Basic HTML Version
CANADA
(Continued from page 9)
"good side" of separation- the side
that appeals to the emotions, to
swelling national pride. The P.Q., he
believed, hasn't told the people that
Quebec, despite its vast mineral
wealth, is not yet in the position of
being its own master. "Who's going
to pay the bilis?" he asked.
This worldly-wise gentleman re–
lated to me that when he started in
business he first had to learn how
small he was and "how much I
needed others." This is the message
he believed his own countrymen
needed at this crossroads in their
history..
Assoclatlon or Vlolence?
The bottom line of Canada's unity
crisis is this: Is it possible to break
up a national marriage of 111 years,
which has produced a highly ad–
vanced interdependent economy,
without paying an enormous ali-
~
mony cost in the form of social hos–
tility and economic disruption?
In actuality, the
Parti Québécois
propases that Quebec gain political
independence and at the same time
retain economic association with the
rest of Canada in a sort of common
market arrangement. The official
term for it is "sovereign associa–
tion." Opponents, however, say this
is nothing but a "having-your-cake–
and-eating-it-too" policy designed
to get independence without paying
the full price.
The rest of Canada appears not to
be buying the program, at least for
now. As Peter Newman, the editor
of
Maclean's
magazine puts it: "Any
hope of economic association is en–
tirely impractical and the policy it–
self has been rejected by every
important politicalleader in English
Canada."
Former federal Deputy Finance
Minister Simon Reisman adds
bluntly: "The so-called economic
union is a phony. Most of Quebec's
secondary industry depends heavily
on the highly protected Canadian
market. Other Canadians are pre–
pared to accept this cost only to the
extent that they can believe it is part
of the cement that binds a nation
together."
32
Quebec officials counter that their
market is so vital to Ontario indus–
try that Canada would have no
choice but to accept an economic
association.
A young journalist in Victoria,
B.C., a former resident of Montreal ,
told me that he is convinced that in
the aftermath of a separation "there
would be one of the biggest boycotts
you've ever seen" throughout Can–
ada against Quebec products.
It must also be realized that few
nations in history have allowed
themselves to be split apart ami–
cably. There is a great possibility
that separation would not be re–
ceived by English-speaking Cana–
dians in their customarily reserved
manner. Many Canadians may be–
come "bloody upset ," as Canada's
leading book publisher, Jack
McClelland, told me, when they fi–
nally wake up to the fact that sepa–
ration stares them in the face.
In January, Trudeau warned Lé–
vesque that he would not hesitate to
send in the Canadian military to
prevent an "illegal" breakaway by
the Quebec government- without
clearly defining the word "illegal."
The prime minister already has es–
tablished a precedent, having dis–
patched the army to Montreal in
1970 to quell a sudden outbreak of
political violence and kidnappings.
Sorne Quebec authorities believe,
in the event Canada turns thumbs
down on the common market
scheme, the resource-rich province
can easily strengthen its already for–
midable trade links with the United
States, which has $5 billion invested
in the province. But it is difficult to
see the U.S. showing favoritism to
Quebec at the very time Washing–
ton needs Ottawa's (and Western
Canada's) favor on oil and gas pipe–
line arrangements in the West.
How to Divide Canada?
Even if Canada's breakup were ac–
complished without violence, how–
ever-and the P.Q. is dedicated to a
democratic, peaceful solution-ne–
gotiations on how to divide IJP the
"family estate" could be long, ar–
duous and acrimonious, in the man–
ner of a bitterly contested divorce.
The list of issues is a long one.
Who, for example, would get con–
trol of federally owned properties in
Quebec, such as port facilities? Also
involved is the status and future of
Canadian-owned corporations in
Quebec; the dividing up of the as–
sets and routes of the Canadian Na –
tional Railroad and Air Canada; the
right of land· and air passage across
Quebec to the impoverished Mari–
time provinces Ieft dangling on
Quebec's right ftank; the dividing
up of the responsibility of operating
the Canadian portian of the St.
Lawrence Seaway (most of which
runs through Quebec and to which
Quebec would certainly stake a sov–
ereign claim).
Ottawa would certainly remind
Quebec that two-thirds of its terri–
tory was acquired by a grant from
the federal government after federa–
tion and was therefore subject to
"recall."
It should be obvious that it is
much easier to break up a country
than to build a new one! But
Parti
Québécois
leaders are convinced
that their program of
souveraineté
association
will work (they often re–
fer to the amicable split between
Sweden and Norway in 1905) and
that it is worth the risks involved.
"You have to go through breaking
sorne eggs befare the omelet ap–
pears," says Lévesque.
The U.N. and "UDI"
Lévesque clearly hopes for a care–
fully orchestrated "clean break"
once he has a successful referendum
in hand. But if Ottawa should
choose not to negotiate, sorne in the
P.Q. hierarchy are said to be willing
to take another course: an appeal to
the United Nations for support of
the cause ofQuebec's "liberation."
Of course, the Communist!Third
World-dominated U.N. could be
counted on to give thunderous ap–
plause to such a rite of national self–
determination. The Soviets, espe–
cially, would eagerly support any
rupture of the unique Canadian–
American relationship.
The reaction of France at this
time is uncertain. While París offi–
cially respects Canadian sovereignty
over Quebec, President Giscard
d'Estaing rolled out the red carpet
for the visiting Lévesque severa!
months ago, according him honors
usually befitting a head of state.
And, of course, eleven years ago
The
PLAIN TRUTH May 1978