Whitby Free Press, 5 Jun 1985, p. 5

The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY,J UNE5, 1985, PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Here's an interesting political puzzle to consider: Can Canada exist without Quebec? Would Canada still be Canada if Quebec left Confederation? For those who don't think that this is a relevent question at this point in our history, I have only to suggest that you read your national daily newspaper and look at the nightly television newscasts. A few weeks ago, Premier Rene Levesque presented a shopping list of con- stitutional demands that he wants adopted before he'll sign the new Canadian Constitution. These demands range from the recognition of Quebec as a separate nation within Canada to control over their own marriage and divorce laws. Actually, if the whole truth were known, what Levesque wants in return for signing the Constitution is the implementation of sovereignty-association. This concept was rejected by the residents of Quebec during the infamous referen- dum. And because the people didn't support it - Levesque is now trying to get it in the back door by getting the federal government and the other nine provinces to accept it as a constitutional amendment. So the question now becomes: how does'the rest of Canada respond to this rather bizarre set of demands? Our response must surely depend on our goal. If our goal is a strong and united Canada then we must reject, out of hand, the Parti Quebecois proposals. Personally, I strongly believe that we have to reject the notion that Quebec is in some way 'special'. Quebec is no more or less 'special' than either Newfoun- dland, Alberta or any other province. It is time for Quebec to decide where she stands. IF she wants to be part of Canada then she had better become part of Canada. Not a 'special' part. Not a part with a special veto over the constitution. But a full and equal partner in Confederation. I am not suggesting that Quebec give up, for example, its language or culture. But what I am suggesting is that Quebec must, if she is to be a full and equal partner in Confederation, recognize that non-French Canadians have rights too -including the English speaking majority. 'throughout our nation's history - steps have been taken to ensure the con- tinuation and the preservation of French Canada. Early in the last century, Lord Durham wrote his famous report urging the British government to reject the notion of assimilation while taking steps to ensure that French-Canadian culture and language was preserved. Most Canadians - while they rejected it at first - have come to accept the con- cept and legal requirements of bilingualism. Most ordinary Canadians living outside Quebec. I believe, have come to accept it. If one takes a look at our school system one will realize that French is not dying outside of Quebec. In fact, there will be more bilingual Canadians than ever ten years from now when these children take their places as citizens. Quebec has also been the major beneficiary of Confederation. Quebec is one of the few provinces that gets more in federal transfer payments than her people pay in federal taxes. So, the time of decision has come. Even if Levesque and his horde are turfed out of office in the Quebec election and the Liberals return to power we are still going to have to deal with the issue. For Quebec still hasn't signed the Con- stitution - they are still not part of us. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to demand that if Quebec wants all the benefits of being a part of Canada, then she should accept all the responsibilities and obligations that come with being part of Canada. This situation must soon be resolved. We cannot dither. We cannot procrastinate. We have to decide. A house that is divided among itself will soon fall. It is my personal belief that Quebec will leave Confederation during my own lifetime. As long as Quebec sees itself as 'special' and deserving of privileges and rights not bestowed on other Canadians there will never be complete and longlasting national unity. S long as Quebec wants the deck stacked in its favor there will always be resen- tment. And the longer she continues to have this attitude, the more she will want. If Mulroney gives Levesque everything he has de'ianded, Mulroney will sign Canada's death warrant. He will fuel the fires of separatism, not only in Quebec but in other parts of Canada as well. Levesque has demanded all the rights and powers of nationhood for Quebec without accepting responsibility for the con- sequences of nationhood. If anything goes wrong once his demands are in place, he then wants to go to the federal government demanding financial and other assistance. Quebec really has two choices: either become a separate nation in all respec- ts; i.e. become complete independant; or, become a full and equal partner in Confederation. I have asked many prominent Canadian politicians whether they thought Canada could survive without Quebec. I never got a straight answer. But I believe that we can survive without Quebec. I believe that there is room on the North American continent for an English speaking nation other than the American republic should Quebec leave Confederation. It is even possible that Canada would become an even stronger nation. We would no longer be divided on the questions of language, culture and constitutional rights. We could then get on with more pressing problems such as unemployment, the preservation of our environment and our role in the global village. Those are the choices - for Quebec and the rest of us. WITH OUR FEET UP Now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, we'll be seeing less and less of more and more people. What with Florida vacations for all, and world tours, and tea with the Queen. That is, now that we all know the trick about get- ting up that half hour early. Captain Mulroney let that one out of the bag when speaking in Toronto last week. Just get up that half hour early, he said, and voila! you're one of the rich people Canada needs more of. Not that the message was intended for the ears of all. He was speaking to business people, selling them the budget along with two magazine subscrip- tions and an option on the Encyclopedia Brittanica. But the press got hold of it and the Toronto Star plastered the message on Page 1, along with a beatific color picture of The Exec. My friend Rodger thought that if half hour early makes for rich, then a full hour would make one really rich. Given any encouragement he would stay up all night and own the world. But not being selfish, nor greedy, he started with an hour and a half. The first day he tore through the morning like a tornado. He ripped open the mail to get at the lot- tery checks. But the lottery people either slept in or hadn't read the Star yet. His fire dwindled by two o'clock. He still has a lot to learn about the difference between the lunches of people who are rich and those who are getting rich. They found him in the stock room by mid-afternoon, sawing away like a Sunday morning. Mulroney didn't say anything about staying awake, Rodger insisted, and besides, if he were to get up two hours early the next day, he had to catch up somehow. He has written to Mulroney for clarification. In the meantime, he's organizing a national program for early rising. And he has an appeal in to the people in the taxation department, asserting that daylight saving time pries us out of bed a full hour early six months of the year and that should count for something. Half of really rich should count for extra tax breaks, eh? We owe it all to Brian. EDITOR AS SPEAKER As you may know, Michael Knell, editor of this newspaper, was guest speaker at the Durham College graduation last Saturday. You won't see much about it elsewhere, but let me go on record as saying he did a most credible job, urging graduates to see the necessity of becoming active in an alumni association. Putting something back in the pot, so to speak for future crops of Durham College students. Mike was introduced by chairman of the board of governors of the college -- Nigel Schilling, also from Whitby. Both Mike and Nigel are excellent exam- ples of Whitby residents putting a strong Whitby stamp on the life of Durham region. Congratulations to both. GIVE ME LIBERTY Elsewhere on this page last week an articulate voice shouted out about the subtle but deadly threat to civil liberties presented by the anti-smoking fac- tions. And I must agree that the civil rights of smokers must not be allowed to wisp away. Already these clean air creeps have slipped through regulations about visitors smoking in hospitals, nursery schools and dynamite factories. Now they're after where we work and where we shop. Tain't right. I know of no more joyful time than standing in a supermarket lineup right behind a cigar smoker. I love inhaling that cloud, and will defend to the last cough his right to blow it in my direction. I love the look of butts ground into floors in public buildings and I will cross my heart andspit as I pledge to support any smoker's right to deposit butts in drinking fountains. And with the same fervor I defend the right of smokers everywhere to blow smoke over anyone they please so the rest of us can go home at night smelling like ashtrays. PUZZLE TIME A runner goes 'n' times around a circular track which has a radius of 't' miles. If he drinks 's' quarts of beer for every mile he runs, prove that he will need only one quart. (Loaded with tricks, that one.) Answer to last week: 20 feet. In spite of versions of this problem which are tricky enough to require mathematical desterity, the problem as presented simply requires the spider to crawl straight down the wall, across the floor and up the opposite wall. Therefore. 12 feet plus 7 feet plus 1 foot equals 20 feet.

Powered by / Alimenté par VITA Toolkit
Privacy Policy