Greetings:

I take issue with several parts of this blog commentary. First, statement that “the West is getting more and more vocal about separation”. You should know better Stageleft then to fall for this meme painted by some of the Blogging Tories. Its more accurate to say that some conservative political activists and isolated media and blog commentators (like the Western Standard or FreeDominion) are starting to mutter about separation. They hardly represent the West getting “more and more vocal” about separation - they’re just the loudest, You’re falling for their propaganda that they represent even a fraction of views held in Western Canada by stating that as such.

In fact.. EVEN if I were to accept your original point, I take issue with you saying its “the West” that is getting more vocal about separation. Despite some recent national polls, BC is still poised to elect more Liberals and/or NDP members then Conservatives.. and Manitoba and Saskatchewan are also expected to elect a fair # of MP’s other then Conservative candidates. What you really should be saying to try and make a case is that its some folks in Alberta that are muttering about separation. As per my electing other MP’s besides Tories argument should show, you make the mistake of painting “the West” as one big monolith of same-minded voters as Alberta, and that simply isnt true.

And, even in Alberta, I highly doubt there will be cries for separation if the Liberals get re-elected. When a separatist party gets no more then 0.5% of the Alberta provincial vote (in the last provincial election), I have my doubts.

Personally, I like #3. However, when someone like Buckets highlights a situation where a CEO in Alberta is told to “talk to your Board” to see if separatism is an issue… um hello, when directors are figuring out plans for Plan A, Plan B, Plan C… and separation of a province is an acceptable topic of conversation, ya just gotta ask.

As for redrawing the boundaries, one has to ask “according to whose original boundaries?” Oh, & I doubt (she says, crossing her fingers) that AB is dumb enough to go down the road without discussing it with the First Nations first (and I could be wrong on that), since, as noted, a large chunk of the resources are on Aboriginal lands.

Maybe, in seeking to avoid seperation, option #3 is the way to go - it makes sense in appeasing regional concerns although it does make it harder to have “national” — well, much of anything really.

Look at the current players and the positions they hold politically and economically and tell me what sort of fair for everyone deal would be negotiated at that table. I can certainly see a couple of provinces (you and I live in them) looking out for #1 regardless of how the (weaker politically and economically) Territories or Eastern Provinces come out of it.

As for redrawing the boundaries, one has to ask “according to whose original boundaries?” Oh, & I doubt (she says, crossing her fingers) that AB is dumb enough to go down the road without discussing it with the First Nations first (and I could be wrong on that), since, as noted, a large chunk of the resources are on Aboriginal lands.

Then you have more faith in the provincial level of government than I do, Quebec doesn’t bother much with the concerns of Aboriginal peoples in this respect do they? During the last referendum round the Aboriginal people there basically said, fine, seperate of you want, we’ll seperate from you and stay in Canada, Quebecs’ response was (although couched in politically correct language with only the appropriate levels of paternalistic concern), screw you, if we seperate we’re taking your resource rich land with us and if you don’t like it move, we wish you well, have a nice life - what makes you think Alberta would be different? Do you really think that where money and power are concerned what the Aboriginal people want would be even slightly material?

Thank you Candace for reminding everyone that any discussion of separation and land division from Canada must involve consultation with the First Peoples. And not just the usual cheap “host a cross-Canada-tour” as of late. (i.e. FN Governance and AFN renewal consultations)

When the James Bay Cree Nation went through this with Quebec, Mathew Coon Come, then Grand Chief of the Council of Cree Nations, said something like (And I’m paraphrasing here)…“If Canada wants to honour, advance, and respect its human rights agenda, strengthen democracy within its borders, and celebrate a vision of Canada that is inclusive of the First Peoples, then Canada must have these discussions with the First Peoples.”

The Cree came up with well-articulated arguments why Quebec could not secede. Perhaps Canada should do the inviting to the Crees in order to protect its frontiers from a separatist Quebec. I understand Sampson Cree Nation in Alberta lost their trust case but they are appealing to the Supreme Court. With all the legal experience they are gaining perhaps they too will do a better job articulating the difficulties of “just separating” when more than “just land” are involved.

Mike H sez:
>In my view, what makes Quebec sovereignty inevitable is the fact that it is largely motivated by base tribalism, rather than grievances and injustices, be they real, exaggerated, or imagined.>

And the English-speaking Canadian unity forces aren’t? Driven by tribalism, I mean?

As an anglophone in Quebec, pre-Levesque era, I remember quite well my anger and discomfort watching francophone friends turfed out of or unserved in “English” restaurants. I remember well the majority control of the Quebec economy by “English” interests. I also remember learning Parisian French which to this day has done me absolutely no good if want to order beer in a pool hall in Quebec. Dammit! Memories like these are hard to forget (especially the lack of beer!).

I remember the arrogance, brutality and slime of the Bourassa Liberals; their raids at Restigouche, and the promise to ‘bulldoze” the northern Cree to make way for James Bay hydro. The outrage and demonstrations against these, and against a lot of other complaints, were voiced and populated by a large, vocal, cross-section of people of various languages, ethnicities, income levels, and religions. When Levesque and the PQ turfed out Bourassa et al, there were parties going on across the province (I remember a couple, but not all that I attended) to celebrate a new and hopefully better future for all. I also remember the flood of moving vans as English families and businesses fled the province the next day. Why? I can’t explain this tribal mass exodus.

You’re ignoring a long history full of tremendous social change and powerful economic forces that have driven the Quebec sovereignist movement, as though Quebec’s argument began with Lucien Bouchard. It seems you’re ignoring, dismissing off-hand, Quebec’s “grievances and injustices,” real, perceived or imagined as if they don’t matter. They do. And I think you should stop reading too much into Micheal Ignatieff’s books while you’re at it.

>Too often, Canadians focus on a dissection of issues and policies relating to the quest to keep Quebec happy within Confederation, while overlooking the undercurrent of global parochialism that continues to manifest itself in many parts of the world.>

See my last sentence above (re: Ignatieff).

It’s more than tribalism. Trudeau recognized that, and tried (and failed) to stamp out QC separatism. Mulroney saw that, and tried (and failed) to accommodate QC separatism. At least they recognized that things were a lot more complicated than you put it.

IMO, the latest scandal (Gomery) and the rising fortunes of the PQ and Bloc have more to do with perception than reality. People in Quebec get freaked when they think the Feds can buy their sentiments for a measely $100-mill. I suspect so would the folks in PEI. What most people blot out is that a few scammers saw an opportunity… and took it. White collar crime. It happens every day. What makes this crime different from any other crime, was the use of federal unity funds and the perceived insult.

So, is Quebec sovereignty an inevitability as you suggest? No. Gomery is an insult and the people of Quebec will punish the Liberals at the ballot. But it isn’t a death blow to Canada. More is at stake for the sovereignists than a chintzy million bucks.

Neither is it a call for Quebec tribalists to gather and defeat… Who? The Quebec politicians involved? They’ll need more than Gomery to convince the folks of Quebec that a few lousy ads and cheap flags are worth the upheaval and uncertainty that a split with Canada would entail.

What we should be more concerned about is PEI and that nasty rumour flying about that folks there are thinking of lashing a bunch of outboards and motoring the island down to Maine to be closer to lobster markets and away from all this B**S***. I hear they got that lame idea from this blog.