Who will speak for a united Canada/

[White Rabbit]

Well Ms. Syrup, it is as I have stated many times and many times my French-speaking friends have agreed. Your kind does not wish to correct the flaws, or help find a more equitable direction. Your kind only wishes to seek revenge.

Granted, there were many inequities of the past, but that is where they are, in the past. I did not participate in them, nor am I to blame for anything then, BUT now I and my fellow Canadians are expected to pay for the wrong and people like you who suffered not at all will reap the benefit.

Your foolish, immature selfishness, knows no bounds. Instead of making a better Canada, you wish only to destroy. Oh, yes the bombing. Very brave those FLQ guys. Cut a throat here, explode a post box there, kidnap again: yes, very brave. Maybe you and your kind should go ... just a thought.

Mr. McGuinty is a politically correct, blind, fool. He should fit right in with you.

By the way, 'Boo Hoo', shows little imagination as a comeback.

White Rabbit

[Choke]

While I think bi-lingualism is a complete joke and completely unrealistic and backwards, I still like the Bloc better than any other party, and I'm a Conservative from BC.

I would love for Quebec to split off because I think it would result in a chance for BC and Alberta to split off as well. If BC and Alberta (and mabye the Yukon and NWT for good measure) formed a seperate nation it would be far richer and have a federal government that actually represented the people who live in this part of the country.

I wouldn't mind having a free-trade agreement with the rest of Canada, but that's it, no more French and no more Ontario controlling things.

[White Rabbit]

To Choke:

I must say that your presumed support is valued, but I also might suggest the concept of bilingualism, as it pertains to Canada, is not 'unrealistic or backwards'. It is the flawed application of those concepts that is the problem.

May I explain. The unrealistic part has only partial merit. As you probably arlready know, French is largely spoken in the majority of Que., about 40% of NB, and along the Ottawa river of Ontario and some towns of northern Ontario. There are also pockets of French, but at greatly reduced percentages in Manitoba Sask, and Alberta, but these simply are relics of pre-Riel days. That is no insult by the way.

It has been and should be, the role of the federal government to provide legislation which will help foster prosperity for all its people. Natural biases, especially those of 150 years ago, high illiteracy levels, strident support for religious loyalties have marked our history since before 1867. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was perhaps the first real Canadian who could speak the Queen's English at a level far beyond the average Anglo, but maintain a reasonable pride, without being a biased fanatic, in his Quebec heritage.

Very bright man really. We need more like him today. By the way, he was an avid pro-American and provincial rights proponent. I wonder how many people today would like that, ha. I digress.

The unrealistic part is pretending that Canada is composed of two 'equal' parts as all language laws seem to suggest. The word 'equal' donotes sameness in number, degree, value, rank or any other form of measure. Clearly the linguistic reality of Canada is NOT equal, it is 'equitable', which relates to 'fair and just', which means to abide 'according to the rules', 'to play fair', and 'accepted in kind and degree by accepted ethical standards'.

Frankly people, Bill 101, the OLA ('69 or '88), or the ones previous to this latest round of lunacy, did not hit the mark. The problem is the perception of the word 'equal'. Our nation's people usually do not understand the legalistics differing equal and equitable, but, our nation's lawyers do. In the guise of fair and equitable, which is really just fine, they offer the word 'equal', which is the root of the discriminatory process, for it does not take a genious to see that Canada is just plain, factually, not linguistically equal.

Now does that mean one group should suffer over the other? No, but they do, and have, and will unless our leaders see it for what it is: wrong. The pipe dream of pan-Canada bilingualism has fractured this land more than any issue previous, but in lingering, subtle ways.

A strong central federal gov't vs increased provincial authority is also a kep philosophical point here.

Should any province have the right/oligaion/responsibility to 'equitable' application of language education and use in the federally employed labour departments. Probably!! In fact they do. The rub is that open discrimination is sanctioned unchecked in Quebec, again Bill 101 rooted, but allowed to exist 'for the greater good'. Well that greater good is what tears us apart now.

The Chokester wishes to separate from our wonderful country. He would not be alone. There are many who ae just plain fed up. Frankly, our history has been fraught with those thoughts from various jurisdictions since our beginning. Nova Scotia almost went ballistic on hearing it would part of the new country of Canada. Pre 1867 Canada (not the two entities of Ontario and Quebec as is often and wrongly believed) had great tension were split into two provinces from the one colony to address the issue.

The West has had many manifestations: CCF, Reform, CA, United Farmers, Progressives, for example all had a populist base rooted in the same problem: a feeling that Ottawa cannot or does not have the stuff to make it work. Leadership my friends is what Canada lacks today.

Currently there are real separation thoughts coming from: Quebec (as usual), Alberta, BC, an Alberta/BC combo, Saskatchewan (as in Saskatchewan First Party and would Manitoba join them or stay?),rumblings from Nfld as in, why didn't we up with the US in '49?. Ontario seems to be the only one left, perhaps because it and its people do not regard themselves as Ontarians first. In Ontario, Canada is first; all else is a distant second.

Now don't blow a nut on that comment. This is not a rah, rah, Ontario comment, it is just a very sincere and, I believe, correct observation after being around this land for many years. The bugaboo of regionalism has been with us since day one. As Mackenzie King once said, Canada is a land of large geopgraphy, but little history.

We need to find the things that bind, not those that divide.

'Backward': well that's a very subjective term. You say tomato, I say an attempt to address a very difficult problem.

I wish you stay with us Choke, because we are something worth fighting for. Remember, it was not very long ago that the West was our child which was nutured to a fine adult. Well done. Together we can do this thing. Apart, we will be swallowed piecemeal by other interests. Look south for that reality.

Anway folks, time to go. This book is over for now.

White Rabbit

[Tawasakm]

It has been fascinating reading this thread. I was thinking of two parallels while reading it. One was Japan where the shoguns would fight amongst themselves for supremacy. Unless Japan was threatened in which case it became a 'closed fist' as they united together. Their nation was the most important consideration. The second actually involves Australian history. At one time the state of Westen Australia held a referendum on whether or not it should secede from the rest of Australia and form its own nation. The vote was in the affirmative. The British monarch told them 'no'. Since they were loyal British sujbects at that time they obeyed. Nowadays all of Australia is united. I don't think any state would wish to secede (or even think of it).

The point I'm trying to make is that although things may seem so divisive now it can always be possible to work through it and have a united future. I hope Canada (which is famous for acceptance) can find a way to 'meet' and become one nation in fact (even if it is made of diverse parts).