Here we go again - Quebec Independence

[August1991]

The marriage of French and English in Canada seems to be one not made in heaven. There is a parallel with North Korea and the World- give me my way or I will make and export atomic weapons. Quebec says give me my way or I will want a divorce.

Ft. Niagara, you just implied that Quebec was like North Korea. Are you serious?

There were three groups of people who, involuntarily, wound up in the North America we all know. Everyone else chose to come here or had ancestors who chose to come (which then became a family legend about "stepping off the boat with nothing in my pocket...")

The three groups? Native Indians, French, Black. These three groups did not choose to live on this continent the way it is now.

In the American context, you can understand French Canada by asking an African-American about why his ancestors decided to come to America.

Don't get me wrong, Ft Niagara. Your posts seem reasonable and I'm a fervent believer in American ideals.

[Guest eureka]

On application to the UN Human Rights Commission with respect to certain provisions of Billl 101, it was ruled as I posted. The Commission also ruled that it could not intervene until all domestic avenues had been exhausted.

That was a nice way of avoiding a difficult intervention that might have upset the Canadian polity. In a sense, all avenues have been exhausted since the courts have either upheld the "laws" or the "Notwithstanding clause has been invoked.

The language laws do indeed proscribe the use of English in every walk of life: from schooling where the children of English speakers have been forcibly educated in French: in business where the English speaking managers of a company that has only English speaking connections and employees must communicate internally as well as externally in French. That applies to unions as well.

There is much, much more than that.

I say civil war in the event of an attempt at separation because half of the Francophone population of Quebec; all the Anglophone population; and almost the whole og the Aboriginal population will not go. Some of these have already made it clear that they will fight.

Somebody said earlier that the Francophone population of Quebec spanned two rivers. That is correct in its origins. Most of Quebec, including areas such as the Gaspe, were first explored and settled by English speakers. The Quebec government's claims with this are entirely spurious.

Too, the Francophone population of Quebec is hurt by the language laws. They also have lost the freedom to choose.

In terms of legality, how many know that Montreal is part of Quebec at the insistence of the Anglophone merchants who built it. There was a movement for another province from Kingston to Montreal but Montrealers would have no part of it. Would they have taken this stance if there was any legal possibility of Quebec curtailing the use of the English language in any way?

[kimmy]

I know there are supposedly no legal restrictions of French in British Columbia however the Trans Canada Highway is financed by the feds. Even federal buildings in Vancouver have bilingual plaques and/or signage.

Actually the more I think about it the more miffed I am be coming about the lack of French (read: bilingual) signage.

So in BC we have de facto eliminated French. BRILLIANT!

I remember before I moved out to Canada's left coast, hearing about the CRTC forcing the cable networks in BC to carry one French channel and the ensuing anti-French (there is no other way to describe it) diatribes.

I think the federales have let us down but not insisting on bilingual highway signs across Canada.

I guess I can't write Tony Valeri any more to find out the reasons why the francophone community hors du Quebec is being descriminated against bigtime, especially by those who are supposed to protect their minority rights, our federal government. 

I have to ask...

...does "Kamloops 394" mean anything different in French than in English? Aren't big red octagons and inverted triangles universally recognized symbols? Does it take much imagination to figure out what

"Maximum

90"

means?

And it seems to me that last time I was on a highway in BC, I think most informational signs were in Pictographs, not English or French.

It seems like somebody looking too hard to find an issue. I can't imagine the traffic signage being an obstacle to anyone, even someone who can't read either official language. If I was a BC motorist, of either language, I'd be a lot more concerned about the hair-raising state of the Trans-Canada Highway outside Golden-- driving off a cliff by accident will "eliminate" Francophones (or Anglos) more permanently than the highway signs

I can't vouch for BC but I know that even here in the heart of Neckberta, a parent can sent their child to school from preschool all the way to university graduation in French. Isn't that what is really important when it comes to language rights?

-kimmy

[ft.niagara]

The marriage of French and English in Canada seems to be one not made in heaven. There is a parallel with North Korea and the World- give me my way or I will make and export atomic weapons. Quebec says give me my way or I will want a divorce.

Ft. Niagara, you just implied that Quebec was like North Korea. Are you serious?

There were three groups of people who, involuntarily, wound up in the North America we all know. Everyone else chose to come here or had ancestors who chose to come (which then became a family legend about "stepping off the boat with nothing in my pocket...")

The three groups? Native Indians, French, Black. These three groups did not choose to live on this continent the way it is now.

In the American context, you can understand French Canada by asking an African-American about why his ancestors decided to come to America.

Don't get me wrong, Ft Niagara. Your posts seem reasonable and I'm a fervent believer in American ideals.

I was just simply using the ANALOGY of an entity using SOMETHING of IMPORTANCE as a bargaining tool to GET THEIR WAY. Get it now?

[August1991]

I was just simply using the ANALOGY of an entity using SOMETHING of IMPORTANCE as a bargaining tool to GET THEIR WAY. Get it now?

Do you think Kim Il Sung (son, father) is simply adopting a bargaining tool? Or is he a psychopath?

When the HMO guy on the phone dismisses your claim, what do you do? Phone again and speak politely? Hire a lawyer? Go to their office, complain and then become belligerent?

When you are misunderstood, what do you do?

*****

I understand your point, Ft. Niagara, about bargaining and so on. I tend to think the great thing about America is that people are free to bargain with whomever they want.

Question: Who has managed better, Americans or Canadians? That is, are Blacks better in America or French in Canada? (The test of a society is how a majority treats a minority.)

Answer: Hands down, North America wins.

[ft.niagara]

The analogy of native americans, to blacks, to French Canadians diserves a reply also.

I think the native americans are a separate group, and to a greater or lesser degree have been dealt with fairly. They were many separate entities and they were dealt with as such. Each mantained a separate nation status.

The blacks came here as slaves. They are mainstreamed into everyday culture to a greater or lesser degree.

The French Canadians are very different in that they have a tradition of white europeans who came to this continent as did the English Speaking Canadians. Their confederation with ESC was forced on them. The control perhaps a third of Canada, and the two societies are not integrated as say the blacks.

It is like comparing apples and oranges.

[ft.niagara]

North Korea has almost no bargaining chips except WMD, and so they use it. I personally do not think that the US should get involved, it is China's problem, and they should be told such.

I think French Canadians and blacks in North America are very different, even though sometimes blacks seem to be speaking a different language. French Canada has the size, and resources, and potential to act as a separate nation. They will probably only continue as part of Canada as long as ESC gives them privledged status, and the benefit outweighs the detrement plus the hastle. In the US, Puerto Rico mantains privledged status. They have all the benefits of citizenship minus some of the hastles, so they choose no to statehood. The only question for Canada is how much and for how long does ESC want to givein to FSC.

[Bakunin]

Im from quebec, i speak french and let me explain you what is the problems. it will be a long post but its worth it. read this to understand the sovregnty issue in quebec.

First of all in 1867 upper canada, lower canada and the maritime organized an union for many matters. the french wanted a confederation, the upper canada wanted a centralized federation and the maritime joined after mainly for security reason. So what happened is that we got a confederation working like a federation... in other word we got what upper canada wants, a false confederation.

Now let me explain what the difference is between a confederation and a federation. first of all a federation has a centralized government.

Now let me explain why we didnt want a federation. First of all i think that evrybody understand that quebecers has its own philosophy, its own personnality and we wanted to be able to accomplish what we want and not be forced by a central government to make 1 conform country with the rest of Canada and be forced to walk in the same direction of all the other province all the time.

Ok, now let me explain you what we think of the rest of canada. We don't hate canadian, we don't hate english speakers too. We don't torture english speakers, the law we passed in the past are law that force student to go to french school only if their father and mother didn't go to an english school...

Now our role in the federal government. Well first of all their is 2 ideology in quebec. People that want a strong central government and People that are against it. Trudeau worked pretty hard for a central government and lesvesque worked against that. Those 2 ideology fougth against each other pretty hard since that time. Sovregnist decided that the only way to end this was to separate from the rest of canada while federalist didnt want to decentralize canada to stop the anger of many quebecers. The federalist are in the liberal party so when the conservative of murloney won, they tried 2 times to work something with sovregnist to decentralize canada and stop quebec from separating but the 2 times it failed mainly because the liberals (trudeau chretiens) were working hardly against it and hard sovregnist too (parizeau). Then the soft sovregnist in the conservative and liberal party were frustrated and like jean lapierre and luciens bouchard and they formed the bloc quebecois because they thought that their where no more chance to decentralize canada and the only way was to separate then renegociate with canadian directly.

Now let me explain why we didnt get 50% at the 1995 referendum (we got 49,5 %). Well its simple, first of all not evrybody care about politics and doesnt bother understand why quebecers want to separate so they doesnt understand and vote "no" their are the people that are afraid of what may happend and those people vote "no" (mainly old people and imigrants). But their are also people like chretiens and trudeau and old liberals minister that think that canada must be centralized so they vote "no" And their are people like jean charest and bourassa that is in the middle of the 2 chair, that understand that the liberal in canada doesn't want to negociate a decentralization and that they think that we shouldn't force them and resign to vote "yes". I would lie if i say that sovregnist doesnt want to negociate after a wining referendum but what i can say is that rene lesvesque luciens bouchars and bernard landry are part of the people that want to renegociate. In the case of Landry, he wants a confederal union. Last polls for sovregnty where showed at the election 2004 night and it showed that 50% would vote yes if their would be a referendum.

Then the last point let me explain you the other issue sovregnist are working for. First of all we are not saying we receive less money than other province. What we are saying is that the federal government is getting to much money for its responsability. That's why the federal government get large surplus while almost evry province get big deficits. we call this "désiquilibre fiscal" i think it can be called fiscal unequity in english. we are also saying that evry province should have the right to participate or not in federal programs and if the province is not happy with it, it shouldn't pay for that program. In quebec under the liberals federal government we got also a lot of trouble because they stealed provincial juridiction and forced us to participate in the federal programs even if we didnt wanted. Their is also another big problem. Its that the liberals created a "sponsorship program" that program was to put canadian flag evrywhere they could in the country and sponsor event like hockey game and festival. they aslo used this program for corruption but thats the way liberal make politics... And the last problem is that English canadian doesnt understand our problem so they think that electing the liberal or using the strong manner will kill the sovregnist movement but its just make it stronger... I hope this will help people to understand the quebec issue. In other word i think that you people can understand that if canada don't decentralize or continue electing liberals, quebecers will make referendum again and again except if english canada decide to work with us to solve the problem we are facing. Jack Layton understand the issue and has sovregnist working for him in quebec. the conservative doesnt understand the issue but want to decentralize anyway and the liberal party is against it however they have jean lapierre who is a soft sovregnist or was a soft sovregnist. So to conclude the liberals are in really bad shape in quebec since Jean charest philosophy is not popular at all (25-30% support him) and since the sponsorship scandal. Their will probably have another referendum in 4 years because their is no way jean charest can win another election, its just impossible, 70% of the people say the charest government sux.... it even got up to 85% in may.

from quebec with love

[Bakunin]

oh and 1 more thing we dont receive that much money like some people think... we receive almost 2 time more than ontario. maybe 10% more than west province. 3 time less than atlantic province. In other word we are not as rich as ontario and alberta but not less than B.C and atlantic province. We don't fight for money, we fight for respect of province's and decentralization.

[Cartman]

Whether or not Quebec is independent, part of Canada, the US or Saudi Arabia for that matter, the forces of globalization will make everyone alike. Everyone's culture is a trivial concern to conservative, neo-liberal, economists and they run the show.

[ft.niagara]

I enjoyed reading your reply. I see it was your first posting and that you wrote with passion. If I may, I think your reply went something like this:

When Canada was formed, the French speaking wanted a confederation, and the English speaking wanted a federation. They got a False Confederation. My dictionary defines confederation and federation as meaning the same thing, so I will substitute strong vs weak central government. There is too much central control of the money, and the tendency of Canadians to keep reelecting the liberal party which promotes strong central government only makes the French Canadians more upset. The French Canadians wanted separation so they were then in a position to renegotiate their position with English Speaking Upper Canada. Given the opportunity the French Canadians will continue to try for separation again and again. It was defeated last time by a small margin, but may pass in the future.

[ft.niagara]

Whether or not Quebec is independent, part of Canada, the US or Saudi Arabia for that matter, the forces of globalization will make everyone alike. Everyone's culture is a trivial concern to conservative, neo-liberal, economists and they run the show.

It sounds like you are a one world government type. Indeed, perhaps that will be in the future. Europe seems to be going in that direction. The only thing that has to be worked out is language, religion, etc. I think it is a long time before there is one world government. It might be more efficent, but those little differences translate into big differences.

[Bakunin]

exaclty, english speakers make it worst unintentionaly. Sovregnty has never been stronger than right now... and thats because we can't work togheter to solve the problems of a centralized federation without being demonized and missunderstood by french and english media.

now here is the difference between a federation and a confederation i took from encarta 2004:

Confederation, in political terminology, a union of sovereign states each of which is free to act independently. It is distinguished from a federation, in which the individual states are subordinate to the central government.

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

A confederation is similar to a federal system but gives less power to the central government. The loose alliances of countries or other political entities that make up a confederation seek to cooperate with one another while retaining ultimate control of their own internal policies. Unlike federal systems, confederations usually give each member nation absolute control over its citizens and territory. The central government decides only issues that affect all members of the confederation.

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

------------

Here is what encara 2004 say about the born of canada:

Many of the delegates, including Macdonald, wanted a strongly centralized union; others, particularly the French Canadians, wanted a looser federation with wide autonomy for the provinces. The resolutions finally adopted by the Québec conference seemed in many ways to give Macdonald the centralized union he wanted. The federal government would control banking, finance, defense, transportation, and commerce among the provinces. It would also have far greater powers of taxation than the provincial governments would have. In private, Macdonald predicted that the central government would be so strong that it would soon swallow up the provinces completely.

Yet the Québec resolutions were vague or contradictory enough to give equal hope to many who wanted more power for the provinces. Provincial governments were to have exclusive control over education, hospitals, natural resources, property and civil law, municipal institutions, and generally all matters of a local nature. In Lower Canada, Cartier’s party announced that this meant that the provincial government would have the power to promote the French Canadians’ distinctive nationality. In fact, the Québec resolutions were open to opposing interpretations, and it would remain for the future to see how they would work out in practice

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[maplesyrup]

No; from the sounds of it; Alberta would be crying to separate, too. Which we could not allow as they don't want to pay the costs for a clean environment and may

Ummmmm, correction, Alberta already has pretty high standards against polution. We can do more of course but the ball has started rolling. You could also say that Alberta has already paid for it's share of the pollution problem through the NEP of the 80's. Consider it an advance payment. And you know caesar, the air in Alberta is a heck of a lot better than the air of the lower mainland, Okanagan or the Kootenays. You can't even see 1 mile anymore on a calm day on the lower mainland . What about all the crud that washes up on the beach at White Rock? Kids can't even go barefoot down there anymore. Clean your own outhouse before you start complaining about your neighbours please.

Oh really!

Killing Fields

When Moe Holman crested the hill 20 years ago and saw the faint, dirty-yellow cloud creeping across the road downhill of him, he quickly braked his car and slapped the switch that shut off the air vents. Holman, who knew this patch of Northern Alberta better than most local farmers, couldn't quite believe his eyes. The cloud of sour gas could only have come from one place, and that was a well almost eight kilometres away.

After realizing he was clear of the cloud's path, Holman got out of the car and went to the trunk to retrieve his binoculars. A light breeze carried the gas east, and as the veteran oilpatch worker trained his binoculars downwind, he had plenty of time to see it drift toward a gaggle of snow geese grazing on some lush, green grass in a farmer's field. As it overtook them, each of the birds dropped, most never having time to lift their beaks from the ground, let alone attempt to fly.

On February 5, 2001, a young Fort St. John man named Ryan Strand, all six feet, 175 pounds of him, fell just like one of those unfortunate birds. Twenty-five years old, he had been on the job for only 11 months when he got the last call of his brief working life. The call came from Todd Thompson, a control-room operator with Calgary-based Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., and it directed him to a well site where, only five months earlier, an uncontrolled sour-gas leak had sent a hoe operator scrambling into the gathering darkness of a late September evening.

The well was near Buick Creek, a forlorn collection of houses anchored by a general store and its muddy, rutted parking lot. It was also close to the Blueberry reserve, a First Nations community at the bottom of a steeply sloped valley, which is exactly the wrong place to be during an uncontrolled sour-gas leak: the gas is heavier than air, and it sinks.

During a visit to the reserve, I learned firsthand why its residents live in fear. In several places, electronic monitors sit atop tall towers, screening the air. When sour gas is detected, alarms wail and people rush into vehicles, including a van donated by CNRL. On the lands above the reserve, searing flames sometimes shoot from stacks as energy companies flare sour gas to reduce pressure in the lines. Those stacks, and nearby compressors that sound a lot like jets screaming down runways, leave some locals feeling as if they live in a war zone. It's a place they call Little Beirut.

[maplesyrup]

Bakunin.....bienvenue au Mapleleafweb/Webfeud'arable. Merci pour vos postes.

And the last problem is that English canadian doesnt understand our problem so they think that electing the liberal or using the strong manner will kill the sovregnist movement but its just make it stronger... I hope this will help people to understand the quebec issue. In other word i think that you people can understand that if anada don't decentralize or continue electing liberals, quebecers will make referendum again and again except if english canada decide to work with us to solve the problem we are facing. Jack Layton understand the issue and has sovregnist working for him in quebec. the conservative doesnt understand the issue but want to decentralize anyway and the liberal party is against it however they have jean lapierre who is a soft sovregnist or was a soft sovregnist. So to conclude the liberals are in really bad shape in quebec since Jean charest philosophy is not popular at all (25-30% support him) and since the sponsorship scandal. Their will probably have another referendum in 4 years because their is no way jean charest can win another election, its just impossible, 70% of the people say the charest government sux.... it even got up to 85% in may.

I have heard talk that Duceppe will take over from Laundry as leader of le Parti Quebecois. Is that pretty much a done deal?

Also I am curious about your comments concerning le NPD. You say Layton understands, and I agree with you, so why didn't more Quebeckers support le NPD in the last election? And what can le NPD do to win seats au Quebec in the next election? And if le NPD were to make inroads in the future in Quebec, where abouts would that be? Rural or urban?

Francophone, allophone or anglophone areas? What about Pierre Ducaisse? Did he have any impact in the last election? Is he the right guy to lead le NPD au Quebec?

[Guest eureka]

Bakunin!

I will respond to you later as I have to go away for a couple of days.

Quickly. though! You appear to have completely bought into the Nationalist propaganda/ Canada was not intended to be a Confederation. It was, as Macdonald wrote; a country of provinces that were municipalities writ large. Every member thought that a centralized federation had been formed.

Then. Canada is now the most decentralized nation in the world - without exception. The talk of decentralizing is merely the desire of certain interests to be bigger fishes in smaller ponds.

[Bakunin]

I have heard talk that Duceppe will take over from Laundry as leader of le Parti Quebecois. Is that pretty much a done deal?

first its landry not laundry. Bernard Landry was about retire when he lost the election but since Charest is doing so bad, he changed is mind. Duccepe and Landry are friend so that won't happen before Landry retire.

Also I am curious about your comments concerning le NPD. You say Layton understands, and I agree with you, so why didn't more Quebeckers support le NPD in the last election?

First of all, Layton understand but im not sure about his deputy. I think he still has work to do. He doesn't speak french very well :/ he doesnt have well know deputy, and we must say that the bloc gets the vote because they do the job pretty well.

And what can le NPD do to win seats au Quebec in the next election? And if le NPD were to make inroads in the future in Quebec,

If the bloc disapear, or join the npd then npd would get lots of vote if it work hard. for the moment the conservative and npd ignore the quebec. we don't have well known deputy and they don't care about Quebec issue. I would say that if LAyton would run in a quebec county, it would help alot.

where abouts would that be? Rural or urban?

it would get the bloc vote, so the whole quebec except the west part of montreal that vote liberal.

Francophone, allophone or anglophone areas?

francophone only. allophone and anglophone (the west part of montreal) vote liberal.

What about Pierre Ducaisse? Did he have any impact in the last election? Is he the right guy to lead le NPD au Quebec?

He is not a bad guy but he can go shopping and nobody will know who he is. I mean he is not well known, the npd got 3-4% the last election in quebec, he didnt win his county. What i can say his that the npd has alot of potential in quebec, ~ 50 deputy but they would have to merge with the bloc :/

[Bakunin]

Bakunin!

I will respond to you later as I have to go away for a couple of days.

Quickly. though! You appear to have completely bought into the Nationalist propaganda/ Canada was not intended to be a Confederation. It was, as Macdonald wrote; a country of provinces that were municipalities writ large. Every member thought that a centralized federation had been formed.

Then. Canada is now the most decentralized nation in the world - without exception. The talk of decentralizing is merely the desire of certain interests to be bigger fishes in smaller ponds.

Eureka, well i just post what's written in the encarta 2004 encyclopedia,

i think that if thei are wrong you should call microsoft, maybe they can explain themselve and correct their text if thei find out thei are really wrong :/

[kimmy]

Oh really!

Killing Fields

I think that if you looked around you could find an equally worrying story about an ecological horror-story in any province or territory in Canada. Industrial sludge poisoning lakes and rivers in Ontario, raw sewage being dumped into the sea right outside Victoria and Halifax, toxic mine waste being poured right into the ground in the Western Arctic, etc.

And although it is upsetting to read about these sorts of incidents, they don't actually say a lot about the way each jurisdiction is taking care of its environment as a whole.

Qualitative is different from quantitative. If you want to make some kind of assessment over some place's environmental policies, you need some quantitative information.

-kimmy

[August1991]

I read this elsewhere and thought I would post it here.

What does Quebec want? Well, according to numerous surveys, these rae the reasons given by Quebecers for having an independent country.

1-Pour protéger la langue

2-Pour être majoritaire

3-Pour vaincre notre complexe d'infériorité

4-Pour avoir l'impression de contrôler notre destinée

5-Par esprit revanchard (le conflit français-anglais date pratiquement d'un millier d'années)

1. To safeguard the French language.

2. To become a majority instead of a minority

3. To overcome a collective inferiority complex

4. To believe one can decide one's own future

5. To get back at the English for all their sins

What are the reasons Albertans would give for independance?

[maplesyrup]

They shoot, they score (for now)

The abject collapse of the Liberal Party in Quebec provides a huge boost to the sovereigntist forces, which are now poised to dominate the public debate for the next several years.

It's too soon to say whether the results of the June 28 election will serve as a springboard for the winning referendum that the sovereigntists dream about. What is sure, though, is that the new political configuration will favour them.

The Bloc Québécois, with 54 seats and 49 per cent of the vote, will be the major Quebec player in Parliament. While the Liberal caucus is mostly made of tired survivors of the Jean Chrétien era, the Bloc will have new, interesting figures, such as Cameroun-born Maka Kotto, an actor and a good public speaker, and Serge Ménard, a brilliant defence lawyer and a former cabinet minister in the Parti Québécois government (he lost his seat in the last provincial election).

Being Quebeckers, sovereigntists love hockey metaphors. For them, the Bloc victory was the first period of the game, the second period being the return of the Parti Québécois to power on the provincial scene in three or four years. The third period would be for the future PQ government to hold (and win) a referendum on sovereignty.

At the moment, the second period looks like a sure bet. For months now, Jean Charest's Liberal government has been steadily declining in the polls and Mr. Charest faces an uphill battle if he wants a second term. Come the next provincial election campaign, the PQ will also receive a great deal of help from a stronger and richer Bloc.

It sure sounds like Charest has gone into freefall at the polls, and needs to be replaced, similiarly Campbell in British Columbia. Why do Canadians keep on electiong these right wing governments when they don't really want their policies?

It seems like a large part of the problem is that the quality of our political options are not satifying the voting public. Is it time for a federalist left-of-centre provincial party in Quebec? And if so, how is that going to come about?

[Bakunin]

charest was a conservative, he went to the liberal for 1 reason, because he was a federalist. But now that he is in power, he act just like a conservative party. Its how it work in quebec. 2 party, 1 sovregnist and 1 federalist. their are no right or left wing, its just depend of the prime minister. Luciens bouchard was a conservative too.

[maplesyrup]

Charest originally was in Mulroney's cabinet, I believe.

It seems like the federalist forces in Quebec are quite weak in the quality of their politicians.

But Le Bloc Quebecois with Duceppe is basically a left of centre party, n'est pas? Compared to the Liberals, that is

[maplesyrup]

What would happen in ROC if Quebec leaves?

What would happen to French in ROC for example? I, for one, would not not want to lose what little presence French has now. I was kinda hoping that with all these French emmersion students in Alberta, and elsewhere, that we are about to see an explosion in the use and presence of French on signs, etc.

I mean I can't believe I still hear these kind of comments, but sure enough, even today, on another thread here, some yahoo is complaining about bilingual labeling on his cereal boxes. I find it hard to believe peole like that still exist, but unfortunately there are still a few around. Seriously, what do you do with people like that?

[I miss Reagan]

1. To safeguard the French language.

2. To become a majority instead of a minority

3. To overcome a collective inferiority complex

4. To believe one can decide one's own future

5. To get back at the English for all their sins

What are the reasons Albertans would give for independance?

1. To safeguard Alberta culture.

2. To become a majority instead of a minority.

3. To overcome Canada's collective inferiority complex towards the USA.

4. To control our own destiny.

5. To get away from Ottawa and all its sins.

Is that good enough?