Belanger Campeau
    commission, not because of the behaviour of the rest of Canada, but
    primarily because of the behaviour of the current Federal government.
    
    I think that were we to have had a more popular Federal government, the
    tide towards separatism from Quebec would not be so strong.  The
    Federal government unfortunately reperesents too many things to too
    many people.  To Quebecers, it represents the rest of Canada.  To the
    rest of Canada, the Federal government is seen time and time again to
    bend to the wishes of Quebec.  To Westerners, the Federal government
    represents Ontario and Quebec.  To Easterners, it represents everybody
    but themselves.
    
    What all this basically boils down to is that we have a Federal
    government that has not fairly represented the peoples of Canada for 
    more years than I care to think about.  I long to see a truly
    representative government ... not one that represents solely the
    politics and whims of any one particular party.
    
    So, I think it is time we all separated from Canada ... in a sense.
    The question then remains, has too much damage been done thus far to
    build a new Canada, inclusive of Quebec?  And the other question that
    is probably more relevent, do we have any leaders who care about more
    than their own back yard to want to build a new Canada ?  Chretien may
    not be well liked any more, but in my book, he got one thing right ...
    "Come on Canada, we have a lot of work to do!" and I hope it's not
    too late.
    
    Stuart

	I think its a horse that has been beated to death. Every five
	years there is the big separation scare. I think people
	are treating this one like the boy who cried wolf too many
	times.

	I think most people are too worried about more important
	things right now. They worry about job security, the rising
	costs of living, and a third world war.

	I refuse to worry about Quebec any more, let the people
	who get paid the big bucks get an ulcer about this
	reoccuring nightmare.

	I for one have my life to get on with.

	Charlie

    Quebec is paranoid.  There is too much effort expended to "ensure"
    Quebec retains its language, culture, and identity.  Laws (like Bill
    101) serve only to alienate people.
    
    No language, culture, or identity was ever preserved or saved by laws
     - only by people.  It's time for Quebec and its people to shed this
    insecurity and inferiority complex and get on with making the whole 
    country function as a unit.  Or if people don't believe in a united
    Canada, get lost.  All of the above applies equally well to B.C.,
    since many people there are convinced that anything east of the
    Rockies is not worth even acknowledging, since "those damned easterners
    don't care about the west.
    
    If I seem a little severe and bitter, it's partly because I was born
    and raised in Montreal, and have since lived in Ontario, Saskatchewan,
    Alberta, and B.C.  (In Alberta, since the days of the oil boom and the
    National Energy Policy, they say "Oh Yeah, Easterners; they came, they
    took, they left."
    
    So in summation, we Canadians are a sorry lot:  little or no national
    pride, petty bickering between artificial "factions", unable to govern
    or elect people who can, taxed to death, ....
    
    Let's wake up, smell the roses, get along, and keep this great country
    whole.  I for one believe everyone loses if Quebec separates.
    
    Meech Lake had nothing to do with assuring Quebec's place in
    confederation, it was just more concessions to a province with too many
    already.  Either we have a strong centralist federal system, or we just
    split into 10 (or 12) units, and fire those jerks on the hill (Senators
    first!!!).
    
    Otto.
    

	Well said Otto, but put on the old fireproof suit ;-)

	BTW hello and long time no see,

	Charlie

    I found it interesting to hear Jacque Parizeau on the Journal last
    week.  He made separation sound so simple ... gee we just get a few
    people to sit around and sign a few papers and voila everyone leaves
    happy.
    
    This guy is DREAMING!!  Actually I know he realizes it is more
    complicated than that, BUT the image of it being a trivial matter is
    what he is projecting so that the people of Quebec and the rest of
    Canada go on continuing to believe that it is a trivial matter.  His
    objective is separation, so clearly he and the other leaders of Quebec
    separation paint a rosey picture.
    
    I'm trying to think of any country in recent history that amiably
    separated as Parizeau suggests Canada could.  None come to mind. 
    Europe moves toward closer integration and most of Canada keeps
    dreaming of building more walls and accusing each region of screwing
    one another.
    
    Y-e-c-h!!!!!

    Re .4
    
    Did you say "Wake up and smell Des Rosiers"?
    
    ;-)

    I am gladd to see that there is still room for a joke in a topic such
    as this.
    
    I now live a long way away from my 'adopted' homeland, and my blood
    always goes cold when I hear about Quebec wanting to be a separate
    country. I have been away from the political scene for too long, to
    enable me to comment on it, but I can speak from my heart.
    
    I would be very sad to see ANY province break away from Canada. To me,
    Canada was a melting pot of many nationalities showing the world how
    to get along with each other. I remember everybody pulling together in
    all the neighbourhoods I grew up in, and I especially remember  how
    well we were treated in a village in Quebec ( I think its name was Val
    Cartier, near to Quebec City ).
    I hope that this is a scare, and nothing comes of it. I also hope that
    someone rises above the fog of mediocraty in Government, and emerges to
    lead a strong Federal Government, and lead the WHOLE country to a
    future where all are seen to be, and are treated as, equals.
    
    
    Regards,
    Wayne.

    Stuart,
    
    	I agree with you.  There is too much meddling from the central
    governement, and in areas that are not in their field of competence. 
    They have managed to trow us into a recession to keep prices in check
    in southern Ontario.  Not one of the major political parties has done
    anything for the country except to make sure they keep in power...at
    ANY cost, and I don't trust (at least now) Canada as a whole to look
    after the problems afflicting it whitout doing undue harm to my
    province AND it's peculiarities (just look what they did to the CBC as
    a recent example).
    
    Jean
    
    

    Jean,
    
    Are my eyes deceiving me ??? You agree with me !  History in the
    making!
    
    Anyway, just to put my response into a bit more perspective ...
    I happen to believe in a strong Federal system .... BUT .... a
    system that is representative of the people.  I wouldn't care (too
    much anyway) if a federal government made decisions that favoured
    one area or another, provided they were made for valid reasons ...
    Earning political brownie points, patronage, buying (or seemingly so)
    votes are none of them, valid reasons.
    
    I also believe that the provinces in some areas have too much power ...
    and I'm not looking at any one province.  I believe in an effective
    second house that should be used both federally and provincially as
    a house of second thought.
    
    Canadians I would trust to make the right decisions for the country as
    a whole.  Most Canadian politicians I don't trust.
    
    It's a shame that these talks on the future of Quebec and Canada are
    going on now in these dificult economic times.  They will be terribly
    and emotionally tainted by the state ofthe economy.  Note how Mulroney
    has attempted to take the bull by the horns again over the
    constitution to take focus off the economy.  The trouble is he forgets
    that he is in a china shop!
    
    Stuart

    The coverage of Jean Chretien's appearance before the B-C commission
    was not detailed.  It seems the press are more after impression and 
    emotional reaction than content.  
    
    Most of the commission members (it seems to me they are already committed 
    to separation) said that they wanted to hear specifics from Chretien. 
    Surely Chretien is not in a position to state what he would "bargain
    away".  He is looking over the edge of a steep cliff!  
    
    I agree with some of the respondants to this note that Chretien might 
    be perceivedas "yesterday's man" or "Trudeau's man".  However he will 
    react to the situation - he must!  He can't afford to be hated in his 
    own province.
    
    I favor a strong central government because I have seen really
    stupid acts by provincial governments - not that the feds haven't 
    blundered.  People like Bill VanderZalm would never last on the
    national stage, yet they do amazing damage while they rule
    provinces.  (Take our late forests and fisheries for example). So
    while on the cultural side Quebec should have every right to protect
    its language, the management, promotion of standards and basic rights
    need to be safeguarded centrally.  While Chretien may not have all the
    answers, I think it is his committment to the federal system and 
    knowledge of Quebec that won him the leadership.  I know that won't
    appeal to pequistes, BQ's and seperatists.  I'm hoping that the
    majority of non-committed quebecois will put aside the emotions
    surrounding Meech, and get down to serious reform, starting with
    the senate.  With a reformed senate, all provinces can have more
    of a veto in Ottawa, and we may not need a special deal for quebec.
    
    And I think most of English Canada could put aside their cynicism if
    THERE WAS ANY HOPE FROM ANY SOURCE!!  At the moment there doesn't seem
    to be.  We all take responsibility for that.  Every time I see a bunch
    of jerks putting up a protest to defend "English Rights" in Victoria
    B.C. I mutter, and lament for the future of our nation.
    
    Sorry for rambling on, but I too am searching "pour la reponse".
    
    
    Pieter
    

    Prostitution isn't illegal in Canada, in most provices, anyway (don;t
    know about Quebec ).
    
    Scooter

    Well I NEVER!

    I really have to smile at some of the statements made about "Quebec
    protecting her language, heritage rhubarb, rhubarb,rhubarb....".
    Anybody who becames a new resident in the province of Quebec has to
    send their children to a French-speaking school. When my grandparents
    emmigrated from Czechslovakia in 1933, they went to Montreal. They
    tried to get my mother and uncle into a French school, but the French
    said that they wouldn't accept them because they couldn't speak French.
    So they had no option but to send them to an English-speaking school
    where my mother said they were welcomed with open arms and the teachers
    did everything they could to help them pick up the language i.e.
    English as quickly as possible. Talk about ironic. By the way my mother
    and uncle picked up French playing with kids on the block and are both
    fluent French speakers as are most of my family still living in the
    province. I live in Ireland now and am very proud that I can speak
    French pretty well. I am also doing everything I can to encourage my
    children to learn to speak French. 
    
    Now I here that there are fights breaking out in quite a few French
    schools in Montreal because native Francophone Quebecers get peeved
    when new non-Francophone Quebecers speak their native tongue or English
    in the hallways and schoolyards. What right do they have to expect
    people to speak only French when they are outside the classroom. Quebec
    is supposed to be a democracy. People are supposed to be able to speak
    whatever language they want to outside the classroom. My God even an
    idiot knows that forcing (or legislating) people to speak a language is
    not exactly condusive (spelling?) to nurturing a proper attitude to
    learning a language.
    
    I'm a native Quebecer and I feel that Quebec has gotten more than most
    provinces whenever it "negotiated" or "bargained" with the federal
    government. And it never did anything in return to quell
    anti-separatist or encourage pro-Canadian feelings. I understand
    completely Quebecs fear of losing it's language, heritage etc etc..
    but I feel it was never done in a positive way. People who couldn't put
    up with this were told that if they didn't like they could leave and
    many (who didn't really want to leave) did. At least they were able to
    go to another part of the country. People in Eastern Europe didn't have
    that luxury. Quebec has been spoiled over the years and I for one can
    understand why western Canada gets totally pissed off.
    
    Ted. 

    Now Ted, if you were to still be living in Canada, and said what you
    just did, you would be pigeonholed as a "threat to Canadian unity".
    
    In non-Quebec Canada, it is not politically correct (ie. the news media
    won't like you ) to not do everything humanly possible to prevent
    Quebec from leaving the Canadian Corral.
    
    Scooter

    Well said, Ted.  I also was denied access to French-language schooling,
    and that was in the 1960's!  Having just returned from Western Canada,
    where my son received no french in grades 1 & 2, and was on a 4-year
    waiting list for French immersion (good old Alberta, one French
    immersion school for 650,000 people), we made the choice to save him
    from failing a year and enrolled him in English school.  He struggled
    at first with French (3 times a week for 1 hour), but is beginning to
    improve.  For those who don't understand Quebec's educational system,
    as long as the child has attended at least 1 full year in English in
    another province, they are entitled to English language education in
    Quebec.  This is quite a change from the previous policy.
    
    In any event, Ted's point is well taken:  neither denial nor force are
    the right attitudes to foster rhubarb, I mean language acquisition.
    
    My French is mediocre, my German (mother tongue) atrocious, and of
    course my English is English: an illogical, butchered language.
    
    Would that there was only one world-wide language, or that we were all
    taught at least 6 before age 6!
    
    Otto.

    Ted,
    
    	Sounds like you're doing whirly-twirlies with rhubarb. My hat's off
    to you! I never would of thought of it.... but it must be as easy as
    pie!
    
    
    Glenn

		M E R R Y  C H R I S T M A S 

		   J O Y E U X  N O E L

    
    
    
      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    BONNE ANNEE AUSSI   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Ted.

    Sorry Jean but that's a pretty week excuse. I'm sure that the very same
    could be said for the English Catholic side of the School Commision. In
    Montreal the School Commission ran/runs both the English and French speaking
    schools, I should know I taught for them for three years.
    
    Ted.

>BONNE ANNEE AUSSI

Who brought the Australians into this discussion?

Oh, you'll get back in your usual spirits as soon as the holidays are over.

I did the last 1/2 of my high-school in english and we weren't 
allowed to speak french on school grounds, and yes this was in Quebec.
The idea is, school isn't only in the classrooms but ANYWHERE on
the school grounds. In English high-school, most students were from
a FRENCH background and since we weren't allowed to speak much in
class, outside of the classroom was the best place to speak comfortably.
Therefore if you were *caught* speaking french you were asked to 
speak in English ONLY. So it works both ways, too bad most of youS
are only looking to bash Quebeckers like Oprah bashes men. :*)

Andy

    you don't get it do you ?
    
    Anywhere else, outside of Quebec, nobody tells anybody what language to
    speak outside of class - *except in language immersion schools*, where
    the language being learned is only one allowed. And people attend these
    schools by choice (well, sometimes by decision of parents, but it
    amounts to the same thing).
    
    >> Forcing << people to speak only one language, by regulation, rule,
    or law is morally reprehensible, whatever the language.
    
    Scooter

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand. MAKING THEM talk the schools
language is for the good of the kid. You see, some kids in English
High could barely speak english at all, therefore whether they'd be
at recess or in the cafeteria teachers would *force* them to speak
english because they wanted the kids to learn faster. They use to let
them speak french but they'd then graduate barely knowing how to
speak, oh yeah they could write it...That's why they enforce it. You
don't have that problem in Toronto because EVERYBODY is english, but
in Quebec you've got to make these *special* rules to force french
kids to speak english in English schools and English/foreigners to
speak French in French schools. Most people from Quebec, if not all,
feel it's a great idea but you being an outsider seem to be screaming
for justice....since when has democracy lived in highschools? :*)


Andy

Andy,

This thing about being obligated or forced to speak English on school grounds
is news to me, and I attended the same English High School you did during
basically the same time.  Did something change when I left the school?

I'd like to make a point clear which I think the media didn't as much as
they should have about the proposal to force students in a French school in
Montreal to speak french.  This proposal only applied to official organized
school functions such as sporting events (i.e. the coach speaking to his
team, people in the crowd could still speak whatever language they wanted),
and social events.

My 2 cents worth.

Mario

    Andy,
    
    Where did you go to school? I went to a large English speaking high
    school in Ville St. Michel in the east end of Montreal and there were
    lots of French guys in the school and in my class and the teachers
    never said anything to them about speaking French outside of class.
    Everyone was free to speak whatever language they wanted to outside of
    class. The Italian guys often spoke Italian to each other in the yard
    or in the corridors. 
    
    In our French classes only French was spoken which is logical by me. My
    only complaint was that we only had French once a day which wasn't
    enough for the like of me to get good at it. I tried watching the
    French TV stations as much as possible as well. Worked on it with
    French speaking friends outside of school but no matter how hard I
    tried something I said always had them rolling on the floor in stitches
    of laughter. My problem was everytime I went to speak French I couldn't
    stop thinking in Anglais. I admit I was bad at French and probably
    would have been at some other language too but even though I went
    through a lot of angst I understood the value of being able to speak
    French and I have always thought French was lovely to listen to. It's
    one of the more beautiful spoken languages in my opinion.
    
    One idea I like here in Ireland is sending your children to an Irish
    speaking part of the country for a few weeks during the summer
    holidays. The kids live with an Irish speaking family and are only
    allowed to speak Irish. Some people though are a bit harsh because I've
    heard too many instances of kids being sent back home because they
    uttered a phrase in English. Seems more like coercion to me. I agree
    that the child should be told not to speak anything but Irish but it
    takes time for anyone to become immersed in another language. I think
    that would be a great idea in Quebec for kids that don't attend French
    immersion schools. 
    
    I was watching a TV programme on the teaching of Irish here in Ireland
    and they Irish were very impressed with the way French was being taught
    in Canada, especially the French immersion schools in Quebec and
    Ontario. So there can't be that much wrong with it.
    
    I agree that speaking French should be ENCOURAGED outside the classroom 
    but not FORCED. Human nature being what it is however we tend to
    take the easy way out so sometimes teachers may have to ENCOURAGE
    students a little more strenuously than they want to.
    
    Vive les deux langues.
    
    Ted.
    
   

Ted,
	When I said: *force* I really meant ENCOURAGE. Couldn't 
remember that big word :*). In no way was this forced upon the kids,
but they suggested it. 

Mario,
	You have a short memory. The guys in your grade were 
mostly English, mine were mostly French. Hence I noticed it 
more ('encouraging' English ONLY).

Andy

	Andy,

	I saw the same thing happen in my school in Quebec. I remember
	a teacher taking aside two students speaking French in the
	hallway and saying this to them.

	"I don't really care that you speak French but your parents
	put you hear to learn English. Try to speak only English
	while on school grounds and you might find learning English
	alot easier."

	Those students stopped talking French, not because they were
	forced to, but simply because the teacher made sense.

	Other teachers were not so nice (and maybe even a little bigoted)
	and bluntly told French speaking students that they were not
	allowed to speak French.

	I really do not know what the _law_ or _rule_ of the school was,
	but I think the first teacher I spoke of had the right idea.
	I little diplomacy goes a long way with your common sense.

	Charlie

    So, it looks like even the Belanger Campeau commision can't come up
    with a uniform concensus or recommendation and (only) just managed
    to link them into an almost workable guideline to give back to
    Robert Bourrassa, which sounds just like the jist of what he was
    suggesting before the Allaire report anyway.
    
    Or, to put it another way, Quebec looks almost as divided on this
    whole issue as the whole of Canada is.
    
    It is definitely time for a Federal election to elect a government
    with a prime mandate of unifying our country, and who we believe
    are capable of doing that.  Before the PM gambles the country away
    with yet another roll of the dice.
    
    Even if we do not achieve unity in terms of everybody signing a
    constitution, at least getting everyone to agree to try to work
    towards a concensus and towards some harmony has go to be the right
    step.  Even if the country falls apart, we still have to do this,
    so why not do it NOW.
    
    Stuart

    Well, what do you think ?
    
    Most of the rest of Canada believes in a strong Federal government,
    a universal charter of rights giving Canadians the same rights and
    freedoms independent of the province they are in, a relatively
    equivalent division of Federal/Provincial powers in every province,
    and that, on an emotional level, that if you live in Canada that you
    are a Canadian first and then you are for example an Ontarian.
    
    Now it seems consistent that Quebec doesn't like that playing field
    and wants different rights and freedoms for its people, that it wants
    a totally different balance of federal / provincial power, that it
    wants powers that would severely weaken the Federal government and
    lastly that Quebecois see their being Canadians as an unwanted accident
    that they'd rather forget.
    
    Given that scenario, what would your reaction be ?
    
    Stuart

    I watched Belanger on Canada AM this morning trying to clarify what the
    term "seperation" ment ... the one part that I personally found
    offensive, was a comment regarding the setting up of a committee to
    study proposals submitted from the rest of Canada to avoid the
    referendum .. what the hell makes him think the rest of Canada is going 
    to submit ANY proposal !!
    
    .39 summed it up exactly the way that I feel  -  its Quebec that is
    looking for "special" treatment .. No way ! Be a Canadian first then be 
    a Quebecer.
    
    /T  

    Yes but what about the effects of the Grand Canal? Should this not help
    keep Canada together?
    
    Glenn

    I do love the way the way the Qubecois banter out that time worn
    phrase "but you just don't understand".  It is very reminiscent
    of dealing with a depressed person --- no one else can understand
    because they believe that there is no valid comparison between
    their own situation and any one else's situation.
    
    Even if we were intimately aware of the situation, we could not
    understand.  I believe that this is a false barrier, just like
    a depressive uses.  I don't think that the Quebecois *want*
    Canadians to understand how they feel.  The very idea that someone
    else understands their situation means a loss of their identity.
    So, here we are in a dichotomy ... 
    
    There is no real way around this ... Canadians have argued with
    Quebec for years that we do understand and tried in many ways through
    an extensive policy of bilingualism and multi-culturalism to
    foster their culture.  But it is *never* enough ... it never will
    be enough.  Canada has always tried to incorporate Quebec, but
    Quebec has always wanted to stand aloof.
    
    The only way out of this is for Quebec to decide to want to join
    Canada or to leave Canada.  This idea of waiting for Canada to
    make them an offer they cannot refuse is just a time bomb until
    the next the next crisis and we go through this all again. But by
    that time, there will be so little else that can be given to Quebec
    without dismantling all the country that what appears to be the
    inevitable will finally happen.
    
    Frankly, I think it's over ... if not sooner then only a little later.
    It will let Quebec decide what they really want for themselves and
    whether they can truly do it, and it will let the rest of Canada
    decide how they really want to run Canada without the added pressures
    of coping with a seperatist culture.  (Yes the west is separatist, but
    that is politics ... Quebec is a mind set).
    
    Stuart

    I wish our politicians had the spine to clearly put the cards on the
    table vis-a-vis "Sovereignty Association".
    
    Sovereignty means separation ... political, economic, currency, etc. 
    It means negotiating your own Free Trade deal with the U.S.  It means
    starting from scratch wrt currency, foreign affairs, trading, etc.
    
    It DOES NOT mean you can have all the powers you desire but still be part
    of Canada.  I like the author of the previous note feel (sadly) that
    there is little room for compromise here and that separation is
    inevitable given the current line of thought in Quebec ("We're waiting
    for an appropriate offer from the rest of Canada...").  If the rest of
    Canada does not understand Quebec, then surely Quebec also does not
    understand the rest of Canada if it believes we can be held to ransom
    with the threat of gives us ALL we want or we will take our marbles and
    go home.

    Re .44
    
    It's not that I don't think that there is room for compromise ...
    There is some, albeit limited room for compromise ...
    
    BUT and this is a big BUT to Quebec to compromise is to lose, to
    the rest of Canada to compromise is to lose.  This is a lose-lose
    situation.  This is why Quebec said it's Meech or nothing -- no
    changes.  It's why many provinces had such strong reservations about
    Meech and one took strong steps to oppose Meech.
    
    What we need is a way to put something together in a win-win scenario.
    And until such time as Quebec and the other provinces put forward 
    Canadian and Provincial constitutions that are not only good for the
    provinces, but also good for Canada then we are still going to be
    losers.
    
    This is the short-coming of most of the Commissions that have been and
    are looing at the country.  They are trying to tinker with what exists
    and the provinces are looing at what's in it for them.
    
    If there is to be a chance of saving the country then it requires the
    will of the people to support the idea of a single country with all
    its diversities.  A lot of the country is willing, but too much of the
    country is looking at this as a what's in it for me, rather than what's
    in it for Canada.  It requires a resolve to be Canadian, and frankly
    the picture as I see it now is that there are major portions of the
    population, whether they are in Quebec, the Maritimes or the West,
    that don't have that resolve.  In some parts of the country that
    resolve has occured because of greed and political maoeuvering.  In
    Quebec it has occured because of culture (and its related emotions)
    and again greed and political monoeuvering.
    
    Federal political ineptitude and a faltering economy for the last 15
    years have resulted in a situation where politicians cannot be
    trusted and the Quebec politicians have played on the emotions of
    culture and said to the Quebec people ... we can do better than
    the Feds if we manage ourselves, and moreover, we can preserve our
    cultural identity.  It's a perfect scenario for glory minded
    politicians.
    
    I believe it can be done, that Canada can be rebuilt.  It needs some
    fresh faces with clear messages.  It needs clear plain methodical
    resolve.  It does not need another roll of the dice.  It does not
    need deadlines to say "do-it-or-else", but rather deadlines to say
    "ok ... that isn't going to work ... let's find another way".
    
    It needs a willingness to build on proposals to win, not to compromise
    on proposals to lose.
    
    So, it still comes down to one thing ... do the Quebecois want to
    join with other Canadians, and build a new country called Canada
    to which they can proudly call themselves Canadians and Quebecois
    or do they want to go it alone and proudly call themselves
    Quebecois alone?
    
    I'd love to help build a new great nation, with or without Quebec
    (preferably with), but to tinker with a stumbling crumbling nation
    is no use at all.
    
    Stuart

    This makes me want to do whirly-twirlies while wearing my left over
    snow bags in the Grand Canal!

    Of course it does ... I wouldn't have expected it to do anything else
    for you ! :-)
    
    But then "You don't understand ... you cannot understand ... etc"
    makes me want to do whirley-twirlies with a gross of frozen mucklucks
    and wish the curse of the albatross on the speaker!
    
    Stuart

>>    But then "You don't understand ... you cannot understand ... etc"
>>    makes me want to do whirley-twirlies with a gross of frozen mucklucks
>>    and wish the curse of the albatross on the speaker!


    	If Meech had been ratified, maybe I could have understood...

    

    Naaaaaaa!

    Definitely Naaaaaaaaaaa! :-)
    

    Re .45
    
    Sorry Stuart, can't fully agree with your logic, from friends and
    business contacts that I have in western Canada the feeling is not one
    of "what's in it for me", kind of more like "not this shit again".
    
    Except for Quebec the rest of Canada has a win-win situtation, we all
    take our quota of immigrants, help the have-not provinces with transfer
    payments, support unemployment etc .... IF there ever is a referendum
    and the nationalists lose, it will only be another 4 or 5 years before
    it comes up again with another referendum .. from that respect I have
    to agree with you, it will happen sooner or later.
    
    I followed the Persian war fairly closely and my parents were in the US
    for the month of Feb., and the pictures, reports, articles etc all
    exhibited a National pride - yellow ribbons, cards, etc.  My parents
    were telling of driving thru towns with every house, tree, car with a
    yellow ribbon,  that's symbolism which shows "I'm damn proud to be an
    American"  what do we ever do in this country to swell national pride ?
    We haven't had a leader in the past 20 years who has done squat ... 
    The Quebec situation should never have been allowed to get this far.
    
    My biggest fear is that Quebec with get their cake and eat it to !
    
    /T

    Re. 46
    
    >This makes me want to do whirly-twirlies while wearing my left over
    >snow bags in the Grand Canal!
    
    I have been looking all over for the latest models that you can wear -
    do you have an advance seed-unit or are they finally available in
    stores ??
    
     ... in the Grand Canal!   Does this mean that it floats or is it the
    ice breaking model ??

    Yes, Yes and No.
    

    <<Yes, Yes and No.

Through a paradox (a fake fox with a hare-lip), Glenn has
managed (at great mental risk) to copy my well-known trademark
of conciseness.
    

    Is there someone else up there we can talk to?

    re whereever the last serious note was ....
    
    >    business contacts that I have in western Canada the feeling is not one
>    of "what's in it for me", kind of more like "not this shit again".
    
>    Except for Quebec the rest of Canada has a win-win situtation, we all
>    take our quota of immigrants, help the have-not provinces with transfer
>    payments, support unemployment etc .... IF there ever is a referendum
    
    Oh true, everybody's fed up with it all, but I'm talking about
    politicians here sitting at a negotiating table ... not the public.
    I'm quite sure the public, if they believed their politicians would
    listento them would be very willing to sort this out.
    
    It certainly looks like Quebec out of Canada could be a win-win
    situation ... except the Maritimes are now completely isolated ...
    Ontario will be more concerned with itself ... the west will feel
    even more isolated and western separatists will have a stronger
    weapon to separate "If Quebec can ... We CAN too!"
    
    Now who wins ?  No more Canada.
    
    Stuart

    >politicians here sitting at a negotiating table ... not the public.
    
    My misunderstanding .. I agree.
    
    >Now who wins ?  No more Canada.
    
    Scary thought  ... but somehow I believe that it will never come to
    that - hence my comment about getting and eating their cake to, we have
    a bunch of pussy-whipped politicians, they will give in.
    
    Jean, where are you ? give up on this discussion?  Jean, I've not seen
    in any of the press a summary of what seperation means (I have my views
    as to what it should include, but ..), can you summarize what you think
    the "average" Quebecer interpetes this as?    I'm looking for a
    position on Defense, Currancy, social programs, what ties to the
    Federal Gov't ?, emmigration, impact to free trade, etc.
    
    /T

    Canadians will never understand Quebecois ... 
    Ontarians will never understand Newfoundlanders
    I'll never understand my neighbour
    I'll never understand my wife                    :-)
    
    What I am saying is that maybe "understanding" isn't what is required
    here ...  
    
    "Acceptance"  "Valuing Differences"  "Tolerance"  these are what is
    required and regretably few are doing any of it.
    
    We've thrashed the matter of cultural preservation to death before in
    here but to summarize my position, separation and legislation will not
    achieve what is wanted ... It will result in a cultural island, unable
    to relate to the rest of the world; it will result in isolation; it
    will result in more and more protectionist acts in terms of both
    culture and trade.
    
    Stuart

    -1:
    
    What do you think is the benefit for the Baltic States to separate
    from the Soviet Union?
    
    What is the benefit for Germany to be reunited?
    
    What is the benefit for ...................?
    
    
    Sure Canada is not to compare to the Soviet Union of old, sure there
    are also very different reasons in terms of economics and politics, but
    the bottom line all over the world is, that cultural entities have the
    natural tendency to decide on their own faith, that they do not want to
    be influenced by foreign forces, be they military imperialism on top of
    a cultural one, like in the USSR/Baltics case, or be they cultural
    'only', like in Canada/Quebec. Even if there are some economical
    penalties to pay for the independence, like in Germany.
    
    Can you tell me why Quebec would be 'isolated' in case of separation?
    For me, the usage of this term in this context reveals the neglegence
    (i dont say ignorance) with bothers me in intercultural discussions and
    which might bother the Quebeqois ("you dont understand us..") as well.
    
    Denmark (a rather small country which dares to speak it's own language)
    is not isolated in europe (and there even much smaller, non-isolated
    countries).
    
    Not following this american way of un(i)-culture is not equal to
    isolation, not even in North America?
    
    BTW: Do you like the fact that many europeans dont see any difference
    between the USA and Anglo-Canada? (Even ones who know a bit about North
    America)?
    
    R.

    >>>   
        BTW: Do you like the fact that many europeans dont see any
    difference
        between the USA and Anglo-Canada? (Even ones who know a bit about
    North
        America)?
    <<<
    
    BFD. Many Americans and Canadians see no difference between any
    European countries, or their people, either.
    
    re: isolation. Denmark is a lot more isolated from Germany, than, say,
    Baden-Wurtemburg is. Does that help you understand this context of the
    word isolation better ?
    
    Scooter

     <<< Note 389.60 by KBOMFG::RFORST "Rainer Forst Engineering @ KBO" >>>
    
    R.
    
    I really don't even to pretend I understand the Soviet Union situation,
    but from the (very) little I do it seems that the Baltic States want to
    seperate for economic benefit ... ?  not at all the same as Quebec
    
>    Can you tell me why Quebec would be 'isolated' in case of separation?
    
    As Scooter explained ... 
    
    
    
        >(i dont say ignorance) with bothers me in intercultural discussions and
    
    Is this a cultural issue ?  that's why I asked Jean to explain ..  I
    think its being used as a front, Quebec doesn't want to seperate over
    culture - they want special previlages that the rest of the country
    feel belong with the Federal Gov't. It almost seems like " throw me an 
    easy one or I'm going to take my bat and go home" .. 
    
    Other than Hydro and hockey players, what does Quebec have to export ?
    They're mfg base is with dying industries ie: shoes, leather etc, and
    they rely heavly on the Federal Gov't for aerospace and shipbuilding.
    Well if the aerospace and shipbuilding is no longer their, then what ? 
    In the last round of seperation talks (around '82 ?) many major
    companies moved their headquarters to Toronto eg. Insurance, will the 
    rest go this time ?
    
    I try to understand, but fail to see how seperation of Quebec benefits
    Quebec or Canada.
    
    /T

    re: .63 - advantages.
    
    Tell you what - do some reasearch, and come back and report to us where
    more than 75% of the DRIE, and before that, DREE, monies went.
    The replacement, ACOA, almost went the same route, until someone from
    out west (!) pointed out that the 'AC" stands for Atlantic Canada ...
    
    (Hint: DR*E were programs billed to "assist the
    economically/industrially disadvantaged regions of Canada ..." )
    
    Scooter
    

    The Baltics want to be separate primarily because of CULTURAL reasons,
    germans want to be re-united because of just that. Decide on the own
    culture means, like Jean points out, deciding on language, immigration,
    education. Those reasons are stronger than economic ones, try to accept
    that.
    
    .61: Baden-Wuertemberg is within the german speaking culture, with some
         distinct flavor, Denmark is a DISTINCT society with an own
         language (like Quebec). Or are you telling me, that we (germans)
         should tell the Danes "Look, we are 80 Millions, you are 5
         Millions, so you better speak german, then you would also be
         better off economically etc."?
    
         Are you telling me also, that many Americans/Canadians see no
         cultural difference between, say, France and Sweden?
    
    R.

    Meech Lake was this country's last chance to stay together, even if
    English Canada thought that Quebec would get too much. It's great to
    have ideals when it comes to politics but to make things work, you've
    got to be realistic. Both the English and the French held to their
    ideals, thus the break-up of Canada is inevitable.....

    

    	If Quebec does separate, they'll be putting toll booths on the
    Grand Canal!

    ;-)

    re .65
    
    Are you implying that the rest of Canada is telling Quebec "SPEAK
    ENGLISH" ?  NO ... far from it.  What the rest of Canada is telling
    Quebec is don't force people to use only French.  There is a
    humungous difference!  Visit Toronto and see stores with Chinese
    signs, Italian signs, see street signs in assorted ethnic languages.
    If there was a large concentrated French community in Toronto, you'd
    see French signs there too.  We see no need to oppress minorities.
    Apparently Quebecois do.
    
    
    
    

    I should add that we are far from perfect on this I know.  You can find
    hundreds of instances of the racial prejudices in all provinces, and
    prejudices against the natives is a disgrace to all Canadians ...
    anglo and franco.
    
    

    Stop babbling ... what's your point ?  There has been examples of
    inequality of every minority in every province - always has been,
    always will be ... that's life, some politicians are just pricks !
    
    You seem completely wrapped up in your self pity and self-righteousness
    (sp?), history is history and no one can change it, the best we can do
    is improve from what we learned - stop bantering about the past with 
    specific little examples, (there are as many for as against) try looking 
    at where we're headed ...
    
    The majority of Canadians are willing to compromise their standard of
    living and ideals for the support and growth of other parts of the
    country - that's what's being a great country is all about and that
    what the Fed's are suppose to be doing (I don't always agree but in the
    end it all seems to generally balance).
    
    Now Quebec, someone wrote a few notes back that Quebecers feel that
    they are Quebecers first and Canadians (by accident) second .. reading
    your notes Jean really seems to make this ring true. Most are willing
    to compromise for Quebec to maintain (enrich) their heritage/culture - 
    but not at all cost. That's what you have to understand. Sovereignty, I
    don't believe, will benefit the country, Quebec certainly, but not the 
    country !  I'm offended by the arrogant, self-centered, etc, etc,
    Quebecers that only worry about themselves - I'm willing to help you
    maintain your culture, but don't hold a gun to my head ..
    
    /T
    
    
    
    

    OK, so public money was not used as it was supposed to in
    Saskatchewan ... What is the problem there ?  It is a lack of
    fiscal responsibility and a lack of teeth (or guts, I'm not
    quite sure which) in ensuring that the money was used as it
    was supposed to be.  This is not so much a matter related to
    languages as it is to the lack of accountability of governments
    since there are a good many special funds transfers for special
    projects between governments where the funds effectively get
    mis-appropriated, under all kinds of guises ... and the transferring
    government doesn't do anything about it.  The language aspect just
    serves to make this one more visible.
    
    It should not be illegal to speak, advertise or work in any language
    you want.  For dealings with a government department, if it isn't
    English or French, then if people don't understand you, then too
    bad, except in court where you are entitled to a translator.  Outside
    of government, anything goes ... if people don't understand you
    because you insist on speaking English to a French shopkeeper ...
    then it may be a loss to the shopkeeper, or the customer or both,
    and the same the other way around.  BUT there is no excuse for
    poor manners and insisting that someone a Francophone speak English
    when you speak French anyway, and vice-versa.  You use what is best
    for the situation ... that is the WONDERFUL thing about being
    multi-lingual.
    
    Stuart
    
    For years, I subscribed to a consumer magazine called Protect Yourself,
    an English version of the publication Protege Vous ... produced
    by the Quebec Consumer Protection Office.  They have decided to drop
    this version supposedly for economic reasons.  There seemed to be
    no consideration of whether subscribers would be willing to pay more
    (I would have been more than willing to pay extra).  I cannot help
    but believe this move was also influenced by the anti-English feelings
    running rampant in Quebec.  I'm not angry ... just saddened ... very
    saddened.  Just as I am with the whole crazy situation.
    
    
    

    Its a damn shame, seems to me that the politicians and red-necks have
    pushed the two solitudes a little too far away from each other.
    
    In the middle of the Meech lake hubbub, how many times did we hear
    various anglo politicians say:
       o Quebec is a distinct society and should have the means to 
         protect and promote it.  In fact we heard from some scholars
         that french culture is stronger now than in the 1960s!!!
       o No one needs to feel threatened by bilingualism in Canada -
         this is a federal **SERVICE** issue, not a reguirement for people
         on the streets, or people reading cereal boxes!!  Grow up people!
    
    Wouldn't it be a damn shame if the Quebecois realized after separation
    that we were ALL ----ed by the politicians!  I guess its a shame, but
    the adults have really screwed up this country - the kids know better -
    they are going into french immersion in record numbers - people protest
    when the BC Gov't lets a local school board get away with shutting down
    french immersion!
    
    Wake up people, Quebec is "already gone" and who can blame them?  It
    is not fair to hold them back, and it will indeed be cruel to bicker
    about payments and debts, assets, borders, and bridges - that is what
    will be left after the referendum.
    

    re: Denmark/Baden-Wuertemburg -
    
    Read the previous notes - the question was how would Quebec be more
    isolated - in this specific insatnace, it was not a cultural question.
    Denmark is more isolated from German society than Baden-Wuertemburg,
    plain and simple. If you want to discuss cultural isolations, come up
    with a different analogy model.
    
    re: cultural influences and their strength.
    
    Cultural ties are undeniably the strongest that exist amongst people -
    defying legislation and economics. If the Quebec issue were cultural, I
    would expect that those that fight for the French-Canadian culture
    would be fighting for those same issues all through Canada. We hear
    nothing/next to nothing about this from QUebec's mouthpieces.
    
    It is a power struggle at the political level - and the cultural aspect
    is being held up as a shield. If you do A - you'll destroy our culture,
    etc. The french culture will survive or die depending on the people of
    that culture - not on laws or political boundaries.
    
    Look at the extreme lengths that early Canadian (including Quebec)
    gov'ts went to deliberately *eliminate* native people's cultures.
    No accident or by-product or negligence, was that. And yet, the
    cultures of the First Nations still survive - battered, beaten, but 
    still alive.
    
    It seems incomprehensible to me that a culture so allegedly strong, as
    that of the Quebecois, could be so easily threatened with extinction,
    considering all of the attempts (good, bad or indifferent) to keep it
    alive, or promote it.
    
    re: Baltics.
    
    The attempts by the Baltics and the rest of the Soviet Dominoes to
    establish sovereignty is *NOT* a cultural one. Where have you been for
    the past 50 years ? The problems they have had have been purely
    political - human rights, economics, etc. You see, there is this small
    matter of a thing called the Communist system. And another small matter
    of prior independance, lost through hostile actions by the Soviet
    Communists, not through mutual convention.
    
    Scooter

	re .73

>    matter of a thing called the Communist system. And another small matter
>    of prior independance, lost through hostile actions by the Soviet
>   Communists, not through mutual convention.

	Of course, that independence was achieved when the turmoil of the
	Bolshevik revolution enabled the Baltic states to break away from
	the Russian empire. When talking about restoring the status quo ante,
	one has to answer the question "ante what?"

	Tony

    Has anyone thought about the Montreal Canadiens? If Quebec seperates
    they would change the name of the team? They would have to change the
    uniform also. This is too serious. If people realize what seperation 
    would do to the Canadiens they will stop it.
    
    Don

    no need to.
    
    Canada, historically, was once limited to that area in narrow strips
    along both sides of the St. Lawrence, from around Montreal somewhere,
    downstream to the gulf - Back in the days of Champlain and Henry
    Hudson, et al.
    
    The Canadiens could keep the name, with the historical connection.
    
    Scooter

    What about the Grand Canal?

    You wanna know what you can do with your blasted Grand Canal ?????
    
    Use your imagination.

re .78

But all of Canada would go with it!

    All problems discussed here (Quebec, Baltics etc.) are cultural first.
    
    Communism, economics etc. are tools to threaten cultural entities, they
    are secondary in this sense. Of course, they 'hurt' more, are felt more
    closely than the more 'abstract' cultural feelings, but the latter are
    deeper and stronger in the end, the recent developments all over the
    world reveal that clearly (last: Kurdes).
    
    This is - for example - why the arab world (people, not governments)
    was supporting Saddam Hussein although they knew that he was a
    criminal. They regarded the western effort as a cultural threat, not
    so much as an economical one (oil) or military one. I can't blame them,
    especially when listening to an american senator stating that 'our boys
    are defending our way of life at the golf'.
    
    For me, that is the key to 'understand' some country's or province's
    tendencies, which may look strange when being looked at with the
    restricted point of an economical and political point of view.
    
    R.

    
>    Denmark (a rather small country which dares to speak it's own language)
>    is not isolated in europe (and there even much smaller, non-isolated
>    countries).
 
	Switzerland is smaller, it's major languages are German and French,
 	with English for business. Is is isolated.
   
>    BTW: Do you like the fact that many europeans dont see any difference
>    between the USA and Anglo-Canada? (Even ones who know a bit about North
>    America)?
 
	Being European I beg to differ, the US is the US.

	Canada is different, many more people have relatives or friends in 
	Canada than they do in the US. Canada is looked upon in a much
	more concilatory manner. Canada does not try to impose it's will on the
	rest of the world.

	However Quebec is different.

	When you are in France, and you don't speak the language, the French 
	help by trying other languages, or using hand-signes, they are very
	helpful.

	If you are in the "French" parts of Quebec and don't speak "Quebec 
	French", you are ignored, or at the least, treated very badly.

	Heather	 

    Having come from Canada to the U.K., I went through the various
    "Canada is just another part of the U.S." treatment for years.
    Most people thought that what Scotland is to Great Britain, so
    Canada is to America.
    
    I have witnessed first hand, Frenchmen ignoring my futile
    attempts to communicate on many occaisions. I also know of Frenchmen
    ignoring some French-Canadians, pretending they couldn't understand. (This
    was in Strassbourg, just over the border from Lahr, Germany).
    If ever there was a race I was not fond of .......
    
    However, I hold fond memories of living in Quebec. I was only 4-5 years
    old, and I can still remember lots of it. I spoke fluent French then,
    as my best friends mother was a French teacher, and that is where I
    learnt it.
    
    Personally, I hate the term 'Quebecoise' and beg forgiveness of those
    who prefer to be called so, but I have always used, and preferred
    French-Canadians. This I will use, untill it is not true anymore.
    
    Visiting my father in Lahr, I have come to know many French-Canadians,
    and have gotten on very well with them. Obviously, politics were never
    the theme of discussion, so I find all these Quebec first Canada second
    comments surprising.
    
    I am saddened as I read this topic. I for one, hope that some common
    ground is found, to prevent Quebec separating, and doing so without
    upsetting the rest of Canada. 
    
    Stuart, have you ever thought about politics yourself ? Maybe, with a
    few like you, Canada will have a future.
    
    There is one burning question that I have though,
    
    Are there cruises along the Grand Canal ?
    
    Good Luck Canada,
    I have a feeling your gonna need it.
    
    Wayne

    >>    All problems discussed here (Quebec, Baltics etc.) are cultural
    first.
    
    Baloney. Culture is a strawman at best, and a non-starter at worst, in
    most of the cases discussed here. THe problem people have in seeing
    this is that, wrt Quebec, there *is* a cultural difference extant.
    There are several cultures within Quebec, as well. Only the
    French-Canadian culture is used to justify political power grabs.
    
    THe bald evidence of this is when statements emanate from la belle
    province along the lines of "we don't care if you make the rest of
    Canada speak french - we want our own laws here, " etc. etc.
    
    If culture clash was the real problem, then those that complain would
    do every thing possible to foster growth of their culture in other
    parts of Canada as well.
    
    Add to that the cozying up to the US that Quebec has been doing since
    Free Trade deal was struck - one of the largest culture sinks in the
    world. What happens to all the complaints about cultural integrity
    then? Hemming, haw, and redirecting of the question - oe "we need
    the business relationship to survive and prosper". It becomes a
    tautology - awfully strange for such a cut and dried case of "needing
    to protect our culture and heritage".
    
    The Quebec people are being taken for a ride. At one time, I used to
    try to convince people of this. Now, to be frank, I don't care. 
    There are a lot of smart and savvy people in Quebec that are going with 
    the flow, in the name of Quebecois culture. Maybe one day they'll wake
    up, maybe after it is too late. But I doubt it. Quebec is already
    gone, only the legal ties remain.
    
    My only hope now is that they wait until after Mulroney is thrown out
    on his butt, before cutting the legal ties, 'cos I'm afraid of what
    he'll do if he's still in power. If you know anybody who's in the
    Special Service Forces in Petawawa or out west, go talk to them. Ask
    them what they've been training for, over the past 6 months. I'll give
    you a hint - it hasn't been desert warfare.
    
    
    Scooter

I really don't understand how the present setup threatens Quebec culture.

They have, for example, banned the use of languages other than French on
external business signs in the province, and this is entirely legal under the
current constitution.  (Thanks to the "notwithstanding" clause.)  Regardless
of how strictly this is enforced, it seems to indicate that they have the
power needed to enforce protection of their language.

The federal government has recently come to a special arrangement regarding
immigration with Quebec.

Education has always been a provincial responsibility.  There's no case to be 
made that the current system threatens Quebec control of education.

Regarding the CBC - in fact local English-language production in cities as
important as Calgary was cut in the most recent Tory assault on the CBC (not
counting Crispo's appointment to the board).  This was not an unfair shot at
Quebec either.

The Prime Minister of Canada has come from Quebec for all but about 11 months
of the last 23 years, and governments have been dependent on Quebec support in
the House of Commons to maintain themselves in power for all that time.  To
argue that Quebec has been getting a raw deal (as, of course, various
politicians do) seems pretty disingenuous.  To argue that political sovereignty
is necessary to protect Quebec's cultural distinctiveness is, I suspect, 
equally so, given the way that culture has flowered under the present system.

I'm aware that Quebec governments for the last 25 years have been trying to
negotiate changes to the constitutional division of powers.  I believe that it 
is probably necessary to make some changes, though I don't understand the
current nationalist hysteria in Quebec.  (The misconstruction of the farce of
last June as a massive rejection of Quebec is especially puzzling.) But:  
(1) threatening to destroy Canada is counterproductive; it undermines the very
real goodwill that exists in most of the country; and (2) it will be very hard
to achieve anything positive in this country as long as Brian Mulroney remains 
in power.                     

    You imply that everybody says that Quebec is a burden. What kind of
    burden are you implying ?
    
    You aren't even being consistant, Jean. What respect is Quebec not
    getting, and is it giving that same respect ?
    
    What happened to the protection of the Quebecois culture ?
    Do you now admit that it is a red herring ?
    
    Scooter

    A burden ??  actually Quebec is more like a pain in the as* right now -
    it doesn't imply in the least that the rest of Canada supports
    seperation, just the tolerance for this nonsense is getting lower.
    
    You also seem to be changing your tune regarding this as a cultural
    issue, are you agreeing that it might just be a political issue ?
    That the politicians just might be confusing the issues ?
    
    Canada has done more to promote multiculturalism than most other
    countries (including the US), if you think you will be better off in
    the US, then your head is in the clouds ... take for example the latest   
    incident in Florida (I forget the town) where many Quebec folks
    vacation/live - they were pushing to have the entire town changed to
    French ie. road signs, language, newspapers etc., it finally came down
    to a point where the governor just said "This is the US, we speak
    English, you can add french to the road signs but they stay in English
    and if you don't like it .. leave." (that obviously wasn't a quote,
    just paraphrased).
    
    Jean you folks are being snowed ....  I listened to Sharcraw (sp?) this
    morning explaining why he left the Block party, and basically he said
    that culturlism was being used as a reason for seperation but it was
    really just a few politicans out for there own gain and it was not in
    the best intrest of the province to leave Canada.
    
    Wake up, Canada is not against Quebec but when you're asking for 
    unreasonable concessions it makes it easy to justify that the world 
    is against you ..
    
     /T.

    
>    You give respect to those who respect you!  The "we will do this if you
>    separate" come from people who are supposed to be our freinds, with
>    freinds like that....
    
    Jean, do you realize that there are 26 million people in Canada ?
    (counting Quebec ..)  
    What did you expect ? remember the "Buy Canadian" theme ?
    
    The attitude is not completely unexpected,  
                - Quebec seperates from Canada
                - isolates the East coast provinces - they then have
                  decisions to make as to their future ..
                - the job of establishing a Canadian identity becomes a 
                  magnitude more difficult
                - will have reprecussions for years (decades)!
    
        --> you really thing people who veiw Quebec as the sole reason for
            Canada's prolems  in the future are going to be your friends ?
            
     Are you going to answer my question (what benefits do you see that
    Quebec would have from Seperation ?) ?
    
    /T.

    >>    You give respect to those who respect you!
    
   There's a clue in this statement for you, Jean.
    
    
    re: diversion of DRIE funds.
    
    The point is, my friend, that we have been told over and over that
    Quebec can pull its own weight. THat it is self sufficient. That it
    owes nothing to the rest of Canada that isn't balanced back. Hpw many
    jobs were built on that diverted money ? How much did the Quebec High
    Tech Industry benefit and grow ? - ask SPAR & CAE.
    
    Burden ? - in this case, not when it benefits the whole country, which it
    does, even today.
    
    But then, don't continue parrotting the drivel coming from the
    politicos that Quebec can stand on its own, evidenced by the record.
    Quebec may be able to go it alone, but it didn't bootstrap itself.
    
    In amongst all the hollering about , "Canada has to make up its mind"
    and "you don't understand us", maybe someone is looking at the
    accounting, the real books, not the second set, and saying hmmmm,
    maybe things are not the way they seem. But I doubt it. It's very hard
    for most people to think, while those around them are shouting.
    
    None of this matters, anyway. Quebec is history, with respect to its
    membership in the Confederation. Your politicians have already decided
    that. There will be an extremely bitter fight over the shape of Quebec,
    after the Big Move is made.
    
    All of Canada will lose, Quebeckers most of all. 
    
    And it can't be stopped, now. It's far too late.
    
    Scooter

   > All of Canada will lose, Quebeckers most of all. 
   > 
   > And it can't be stopped, now. It's far too late.
    
      Saddly, I think you might be right ..

    Heard on the news this morning that a judge in Quebec ruled that a law
    which requires lawyers to speak the same language as the folks they are
    defending is "unworkable" - this was on a case of three Mohawk Indians
    where the lawyer defending them did not want to speak English .... the
    Indians are appealing, saying that it will prohibit their access to a
    fair trial.
    
    And on Canada AM this morning there was a comment during that sports
    report that the Canadian anthem was booed at the football game yesterday
    in Montreal.
    
    Assho*es takes on a new meaning !

    re: .93 Quebec is a part of Canada, not the reverse.  O Canada is still
    the national anthem in Quebec.  The incident in question was at the
    football game two weeks ago.
    
    BTW, the boos started at last night's baseball game, but were quickly
    drowned out by the applause from the majority of the 35,000 fans in
    attendance at the Expos game.  
    
    Does this mean football fans are radical separtists, while baseball
    fans are mostly federalist?   :-)
    
    Glenn

	re .94

	On CBC Sunday Morning they were saying that whereas the Alouettes
	had regarded football as having a predominantly anglophone audience,
	the Montreal Machine was marekting itself to francophones.

	Tony

    RE:94
    
    I believe your right - the reference was to the football game a couple
    of weeks ago, it was just referenced in the news yesterday. O Canada
    may still be the national anthem in Quebec (for now) but it is an
    indication of attitudes.
    
    >BTW, the boos started at last night's baseball game, but were quickly
    >drowned out by the applause from the majority of the 35,000 fans in
    >attendance at the Expos game.  
    
    >Does this mean football fans are radical separtists, while baseball
    >fans are mostly federalist?   :-)
    
     Well the Expos only had 9,000 at the game yesterday .. does that mean
     the federalists are going down the tubes ? (along with the expos) :-)
    
    /T.

    re .92
    
    In fact the prosecuting attorney (equivalent of DA in the US) didn't
    want to use English as requested and the judge for the case ruled in
    the prosecuting attorney's favour -- not the defending attorney.
    
    

	re booing the national anthem

	I think you will find that in Scotland booing "God Save the Queen"
	became so commonplace that the authorities now play something else.

	Also,
	some years ago I went to a public lecture at Edinburgh University
	given by a visiting Canadian professor. He explained that the
	French words to "O, Canada" should be understood in the context
	of Canada as it was as a French possession, i.e. Quebec.
	Is there an irony here?

	Tony

>    In my opinion, you are being taken to the cleaners by your politicians,
>    they are not intrested in the best option for Quebec and Canada - just
>    their careers.
    
    Sadly, isn't this the truth the world over ?
    
    Wayne

    -1:
    
    YES!, but do you want to be a politician in order to change that?
    
    I admit, i don't.
    
    R.

    Rainer,
    
    Canada is not a very old country -- and it is made up of several
    different older cultures which have managed to co-exist rather well.
    It's what makes it so unique - we have managed to form a sort of
    World Community (as opposed to the European Community) under the 
    'control'(for the lack of a better word) of the Canadian Government.
    Generally every culture has given something to Canada and received 
    something from Canada -- ie. a (or the) Canadian identity.
    In other words -- Canada has a culture -- it's definitely different
    than the European culture and very unique and is very difficult for
    a European to see because they have their blinders set on their own 
    definition of culture -- or do you want to state that the native Indian
    Culture is no culture -- just because they didn't build big churches??
    So don't call the North Americans culturally naive and uneducated --
    unless you are willing to accept the same comments from somebody in
    Asia - whose culture is probably quite a bit older than the European
    culture and has a completely different definition for it!!
    As for the French and Anglo Canadian problem. Canada was first founded 
    by the French and then conquered by the English and as such has caused
    the problem that we have now. All other cultures ( with the exception
    of the native Indian ) came to Canada after the country existed and
    as such accepted loosing part of their identity to take on the Canadian 
    identity. The French never had the choice but that, unfortunately, is
    the way it was.
    As for a European comparison -- Denmark and Baden-Wuertemberg being really 
    poor examples --, I can offer South Tirol. For those that don't know
    what that is - it is a state (again for lack of a better word) in 
    northern Italy that is(was) german speaking and belonged to Austrian Empire-
    and which was given to Italy after the war. The Italian language and 
    culture was then forced down the throats (violently in some cases, I 
    might add) as well as some forced resettlement.
    Closer to home -- you mention the reunification of Germany -- what
    about the culture and lifestyle that the western part of Germany is now 
    forcing upon the eastern part of Germany. Or do you really believe that
    anything that East Germany has done in the last 45 years will be
    kept or nutured ? Honestly ? Or will it be the big brother in the west
    that will direct the little brother in the east because after all, big
    brother is paying !!
       
    Helmut 
    

    Rainer,
    
    I brought up South Tirol as a comparative example. What can the german
    speaking culture do there - in politics, schools, etc. It is Italy, and
    Italy decides what gets done there. With the resulting resistance that
    had built up there causing some, albeit a while ago, violence - blowing
    up power stations etc.
    As said before, South Tirol became Italian after a war, Quebec became 
    part of the English colony Canada after a war. South Tirol cannot
    dictate to Rome what it has or has not to do. It can't even threaten to 
    leave Italy and form its own state.
    Quebec was in a similar situation, had little or nothing to say. Until
    about 30 years ago -- now it looks to the rest of Canada as if it has
    to much to say - and I believe that is where the problem presently
    lies. 
    I don't want to get into the discussion of who is right and who is
    wrong here -- there are very valid points already made with facts that
    cover both sides of this issue. I just wanted to address your specific
    points because I feel you statements where a little unfair. Problems
    like this exist all over the world - the biggest difference here is
    that both sides are at least TALKING about it. Quebec, as well as the
    rest of the country, have the possibility to seperate - PEACEFULLY.
    That's what I find so special about this country and it would be a
    loss for everyone if it did seperate -- but, the people have the choice
    - they don't have to bring out tanks and mow down the demonstrators
    to force the government or people to do something. And please don't
    bring up the 70's -- I hope that is over and won't happen again.
    And please don't bring up what happened to the Indians recently, unless 
    to say that is how Anglo-Canada COULD have forced Quebec to do what
    they (Anglo-Canada) wished. That is exactly the type of situation that
    a civilized nation should not have to resort to - and because Canada, as
    a whole, is acting like a civilized nation, problems like these are
    going to keep on coming up and hopefully be solved in a cilivized
    manner.
    
    As always - those are my own personal (and bias) views .
    
    helmut
     
    
      

    Indians, 70's??
    
    Not brought up by me (if i remember well)
    
    Just to be exact
    
    R.

    I think that the idea of North America being culturally ignorant is
    a very complex issue and the biggest problem is finding an accurate
    way to describe the phenomemnon without it sounding like a put-down.
    
    Probably the best description is cultural isolation.  It occurs in
    many ways ... the geography ... the history ... the peoples.
    
    Remember that for North American settlement, the key word was survival
    and so culture developed around that -- small town cultures.
    
    Remember that early settlers came for a number of reasons ... many were
    outcasts in their own country so had a different view of their mother
    or fatherland.  They wanted to reject the coutries and hence the
    cultures that rejected them.  So, the small town and survivalist
    cultures were fine for them.
    
    In the opposite sense many settlers came to return profits to the
    homeland and their settlements often developed for a long 
    time in isolation.  Quebec is a strong example of this phenomenon, so
    there is a strong desire to retain the culture of the homeland.
    
    Fundamentalist beliefs tend to propagate easily under either of these
    conditions, so the cultures are thus simple, strong and strong willed.
    
    Remember too that the very geography of North America, with huge
    distances between small settlements tend to promote these things.
    
    So, I wouldn't call the North American cultures naive, or North
    Americans culturally ignorant, just that the basis of the culture
    is that of day-to-day survival and that gives an apparently narrow
    outlook, and hence there is a lot of what could be described as
    cultural illiteracy ...
    
    
    To talk about the melding of teh European Community and compare it with
    Canada, or other Federations is probably not valid.  Europe will
    probably fail for the same reasons as many other Federations of
    large physical proportion fail in the end.  The inablilty of
    federations to legislate with the needed sensitivity to the specific
    needs of the regions.  To quote the Americans ... "No taxation without
    representation".  Then like siblings, one region will then complain
    that they are getting less than other regions.  Europe is just the
    latest experiment in Federalism.
    
    Stuart

Stuart, you're right, this is not a simple issue.  As others have said, 
culture is a complex, ill-defined concept that means different things to 
different people.  In terms of the ethnocentric nationalism that has dominated
Europe for the past century or two, an ex-colonial patchwork like Canada
sitting next to the great, variegated imperial Republic south of us apparently 
doesn't make much sense.

Much of the appeal of the Quebec sovereignists is to that very nationalism.  To
many of the rest of us, the issues define themselves in somewhat different
terms.  Anglophone Canadians are not Americans, and the old British imperial
patriotism that used to characterize "English-Canadian" culture has been
declining for a long time.  The ideal of a tolerant, multi-cultural society 
big enough to contain a relatively homogeneous Francophone Quebec-based society 
has been a powerful one for the last generation or so.  To people who believe 
in such an ideal, developments in Quebec are particularly depressing.

    John
    
    You didn't miss much by not getting into the aquarium.  Last time we
    were there, it was a major disappointment.  A lot of the displays were
    not functioning.  For example when you wanted to read about certain
    types of fish, the lights behind the display were burned out, making
    reading in the dimly lit areas close to impossible.  As far as I'm
    concerned, it's being badly maintained.
    
    shawn

    Some can't wait.  On the West Island this past weekend, there were
    several signs, mostly in shop parking lots, with the English version
    of the parking info spray painted out.
    
    A teacher in my senior year in high school annotated my yearbook with a
    phrase that, for some reason, comes to mind...
    
    			"May you get all you deserve."
    
    Cheers...Gary

    John,
    Sounds like you had a great week-end, you were lucky to see such
    attractions ...
    
    All scarcasm aside, Montreal really is a beautiful city, with tons of
    things to do, unfortunately there are a few bad apples which spoil the
    barrel .. its becoming more common to have folks refuse to speak
    English (even though you KNOW they can), or as you experienced, someone
    saying that they should be only speaking French - its this behaviour
    that tends to raise blood pressures ...
    
    Would you go back ??
    
    /Tom

    ... and before somebody tells me that it is illegal to equate
    anglo-canada to the US:
    
    Maybe (hopefully) it is illegal, but in terms of this cultural
    ignorance we are talking about here it seems to be awfully legal.
    
    R.
    

    Don't bother trying to 'retaliate' by using a comparison of 
    Montreal's crime with Toronto - Montreal
    has Toronto beat hands down in the areas of murder, violent assault,
    and robberies. Look it up if you don't believe me. You are right,
    spitting and urinating in public are quite minor, in comparison.
    
    THey do, however, shape perceptions. Take note - the person who entered
    the note complaining about this behaviour was *not* a Canadian - he was an 
    American visitor. I don't expect you personally to do anything about
    such behaviour and 'custom', but I do expect you to realize that
    
    >by such an irrelevant and ignorant drivel
    
    quite an arrogant statement to make. Montreal makes a lot of effort and
    spends a lot of money to project a 'cosmopolitan' image. It is
    perceived by the people who decide such things, as good for the City,
    and the province. The public behaviour, as described in recent notes,
    does not really effect that image if it is very isolated case of
    'drunken behaviour', etc. If it is common custom, such that a visitor
    gets treated with scorn when he/she exhibits some concern or disgust with the
    practice, just how long do you think a 'good' cosmopolitan image will
    hold up ?
    
    Or don;t you care ?
    
    Scooter

    >>... and before somebody tells me that it is illegal to equate
        anglo-canada to the US:
    <<<
    
    Why would it be legal, or illegal ?
    
    What does legality have to do with it ?
    
    It certainly is valid to compare US and Canadian Cultures. There are
    many influences. Just as Quebec is a very Americanized French culture.
    
    Scooter

    All this talk about culture is giving me a hankering for yogurt....

    Mr. Ambient Temperature Choke Cherry

    How many cities actually have a subway system without washrooms as I
    understand is the case in Montreal?

    Perhaps someone more familiar with the system than I can comment, but I
    do not recall seeing any public washrooms on the London Underground.
    
    Regards,
    Wayne.

	re london underground.

	there are loos in some stations - before you pay your money.

	I've used the ones at Piccadilly, and Paddington.

	I don't often go to London, so can't speak for the rest.

	Heather