Rafe, go and chase another boogeyman.

Your view through western eyes that continue to shed crocodile tears over how marginalized we poor westerners are even though we pay for everything and get nothing in return, is geting tiresome.

The problem has never been the people of Quebec or Ontario or even Alberta. The problem has been the politicians both French and English who have used the historic divide all too often for short term gain with no fore thought beyond the now.

The Gommery enquiry shows it continues as all but official government policy right up to today and yet here we have a former politician suggesting it's in the very nature of French Canadians to rip off the poor Anglo.

Just as the media in BC gave us 15 years of hatred toward the then governning and later opposition NDP, much of Canada's media continues to push and or exploit old differences between the French and the English that were decided more than 200 yeas ago.

Frankly, I have greater fears of some rabid politicians using the same game in Alberta, which is controlled primarily by US financial interests, to begin the real break up of our nation.

The majority of people in Quebec appear to be at least as astute about the potentials and dangers of the game as the rest of us, unfortunately, I doubt if politicians or columnists in the west have the maturity to recognize or admit that.

Now, I'm from good old B.C. and have taken the past few years to travel around a bit. My last trip took me two years, and had me living in the Laurentian Mountains in a Separatist part of Quebec, both provincially and federally.

And here's the bad news: Quebec is already gone. From my experience, they are a province of Canada in name only. I'm very sorry if this comes as a shock to you, but they are already on their own in the world. All that's left to do is for them to sign the papers saying that they're an independent country. They've even already taken the Maple Leaf down, there's virtually nothing more to do.

Sorry, folks, I couldn't just let you keep thinking that the world is the way it once was.

Coyote, I am curious as to what your "actual Confederation between the three main founding peoples" would look like? Walled enclaves? Genetic testing for political offices? Racially segregated territories? Perhaps you could describe the badges that could be issued to identify which "national part" each person will be assigned to.

What do you suggest we do with immigrants, minorities, or those who don't see Canada as the "sum of three national parts"? I hear there are a few few old camps in the B.C. interior that could be used.

"The confederation solution"? "Credible solution"? Reminds me of another "solution".

There is another splution - send in the army and put an end to it. I know most goody-two-shoes types will be horrified at this but force may tell the separist types that leaving Canada will have a cost,

Grumpy, please clarify "and put and end to it."

Are you suggesting official state sanctioned violence to stop the human right of determining one's own political future?

Backpacker, every time I read The Laurentiens I think leisure set. Did you manage to find any Quebecers who work day-to-day for a living?

If you did I'd bet their prime concern was the relative cheapness of the holidayers who motor in from around Quebec, Ontario and the northern states, rather than if Quebec is independant or not.

It's a bit like saying you've been to Whistler and you know the future of BC because it's a real rad town even by BC standards.

There was a mention above of the threat to Canadian soverienty being from 'the south'

I myslef cannot imagine american warhawks relishing the idea of 9 new very democrat states (and Alberta of course) tipping the balance of power within the US.

The addition of Canada to the US would permanently alter the american political scene in some very positive ways. A large influx of Canadians into the states would have as much or more influence on US culture then they would have on us.

Come to think of it, mabye we should join the states, just to save them from themselves!

Quebec is not a person, it is a "name" given to a land surface on our planet.

The "French" language affects the way our brains perceive the world. Using a different spoken-language affects the way you act in life. When I was little one of my French immersion teachers wanted us to use her first name, and that created a closer student-teacher relationship than with English-speaking teachers that told us to use the impersonal pronouns Ms. or Mr..

Over time the spoken-language difference can result in French-speaking humans having different government programs, programs that would also be beneficial to all humans regardless of spoken-language. Would there even be talk of a national childcare program, if the French-speaking humans did not already have one?

What the elected-representatives in Quebec are doing is using the notion of a common spoken-language to undermine the notion of common genetic-structure of humans, for their own short-term political careers(as allan pointed out). Electoral reform as Rafe mentionned maybe a step towards improvement.

The most extreme example of this incorrect belief was in the fact that the French-speaking humans in Canada, received a different healthcare deal, than the English-speaking humans in Canada, when there is no genetic structural difference that is created by using either of these 2 spoken languages.

Oh, I'm not so sure they want is in quite that way either. Closer to the current truth of our relationship with The Empire, for the various reasons you articulate and others, I'm certain they would much rather have us as a "compliant" colonial/ quasi-colonial dependant state, pretty much as we are now-, though only a little more so. It's not like it is a great leap from where we are now in our relationship with US imperialism, to where they might actually prefer us, with "improved" levels of their control. (And Harper is doubtless the man to deliver that to them.)

That said and to elaborate, I do think they are anxious to see that "colonial" status firmed up through such and as many NAFTA-like arrangements as is necessary to "secure" and "shore up" the current unequal relationship, and to ensure that the cultural-economic takeover is complete enough, and the military "mutual" assistance pacts sufficiently air-tight and encumbering of our real sovereignty, and to their benefit of course, that should any foolish notions of strengthened independence and especially "self-sufficiency" raise their heads, that we are as subject to their military threat of interference as any other Latin American dependancy. (Now being challenged by many of these states/dependancies during this period of The Empire's "preoccupation" in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.)

Actual Canadian "sovereignty", whilst it has some latitude, of course, has to be seen by any objective observer, as pretty much a compromised fantasy already-, which is made pretty much clear everytime push comes to shove in our relationship. I mean, overall, it would be difficult to imagine a more "compliant" and bootlicker ruling economic and political class in charge of the Canadian/Colonial State. It is not perfect, or what The Empire might ideally prefer, but still, it is pretty damned good, without them actually having an occupying military presence.

As for Corvus' comments and questions.

Actually, I think it is more those rightist and Brownshirt elements who advocate sending troops shooting, imprisoning and threatening into Quebec and onto Native "remnant" lands, who are considerably more reminiscent of a particular and previous "final solution" game play. Your view is actually one of the more extreme and xenophobic anglo-centric manifestations of this phenomena, applied to a Canadian context.

Again, I think, a more reasoned and rational response to the potential "fracture lines" of threat to a United Canada, is to not look south to US historical experience, of which there are few actual parallels of use to our own, but to draw upon and develop our own experience and solutions. And rather than look to the US, I find it more useful, for example, to look to the current "evolved" "confederate-style" relationship between Scotland and England, and perhaps Wales to a somewhat lesser extent, where each has its own "sovereign" parliament, ruling over their own "national systems" of counties and regions, AND their individual national cultural and economic interests, but where each has finally reached an agreement on what powers, say regarding some aspects of currency, foreign relations and international trade, military and necessary "central" Britain wide planning and policy functions to surrender to a "central authority".

Certainly, the model I have demonstrated above is not "perfect" entirely to all parties, but there is certainly a level of "critical agreement" that has largely been able to finally rise above a long and fractious history between these three sovereign parties, come together to form a relatively mutually agreed upon "modern" Britain, made up of England, Scotland and Wales. (Ireland, of course, remains a more contested issue.) And it is this, and other "confederate" models, of which there are a number in the world besides only Britain, which I think we need to study some, in proceeding to and hopefully arriving at a more "equitable" and "harmonious" union of the, as I say, three main historical national groups which we need to bring together within a New Canadian Confederation, and into which all the other relatively more minor immigrant groups have more or less integrated themselves.

And I would certainly not think here to write that agreement, but which will have to be the product of negotiation amongst democratically determined representatives of ALL the "sovereign" parties, including Anglo-Canadian, Quebecois, and Native national communities.

Clearly, however, it will involve ceasing our presumptions and insistance upon Quebec as "just another province", and upon Native peoples as but a subjugated and dependant people, with no land, cultural or economic rights of their own, and to which they are entitled.

Without that, occupation troops on the remnant "reserve" lands of Natives and the territory of Quebec, just may well prove to be necessary and the only alternative, as part of the spiral of this country into eventual regional disintegration. Right wing lunatics, who are conincidentally most generally apologists for the US Empire's conduct in the world, will certainly attempt to make certain this latter "military option" is seen as not only the necessary, but preferred policy direction. It will serve the interests of their dual loyalties, to both the corporate ruling class at home, and the US Empire they see this country being the friend of, and a part of, in their "wannabe" wet dreams.

Quebec leaves, we are in defacto a civil war. A country just can not break up without evil things happening. If Quebec votes to leave, what about the minority who voted against? Nope didn't think so, what happens to them. the natives (oops First Nation types) do they want to stay or go? If Quebec leaves do the treaty's become void?

If this happens, and I'm afraid Rafe is correct and it will, there will be bloodshed, you bet! If Canada does nothing and and the government act like wimps, the USA will swallow us up pronto!

There is no nice break up, war & death will follow, there is no choice. IS IT BETTER TO PLAN TO KEEP THE COUNTRY TOGETHER NOW, LEAST WE FALL INTO A BALKAN STYLE CIVIL WAR.

Grumpy, hold on there. You are way ahead of yourself and our future.

First, why are we into a de facto civil war. If a successful majority of Quebecers were to legitimately vote to separate from the rest of Canada, why would there be a call to arms?

Why would you object to that right?

Again you suggest we, the west, the rest of Canada, who ever, has the right to interfere in the wishes of a majority of peoples from one region.

Based on what?

I do agree that First Nations interests would have to be first addressed, but for others who simply voted no and lost, I don't really see how they can be seen as justification for an invasion, a national defence action or whatever you might refer to it as.

Should they want to remain Canadians they would, of course, have the right to move anywhere in the rest of Canada as is the norm, I would think.

However, I findyour take on the First Nations issue a bit of a joke in that for 400 years now the interests of Quebec First Nations have always been about the last to get any attention unless the Indians showed they are willing to go to the wall for what they want.

I would suspect in such a scenario the First Nations would have to simply seize what they could and then hold out for no net loss because I simply doubt the average Anglo or Franco will pay much attention to the needs or desires of native Canadians.

Don't be surprised if their ace in the hole might include calling in the UN, the US or virtually any other international body with some clout.

The US may well step in using the argument that an unstable Canada north of it puts the entire continent in jeopardy.

In fact that is the most likely reaction given the U.S. history, its increasingly paranoid view of the world and and the relative ease by which it could be accomplished.

I guess what does give me some hope is that it appears to me most who expect Quebec to separate are essentially hoping it will, and like some Quebec politicians, are willing to keep ranting about it until it happens.

The Quebec separation myth has been with us since the Plaines of Abraham and will never die has long as we have politicians who will play that card regardless of what side of the issue they speak for.

And these politicians will never stop pitching this dark scenario as an historic event waiting to happen until Canadians in general chase these hucksters who await the mess off the street.

Sorry, but reading this pack of posts, just like the last Tyee article on this same issue, brings out that same air of 'let's finally get rid of them' by those looking for a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I've been listening and reading about it since I was a child. Unfortunaltey much of what I've been told in stories and articles has come from people who aren't capable of or willing to present a balanced view of La Belle Province.

In a great many ways here we are, 250 years later, still fighting over Abe's little fields of corn.

sorry i am not going into a long discussion
about why we should keep quebec. i
think the whole idea of two languages two cultures is a failure and always has been. we
bribe quebec all the time to stay in confederation why? if they want to go let them
go. the money we would save not having to stick french on everything and everyone would be used for better things. the fact of the matter is that like most canadians outside of
of quebec as the spoiled child of canada. anything she wants she gets so she will stay in the family. frankly i would be glad to see her go just so people would shut up about it. suppose they had a referendum and no one cared?
the media didn't go insane with doomsday predictions the politicians didn't empty our bank accounts to stop them. they would either
shut up about it or go. in which case they can
take their share of the national debt and the
national liberal party. not to mention not being able to use our currency, stamps, military, passports etc. how long before the
states made a move on them? then let them see
what the melting pot has to say about their
'special status'. just about the same as they
said to the arcadians i would imagine. count
me bored and fed up with quebec and her whining.

If you did I'd bet their prime concern was the relative cheapness of the holidayers who motor in from around Quebec, Ontario and the northern states, rather than if Quebec is independant or not.

It's a bit like saying you've been to Whistler and you know the future of BC because it's a real rad town even by BC standards.

allan, to be sure, the Laurentiens don't run themselves - we ALL worked day-to-day! While it wasn't the 'relative cheapness of the holidayers', it was more the fall of the American dollar and the closing of a particular snowmobile trail that concerned us. (I should point out that the hotel where I was working is a favorite of the President of Senegal. I wouldn't call a Head of State and his entourage cheap! Not even small-town cheap!)

Well, no kidding, we didn't sit around and say what we'd do if Quebec was independent. We were just normal people, doing normal jobs, living normal lives.

However, I encourage you to re-read my above post. I did not claim to know the future of Quebec, I was just imparting my observations. But the fact remains: a province that has it's own employment programs, collects it's own taxes, has it's own 'consulates', it's own immigration policy, a different legal system, and is treated by other nations as a nation itself really doesn't have that far to go.

Therefore, I stand by my original post. allan, I have lived there, I have known strong separatists, and I have known strong federalists. I may be no expert, but, ll due respect, I'm pretty sure I know the issue a LOT better than yourself.

A final question: if it's a free and fair referendum, what business is it of non-Quebeckers to decide the fate of Quebec? Last I checked, Canada was still a democracy.

So Allan, people who vote no to seperation in Quebec, don't count. Very Canadian of you. If, say a 52% to 48% in favour vote comes about, what then? Are they to be shipped out of the new country a la the UEL's 230 years previously? Concentration camps for anglophones? Just wait and see. It will be messy.

A certain fefugee problm my chum, as people move away and how can Canada accomodate this influx?

A new country called Quebec would not have to abide by 'Canadian' Aboriginal treatys and if the local tribes object - too bad - just send in the quebec military and clean them out. this is called ethnic cleansing.

As for the USA, they may just annex what's left of Canada, yet leave quebec alone. Why? Simple, as Quebec would still hold the key hydro electric facillites much needed by the North East US states.

Our corrupt and inept politicians will force the US's hand to take action.

Don't think so? Dream on in your rose coloured glasses because the UN is a wet noodle and can do very little.

Quebec leaves, kiss goodbye to the rest of Canada.

Lots of countries have split apart without civil war and others have opted for the bloodshed route. Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia? We'd be more like the Czechs and just let them go.

I think what Backpacker is saying is that Quebec is already a foreign country in that people there aren't immersed in the same culture we are.

And I agree with Coyote that if we want to keep the current borders of Canada we have to look at the world the way it is, not the way we'd like it to be. Rafe is wrong with his "10 provinces" line. Quebec is not, and never will be, a province just like PEI. Canada needs a makeover. I'd like to see a recognition of there being 3 founding peoples, an end to provinces and a complete overhaul of the federal government structure as well as electoral reform. But that's just me, I don't expect anyone to agree.

If Quebec stays its because we generally get along pretty well in spite of our different cultures and laws and the status quo can be pretty strong.

It is English Canada that has to change in order to make Quebec feel more proud of the whole package.

1. Rethink how history is taught in Canada. We are being taught a bunch of BS. Especially from the Ontario perspective (railroads) and Alberta(benevolent settlers).

2. Make sure the next round of constitutional changes gets rid of the colonial BS once and for all. It is not only an insult to Quebecois but it is an insult to those of us in BC too.

- And change BC's name to Cascadia. Britain sold us out every chance they had historically, be it the Columbia, be it the Alaskan Panhandle, be it a legal system that nobody should feel proud of.

3. Canada desperately needs constitutional reform in any case. It is a bloody incoherent mess. Believe it or not, a lot of the political problems of today (Quebec issues, Albertan Whining, ineffective environmental legislation) come from an incoherent division of powers. The courts, over the last 100 years have done cognitive gymnatics to try to make sense of it, and the result is mud.
- Let's take advantage of constitutional reform.
- make a 'federal' componant to education. It would consist of international eductaion (making global citizens), and languages. As for languages, we should be taught three. A lot of people in BC see learning French as a bit nonsensical as Manderin or Cantonese would make more sense. Well, I say make French mandatory, and have a third. It is not that difficult. I guaruntee that learning three languages will make learning French a lot easier, and our kids will learn more about English this way as well. I can honestly say that notwithstanding being a top achiever in high school, I knew absolutely nothing about the English language untill I studied others (independently). This is what most European countries do, and it works. Contrary to opinion, European kids do not learn language in neighbouring countries, they learn it in school.
- Write the environment into the constitution (federal)
- Eliminate the common law!! You might hear bogus defenders of the system, but they misunderstand. The common law is not what you think (an enabling statute, then judicial decisions interpreting it). The common law is a seperate system with no underlying statutes, no democratic justification, and no future in a modern world. The civil system is what people think is the common law.

To end, a civil code for Canada, in the context of a new constitution for a modern world, will do the most to make Quebecois feel proud of Canada. To repeat, it is English Canada that has to change. It does not help to deny that our constitution, largely, is a colonial document drafted by non-canadians, and is the source of virtually all national political problems today, be it Quebec seperatism, or Albertan whining.

Actually, a quite good piece Cosmo, with which I for one am not fundamentally in disagreement. We need a re-ngotiation of the terms of a new Canadian union, starting from the premise of three principle founding national groups, Anglo, Quebecois and Native, all of which have been modified and enriched by a large "other" immigrant component.

We do that, and search for a fair and equitable result, satisfactory by and large to all, much of the "colonial heritage" to which you refer, that continues to plague us and be problematic to the maintenance of a united Canada would, over time, disappear. Other than that, the key is all parties coming to the table in a spirit of goodwill, and a desire to create a new tri-national entity that will be able to hold and stand the test of time.

Without that, I fear our problems will continue to make us vulnerable to the fractious regionalisms that arise out of inequities and old "colonial national grievances" built into our national systems, that make us vulnerable to US ambitions to control us and our resources.

The go in and shoot 'em up and crush 'em approach to national unity of the extreme right/Neoconazis/Conservatives is a recipe for national disaster, and not the salving of old wounds, but their reopening up and freshening. That is a policy to really destroy Canada with, and hand us up to The Empire, which I think is their real desire.

Ehhh, Frank. Excellent. But then we are not ALWAYS on different pages. :-)

Yes - YES! While you will never get them to fly the Maple Leaf or celebrate Canada Day, that will take you a long, long ways in Quebec.

Thanks for not just suggesting we need to send in the military!

With respect to First Nations, there are also serious redress. In BC, it is easier. Recognizing Aboriginal TITLE is the key, and quite possible for many First Nations. Nevermind the BS, it will be good for local economies, AND will serve to move towards the end of the Indian Act, and the enduring racism it promotes.

With respect to the First Nations in Quebec, this is a whole different story, and probably the most significant barrier to Quebec independence. The Cree, (and Innu) occupy most of Quebec. They also, by great majority, are against Quebec sovereignty. And they, as all peoples, have a right to self-determination.

If Quebec attempts to seperate, and the Cree resist, the right to self-determination will become violated (legally, not that it isn't violated already). If the Cree were to take up arms, and Quebec responds with force, the legal case for Cree title would be leveraged; all Quebec could fall back on is the horrific 'effectivity principle'. Anyway, fear not oh federalists, the Cree are very well aware of their international legal standing vis a vis quebec separation. If you get the chance, have a look at the Council of Cree Chief's (sic) submissions prior to the 95 referendum. I don't have it in front of me, but it changed my thinking with respect to Quebec sovereignty completely (I used to borderline support Quebec independance).

Moral of the story, moving forward with recognizing Aboriginal TITLE is a huge part of any constitutional rebirth. However, there is little doubt that any solution will be better for some First Nations (i.e. Haida, Gitsan, etc.) and worse for those with marginal land, and worse for those in other provinces, especially the East.

I am not a supporter of 3 founding nations BS either. Some recognition might be given in language, but I hope a future constitution will be more timeless in its construction.

And for a last rant, don't be fooled by s. 35 and the current Aboriginal rights BS coming out of the Supreme Court. It is the same semantic crap that is nothing more but hollow words, and piece-meal recognition of virtually no rights.

While Aboriginal TITLE issues are of utmost importance; I believe we will all be better off by settling the land issues by agreement. The more, the better. Like I said, it will be not only good for First Nations, but the concept of local economic control in general.

God almighty, I can't believe what I read, such wimps, our foefathers would have spit on the lot of you.

I live in Delta, if I get 51% of the people want to leave Canada, should we be allowed to? According to many yes.

.......now after all this I think Quebec should leave and let the whole damn collapse in chaos. Serves everyone right!

COSMO, you are a breath of fresh air.

None of these problems you address are new. They are issues, mainly steeped in ignorance, racism, whatever, that were given, at best, very little consideration in the haste to bury them generations ago when they might have been resolved to the benefit of all.

GRUMPY, I know exactly what not counting means. I voted for an NDP candidate in 2001's provincial election and then got to watch as the majority dictatoriship that took over determined that it would brook no opposition.

That would be in good ol' democratic BC, not some eastern province, which, because of the use of non-English, many westerners have grown up to fear and dispise.

Again, I'll note my sense of the bizarre worry I see here for the plight of Quebec's first nations, a group of Canadians who seldom generate more than bored disinterest by mainstream Canada.

I'm tempted to ask if you and other champions of Quebec's Cree and other first nations people voted in support or in opposition to government demands presented two years ago in BC's referendum on first nations rights.

I find it quite curious when people from outside Quebec suddenly expect Quebec Indians to stand up to the Quebec separatist movement and save Canada from Montcalm's children.

Anyway, my concern is your argument that there cannot be a loser if Quebec were to separate.

Sorry, buddy, but democracy simply doesn't have room for making us all feel like winners despite our modern day efforts to not refer to some as loser.

If you are involved in a union organizing drive and hold a vote, but your side loses, guess what is most likely to happen.

Oh sure, the law says you can't be fired for organizing, but if you don't have a union to defend you, then your boss can fire you for a whole range of things that aren't directly related to your pro-union attitude.

BACKPACKER, yes Quebec has lots of differences including as you note a separate legal system. Perhaps instead of simply listing our differences, if you were to research the history you might learn why it does.

It also had, at least until the '70 a lot more Roman Catholics than the rest of Canada and that too was a flashpoint for some inside and out.

And of course it has different cultural components, but I ask what is wrong with that?

Are you so afraid of the world that you suspect people who speak with an accent, celebrate diferent heros or want to protect aspects of their history you know absolutely nothing about?

Just to show you we (in the west) and them (in Quebec) do share a few things. A majority in both regions do look toward Louis Reil as a genuine Canadian hero and governments from Manitoba through to Lotusland here are as likely to press for and accept a political bribe, payoff or whatever you call transfer payments and other moneys that are handed out by the federal government.

That Quebec gets more than say Alberta or BC might have to do with the fact that more Canadians live in Quebec than in either BC or Alberta.

I happen to be a fan of transfer payments, at least until a better form of equity can be developed.

I mean, where would BC's wealthy be today if the provincial Liberals couldn't have given them a tax break in 2001 and then turned around and applied to Ottawa as a have-not province?

Philosophically, I am of the "let them leave" crowd. Sending in the army makes no sense. If a community can organize itself and make a good case for nationhood, generally speaking it is the humane option to permit full self-determination.

As it is, Quebec is playing Canada, accepting federal investment, appeasement, and protection, yet insisting on hoisting its own flag. Good on them, but a source of friction inside the ROC.

Practically, it is very hard to see this happening. A Canada without Quebec is cleft in twain. The land route to the Maritimes is cut off. Will Quebec deed the Transcanada highway to the feds?

Then there are the ancillary paperwork nightmares -- do we scrap bilingualism? Do we withdraw Canadian passports and citizenship, and from whom? Will prosecutions on "foreign" territory require extradition? How many other responsibilities will have to be altered (or drafted afresh) between Canada and the new independent state? And what about their portion of the national debt?

I presume that people have already been working on these answers.

In the meantime, I think there is a third way. Rafe says that the ROC will either have to "pay the bribe" or accept separation.

Why?

Why doesn't the federal government just say "no more"? You'll get your fair share based on population -- no more -- deal with it.

Given all of the costs and headaches of separation, would this really be a deal-breaker for Quebec? I rather doubt it.

It's very strange that we are seeing 1939 all over again. Democracy is a scrap of paper that needs people of good integrity to uphold. Just look what the Liberals did to BC when there was no opposition. There was no democracy.

"We have peace in our time", was the shrill cry of good ole' Neville Chamberlain and a few months later the world's greatest war.

Quebec, by leaving, will create chaos. A new country with new rules. It will set a dangerous precedent, as other provinces may want to go.

Things will not be pleasent, anyone who thinks different, is just smoking dope.......it's going to be hell.

If no one wants to fight to keep the country together the USA will just laugh at us as they annex whats left. The Americans hate wimps. Our elites will be glad to sell us out, just so they can keep their condos in Hawaii. It's depressing to se such indifference to such an important topic.

Let them go....eh, well be prepared for hell and the total loss of our standard of living.

America is much more likely to become involved if a civil war occurred. America would not intervene if we peacefully split up.

Not that I care at all what the US thinks of Canada breaking up. That's for Canadians to decide.

There is really nothing new in 99% of the comments in this debate. It has all been hashed and rehashed to the point of boredom.
With all that has been said if Quebec feels it needs to separate it should remember if
Canada is divisable then so is Quebec.
The 'divorce' will be as ugly as ugly can be. But Quebec will have to cede back to Canada that which it received in 1905. Fitting eh what?

I don't know naysayers, I think Canada needs Quebec desperately. It is central to the emerging Canadian globalist worldview; which is something quite enlightened and potentially globally transformative (albeit hypocritical, so far.). Without Quebec, the remaining Canada would be lame, in the global sense.

I really think that non-quebecois need to broaden their perspective of the French reality outside Quebec, and that the Quebecois need to learn about the same thing.

Contrary to what Klein, or any other hot-aired revisionist chump says; the settlement of the plains was a very recent, and largely modern occurance. Most people in Alberta or BC came in a plane or a car.

If you scan the authors of the journals of the early Fur Traders West of the Rockies, you will see English Names. But if you actually read them, you will find that the vast majority of people working were French Canadiens (in some regions) and Natives. And the french, universilly referred to as 'Canadians', were viewed by the British writer somewhere between a Brit and a Native. I have buddies from the Tabacoo Plains Reserve (lower Kootenay); and the name Gravelle is among the most common.

I'm sure nobody wants a history lesson. But I just think we present-day Canadians would identify with the traditional version of what was a "Canadien". They certainly caused much less damage than when the Yankee settlers (many of our ancestors) finally made it to the interior. I don't know why we only celebrate that second group (although we teach the kids they were british.)

It is a modern folly that the French reality in Canada begins and ends at the Quebec border. Like I said, both English and the Quebecois should take note.

As for the 'civil war' theorists, I don't buy it. I think the more likely result of a yes vote would be some messy negotiations, and a whole lot of French and Quebec-bashing that would cause a lot of ill will, and entrench the demise of a united Canada.

Same old tired debate. This issue will only be resolved when there are real stakes at issue.

It's funny to think that a country like Canada, founded by cocktail parties, would erupt into a civil war. The idea is so, so unlikely.

The thing that Rafe doesn't get is that equity does not always mean equal. Additionally, it's not only Quebec that gets special deals. Isn't PEI guaranteed 4 seats in Parliament?

A rethink of how our country works and operates is a healthy discussion, but if you saddle it with the terms of reference Rafe suggests, we are likely to come up with a crappy result that the Fraser Institute pushes (i.e. BCs Citizen's Assembly and Gordon Gibson).

"Quebec is not, and never will be, a province just like PEI."

You're absolutely right, Frank, and Quebec is able to maintain its distinctness in the framework of the existing federation. They didn't need any special constitution that applies only to them and no one else. I agree with Trudeau in this one; special laws that apply only to a minority inevitably put that minority under the domination of the majority. This is what you want?

Rafe's "10 provinces" line means that the laws apply the same in each province, it does not mean every province is "just like" every other province. Quebec wants special language laws? They can do that, so can every province. We don't need special laws for each group.

"I'd like to see a recognition of there being 3 founding peoples"

The only special recognition we have of "peoples" in law right now is the Indian Act. That turned out wonderful, right? And now you want a special Anglo Act and a Quebecois Act to go along with it? No thank you.

It would be nice to believe that passing special "recognition" on a group would make everyone love each other. Read your history books; that doesn't happen. The singled-out group becomes socially isolated, and persecuted if the group is a minority. If you want legal protection for a minority, give them the exact same rights those in power have.

I agree completely with your idea about the abolition of provinces, but we both know that isn't going to happen. However, I also agree with electoral reform, and so does Rafe. So you see, people do agree with you, just not everything you have to say.

Chris H thinks its funny that this country was founded by a bunch of piss tanks, ya right funny ha ha, to bad someone never threw them a bag of weed, maybe then they may have been a little more visionary, so tell us Chris H what part of welfare east do you reside in.

What a pack of narrow minded bigots we must be if we can't afford to allow various specific parts of this country to remain unique, whether through language, culture or the tools to have some say when the resident population is miniscule compared to other regions.

Sorry, but I just can't seem to remember the last time PEI used its extra MPs to run roughshod over the rest of us.

If French frightens you turn your cereal box around and if it's some of our strange culture that's got you hiding in the closet, why not just turn off the hockey game.

Let me experience all your differences Canada.

Corvus, I'm not sure but I think you're saying I was calling for the establishment of 3 big ghettoes. I'm not. But I've heard the Two Solitudes thing since I was a kid and always thought it should be 3 if we have to have solitudes at all.

I assure you I'm not calling for special laws. Just a simple recognition that it was 3 founding peoples, not 2.

As for provinces, I believe those lines on the map divide us more than language ever could.

A little reality moment :

Whether Canadians are capable of accomodating and living with this reality is presently of little concerns to more and more Québécers. It will be up to Québécers to decide for their society's destiny and development. If the only way to achieve those goals is through independence, so be it. It will also be Canadians' failure to face the reality of their currrent 'united' nation and adapt to it reality that will be to blame for any 'disunity', not Québécers.

I live East of the Second Narrows bridge in North Vancouver, but I don't know many who live off of welfare that reside here.

The simple fact of the matter is that our Constitutional issues have been around a long time, and we will solve them by sitting down and talking like reasonable people. Not name calling (hmmm ... Woody?).

Canada is a huge country, and if we want to stay together, we'd better respect each other's differences. Rafe's terms of reference could be a result of such talks, but to start off talks with such a line in the sand doesn't do much to get them started in the first place.

Chris H -- a little local history "IronWorkers memorial bridge" not second narrows bridge.

The Citizens Commission is only the first neccessary step in re-defining our country, just like the debate on this board is also a neccessary step in the right direction. What is needed is motivation and nothing gets peoples attention like a hit to the pocketbook. Think about the value of the Canadian currency and the price of food and gasoline. Think about becoming an American - I know the first thing I`ll do is buy a gun, I`m going to need it. How else will things change for the worst?

Quebec is distinct, just as the other provinces and territories are!

There are similarities too:

Many Quebecers holiday in the states-Old Orchard Beach for example; Retire in Florida; watch Roue de Fortune (Wheel of Fortune); eat Bar-B-Que and buy lottey tickets hoping to retire early! Just like many other Canadians do!

I always thought bilingual signs were good as they provided a "public" french/english dictionary so that you could learn some French while you drove, walked, biked, etc. Despite this unilingual signs are the norm now.

As to separation, the frustrated side of me say go ahead, though if you would like to visit Canada then have a Quebec passport, if you want to work in Banff for the summer (ete) get a work visa, if you are unemployed collect Quebec Unemployment benefits, and for those many french candadiens who are in the military-make your choice: The Canadian Armed Forces or the Quebec Armed Forces.

Our strength is supporting all Canadians, one big family who do not always agree, but pitch in when called upon.

Cheers/Bonjour!

I am surprised that Rafe Mair didn't even mention the recent fiscal agreements that Primer Minister Paul Martin has signed with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Ontario. Without any particular formal announcement or any grand strategy, Martin has accelerated the effective establishment of assymetric or split-level federalism by a very substantial degree.

I was a supporter of Meech and Charlottetown, and Rafe Mair if I recall was rather less supportive. I could say "told you so", but with the passage of time I have come to worry that some of the Parliamentary changes in Charlottetown were sub-optimal. If we could have a new Charlottetown referendum, perhaps along the lines of the Premier's Calgary Declaration of the mid-90s, perhaps we could record some progress.

Still, I am hopeful that we will, with or without a Citizen's Coalition, have a consitutional reform package at some point that will enhance the status of the regions, including Quebec, and of First Nations as well, and also improve our central democracy by moving towards proportional representation. The arithmetic would be very awkward in the case of the smaller provinces, since all MPs will have to be attached to some province, but for the larger provinces I think we can achieve some real progress in getting the seat result to match up with the popular vote a lot better than what we do now.

A serious question Quebeckers need to reckon with is how to avoid being swallowed up by the US after departing Canada. Rich in natural and human resources, strategically, yet vulnerably, located in North America, post-referendum Quebec would be unable to resist the enticements of America once the financial realities set in.
The people in Canada will hold Ottawa to account, making sure that the Quebec that leaves is the Quebec that was conquered in 1759. Huge swaths of northern and eastern Quebec would stay in Canada, including access to the port of Montreal. These areas were added after Quebec joined confederation in 1867.
It is clear from past referendums that separatist leaders have allowed voters to assume they will still enjoy all the priviliges of being Canadian even after they have rejected Canada. It seems like the media is too frightened to ask the separatists how they will prevent drifting into the arms of the US. when the bills come due.
The impetus for separation in Quebec is cultural, not economic, like in Alberta. (Alberta does not have its own culture, it is borrowed from Texas and Thomas Flanagan). It's hard to square "The West wants in"(P.Manning) with, "We should build a firewall around Alberta"(S.Harper) showing that western separatism is equal to but different from Quebec separatism in its incoherence.

True, Woody, but no one who has lived in North Vancouver for any length of time uses "Ironworkers Memorial Bridge." Everyone calls it the Second Narrows.

Oh Canada, how we say are a patchwork of cultures, a nation that celebrates diversity, but yet, we have a federal government that thinks it has to enforce it. Rather than serving the role of arbitrator, it serves the role of moralizer and patriarch. Rather than being content with representing us to the outside world, it figures it has to represent us to ourselves.

The last Quebec referendum was about entering into talks to re-evaluate the realtionship between a certain province and the federal government, and we had a government with the arrogance to take that wish and try to artificially paint Quebec with the maple leaf.

Why does the Canadian government misue its powers of taxation, and then sign silly deals with the provinces to give it back. Why does the government try to enforce a transcanadian healthcare system, but merely gives back to the provinces when it feels like it. Why do agencies such as Telefilm Canada, NRC, Canada Council, HRDC, Regional Development council, distribute money for merely political purposes.

The Answer to Canada's problems is to go back to confederation/province joinings and realize that Canada is a diverse nation, geographically, economically, and culturally, and that there is no reason for us centrally manage it, except as to resolve disputes between areas, and to represent ourselves to the international community.

Chris H you eastern North Vancouverites really are slow off the mark aren't you, as the Richmondites have long ago quit refering to what is now the George Massey Tunnel as The Deas Isand Tunnel, altitude does have it's draw backs obviously, and you have the nerve to take a swipe at the BC Citizens Asssembly, ordinary eyeryday citizens of B.C.who disrupted their lives for I don't know how many months,for a good cause, it's no wonder Quebec wants to leave they don't want to catch what you have, arseholeaniteis.

Woody, everyone else just calls it the Tunnel..

I agree largely with Cosmo. The rest of canada simply does not respect Quebec. We see the european community expanding into the former soviet union and here in the largest country on earth, people have difficulty accepting having 2 official languages! And it IS a different culture too.
The same patronising attitude extends to Newfoundland.
People who have an inbuilt sense of humour. Who would have thought! Couldnt be canadian. No, they are nufies, sounds like wookies.
I cannot believe the milosivich guy with the send in the troops crap. If you do not respect them, no amount of money or troops will keep Quebec as part of Canada.
I hope they stay because I like diversity. Monoculture will just turn english canada into the northern states of the usa.
If you are proud to be Canadian, learn french, learn the history from the quebec perspective, and listen to some cajun music. Be proud of the diversity that Quebec provides this country.
If you dont, western canadians might as well apply for their us pasports now.

LOL. Yup, ordinary everyday citizens who were saddled with terrible terms of reference. Oh ... and I do believe they were paid for their time. I don't feel sorry for them.

As to bridge names ... report me to the bridge police for all I care.

I think it's amazing, some of the comments I've read here. Quebec passports? Work permits for Quebeckers to work in Banff? Swallowed up by the States? I'm glad I joined thetyee.ca, I'm getting a LOT of laughs out of you guys!

If anything, I think we'd see something more along the line of the EU or a relationship like Wales and Scotland have with England.

Why is this forum full of these worst-case scenarios where the sky is going to fall and the sun will not rise tomorrow? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Quebec is gone, they just need to sign the papers.

You guys are sure funny!

For a little levity the naming of places and things. The bridges etc. around here that are renamed after a history of another name really do not need a history lesson for those who use the 'old' title. First Narrows/Lion's gate, Second Narrows/renamed, Dease Island tunnel, Cambie/Cannought (sic?) How many folks out there will still call the new crossing on Lake Okanagan the Kelowna bridge rather than the
Bennett? Which bridge in Vancouver is known as the Pavement Narrows bridge Woody? There are two signs, one north and one south.

Talking about a wonderful constitution, I think Rafe has forgotten the American Civil War. Wasn't that a constitutional crisis? If the so called best resulted in that carnage perhaps our fumbling along ain't so bad.

JWL

But we're Canadian ! Sorry jayward, but I just couldn't resist. Of course, the Americans usually take a different business approach, so what's the issue?

It's a traditional Canadian scare story that needy columnists can march out long enough so that the nationalists, separatists, bigots and ignoramouses all have a chance to vent openly before going back to being polite, but exceedingly dull Canadians.

Absolutely no need for Saturday night specials in our trash talk sessions.

Burgess, for what it's worth our mayor in Kamloops recently tried to pull a stunt that would have made ol' Flyin' Phil Gagliari proud in several ways.

Without any public notice he engineered a proposal to change the name of the city's dominant bridge from Overlander to, you guessed it, Flyin' Phil arches or something like that, honouring the former high flyer who was Kamloops MLA and provincial bad boy for about 20 years.

A little background. The Overlanders were a group of pioneers originally intent on getting to the Cariboo gold fields, but upon reaching Teit Juene Cache, split from a larger group and opted to head south along the North Thompson River.

After horrendous battles with nature the small group eventually arrived in what is today Kamloops and soon and foreever else were portrayed as the original pioneers into the area, although that isn't exactly correct.

Regardless, when word of the mayor's little name coup got out the furor was shocking to the mayor, who has authored a book about Phil and apparently thought he could read the mood of local citizens.

When the issue finally went before council for serious discussion in recent weeks, it was wisely tossed in the trash heap.

However, the mayor who is not running for election again suggested something should be named after the tiny little Highways Minister who once bragged he was the "greatest Roman road builder since Nero".

Kamloops dedicated a park in Gagliardi's name, several years ago
which sits next to the revamped St Andrews church where Gagliardi, in yet another incarnation once preached to those seeking religious as well as political help.

A good number of former church members ended up being employed in BC's highways ministry , the last of whom retired during the last NDP administration, something that has gotten little play in Phil's various bios.

Gagliardi was also mayor of Kamloops for one weird and wonderful term in the late '80s following a successful campaign by a political group that ran with him as their figurehead leader.

They won handily, only to discover that Phil, by this time, was well past his political prime, tended to fall asleep in meetings and on numerous occassions simply up and walked out when he felt he had had enough.

It's now hoped the departing mayor might write a new volume on the Overlanders as sort of an effort to make up for his lack of sensitivities. If it could be accomplished without one mention of Phil, all the better from my point of view.

Burgess I can't even come up with good guess,sock it to me.

Lets start calling Quebec by its real name Lower Canada, that'll teach em.

La Belle Provence is the real name.
Why do we call Canada's most western province British Columbia? Why don't we call it Outer Canada? Or would that offend Alberta? The names of both provinces betray our colonial past. We're now stuck picking up the pieces. Let's start calling BC by its real name: Columbia.

dangrice.com + Camgra your both on the right track, but the name we should adopt is Quebec "2" after all look what it's attained for Quebec "1" in addition it's easier to spell and much shorter than British Columbia, I think any thing British we should be rid of anyhow, particularly British cars but the Brits build shit hot diesel powered Subs, so says Ottawa.

Camgra, the true name for BC was New Caledonia! (at least the mainland) But a little polynesian island has usurped that name already.

However the autonomous region of Pacific Cascadia will one day say adieu to oiland, wheatfield, and the eastern colonies. Washinton and Oregon are free to come with this, but we decided we don't want anything south of San Fran.

What did the first nations call it?

I've been spending my discussion board time lately elsewhere, mostly American sites like the New York Times editorial forums. Coming back here to the Tyee is like leaving a name calling room full of children who all need a nap and entering a room full of adults thoughtfully discussing issues in a thoughtful manner.

Since this is an issue that is beyond the Lower Mainland - Victoria - Whistler axis and thus beyond the area the BC Liberals even pretend to care about or understand, there is even a refreshing absence of those posters who if they aren't being, should be getting paid by Campbell and his cronies.

I just had one suggestion to follow up on Rafe's mentioning of the US Constitution and the process by which it was created. Maybe we could just buy theirs, really cheap, for next to nothing. They have no need for it anymore as they aren't using it, and the chimp and his swine friends would probably practically give it away just to get it out of sight! Just a thought.

The 14th amendment to the american constitution was intended to extend equality to blacks following that country's civil war. Somehow corporations succeeded in the argument that corporations are deserving of similar rights even though the amendment was never drafted for this purpose.
People who are executed there also have the right not to have cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon them but it happens frequently despite the evidence that (a)it doesn't work in terms of deterrence, and (b)it is a punishment that is inherently biased because it leaves too much decision making to those with their own agenda. Think of the D.A. in an election year, looking for a media opportunity.

camgra, I know there was originally a few dozen native languages in bc, so i'm not sure which one we would choose anyways. but i don't care if they were here first, if any one suggests we choose something like "xwi7xwa" or anything else with a 7 or multiple apostrophes, i'll fight em.

as for the american constitution, their blatant "war on drugs" and the "patriot act" show their constitution doesn't safeguard regional liberties. (also, i believe the copyright on it has lapsed). how about the athenian constitution, if we change it to ban the importing of slaves from thrace we should be fine.

Why hasn't the subject of the Queen been raised somewhere in this debate? Wouldn't we be better off jettisoning this embarassing relic, and perhaps putting in place new (symbolic) measures to please everyone. Maybe we could acknowledge the vital role of the First Nations peoples by having a rotating head of state chosen uniquely from their sagest leaders throughout Canada? Just an idea.

go2guy did you not read my previous thread it mentions the British,

Anything British? Ethnic cleansing or just nomenclature on maps? Submarines certainly. Cuisine for sure.
We could start by getting rid of the 'British' in British Columbia. The americans don't call Oregon and Washington 'american ' columbia.
Read Irish history to find out how hard it really is to get rid of the British.

Let mums live her life out, she may be shrewd, but no one deserves to loose their subjects :-)

Hi Woody. Pavement narrows is the signs on the Granville Street Bridge, one north and one south. It was my five year old that figured that one out years back.