Should Quebec Have Its Freedom Essay Research

Paper

Should Quebec Have its Freedom?persuasion paper on why Quebec should be freeAt the end of October in 1995 Canada came close to finally breakingup. Quebecker s took a vote on the 30th on whether or not their provinceshould declare itself an independent nation. Most people and the mediabelieve that the separatists would loose. The people drew these beliefs from asimilar election help in 1980. Although in this recent poll, these scores weretoo close to call. The separatists were defeated by a one percent loss.The reason this past election was so close is due mainly to the changeof leadership on the separatist side. During the previous year before theelection , the YES campaign had been led by Quebec s premier JacquesParizeau. Parizeau is an economics professor, and had led a ponderouscampaign, since his Parti Quebecois (PQ) won provincial power 13 monthsearlier. The No side, led by provincial Liberal s leader, Daniel Johnson, waswinning , with warnings of a slump and heavy job losses if Quebec brokeaway. On October 9th, Mr. Parizeau, realizing that his campaign was failing,handed over leadership of the separatists cause to Lucian Bouchard. Bouchard was head of the Bloc Quebecois (BQ), a distinct, federal levelparty which swept[t the polls in Quebec in the 1993 federal elections, andwhose 53 members in the Ottawa parliament are second in number only to theruling liberals of Jean Chretien. Already in June, Parizeau had retreated from his outright separatiststance by agreeing with Bouchard, and with Mario Dumont, leader of a smallnationalist party, to couple a declaration of sovereignty with an offer tonegotiate with residual Canada a form of political and economic partnership,similarly modeled on the European Union. By naming Bouchard the chiefnegotiator of such a partnership during a year s grace period after a YESvictory, the Quebec premier yielded center stage to his far more popular ally. Bouchard gave full reign to his passionate goal. Within a week, opinion pollsshowed the YES vote climbing level with the NOes. The reasons for Bouchard s appeal to the people of Quebec are clear. A truck driver s son who became who became Canada s ambassador in Paris,in 1990 he stormed out of the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney,where he was environment minister, over constitutional differences. He builtup the Block at extraordinary speed, to achieve its triumph in the 1993elections. As leader of the opposition, he made Quebec s mark in Ottawa. Hisrecovery from a near fatal bacterial disease, which led to the loss of his leftleg, gave him a certain aura. Capping all this is the conviction he projectsthat a YES vote will force the rest of Canada into swift and almost painlessagreement on a partnership that will solve all major problems for a sovereignQuebec. True, on occasion Bouchard goes beyond oratory to absurdity, likewhen he calls A YES vote A magic wand that will transform Quebec. Hisspeeches, added to a brilliant PQ advertising campaign suggesting that thepeople of the new Quebec it dreams of would be able to keep the Canadiandollar and still enjoy dual citizenship, have enlightened a dreary campaign, tothe separatists advantage. Of course the federalists had some response to all of this. Both sidesrealized that the key to win would be to win over the undecidedFrench-speakers. Quebec s English speakers had already made up their mindsto show strong opposition to separation. On October 13th Christine broughtthe other nine provincial premiers to Montreal to discuss what he called Team Canada in building prosperity through trade. Chretien did so to some effect, quoting Parizeau on the remarkableadvances Quebec has made, and pointed out that Quebec did it all as part ofCanada. He also demolished the idea of a political partnership by asking whowants another layer of government. Yet, the most persuasive NO campaignerhas been Jean Charest, one of the two survivors of the Conservative disasterin the 1993 federal election. Charest, like Bouchard, aimed at the womenvoters who made up most of the undecided The federalists made no such offer as to redraft the Constitution inQuebec s favor. As a result of the political unrest the polls were extremelyclose. Quebec lost the election by a mere one percent. Even though these events concluded with a certain amount ofdignification and authority, one can t help but ask themselves, is this the waythat events should have happened. A person shouldn t rule out the fact thatmaybe things would have been better if Quebec had won the election. Howwould that have affected Canada? Also, how would it effect the UnitedStates. If Quebec had been allowed to declare its independence it would haveaffected the culture, the economy, and the stability of both nations. First we need to look at how it would affect culture. This aspect ofchange would not affect the US near as much as Quebec s mother country,Canada. Since cultural differences is what moved people to want to beindependent in the first place, there would probably be even moredistinguishing differences between the two nations. If the French people ofQuebec had a place to call their own they probably wouldn t feel so muchdiscrimination against the English speaking people in Canada. The people ofQuebec just need something to call their own. They need something thatdistinguishes their culture from the surrounding country. They difference inculture would not affect the US near as much. We would see little or nochange in our society. Another type of change to look at, if Quebec had won its freedom,would be changes in the economy. Would Quebec use Canadian dollars, orwould they develop their own money system? This question was never reallyanswered during the election. No matter what system of money they usedthough, the formation of a new nation would boost the economy of not onlyCanada and Quebec, but also with the United States. A new nation wouldopen new trade agreements. Quebec would also have to supply its ownsource of supplies, this need would create new jobs for the people of Quebec. With independence would also come prosperity, and by Quebec gainingprosperity so would its neighboring countries, Canada and the United States. The last kind of difference to consider would be the stability ofCanada, with the loss of one of its large provinces. There are a lot ofpossibilities here. Some people believe that a civil war would occur. This isthe type of consequence that would involve the United States more thananything. We would have know choice but to take action in the war. Our onlychoice would be, which side do we help?The possibility of civil war is far fetched to say the least, though. Therewould probably be some political unrest in the beginning, but after the dusthad settled the people of Quebec would be happy and a lot of tension wouldbe let off. Political relations not only Quebec and Canada, but also with theUS, would be a little rocky to start out with, but a formation of a new ally

could be to the advantage of everyone. Should Quebec have won the election? None can say, at least not at themoment. The members of the separatists say that they will not be defeated. Perhaps in the next few years all of the questions asked will be answered. At the end of October in 1995 Canada came close to finally breakingup. Quebecker s took a vote on the 30th on whether or not their provinceshould declare itself an independent nation. Most people and the mediabelieve that the separatists would loose. The people drew these beliefs from asimilar election help in 1980. Although in this recent poll, these scores weretoo close to call. The separatists were defeated by a one percent loss.The reason this past election was so close is due mainly to the changeof leadership on the separatist side. During the previous year before theelection , the YES campaign had been led by Quebec s premier JacquesParizeau. Parizeau is an economics professor, and had led a ponderouscampaign, since his Parti Quebecois (PQ) won provincial power 13 monthsearlier. The No side, led by provincial Liberal s leader, Daniel Johnson, waswinning , with warnings of a slump and heavy job losses if Quebec brokeaway. On October 9th, Mr. Parizeau, realizing that his campaign was failing,handed over leadership of the separatists cause to Lucian Bouchard. Bouchard was head of the Bloc Quebecois (BQ), a distinct, federal levelparty which swept[t the polls in Quebec in the 1993 federal elections, andwhose 53 members in the Ottawa parliament are second in number only to theruling liberals of Jean Chretien. Already in June, Parizeau had retreated from his outright separatiststance by agreeing with Bouchard, and with Mario Dumont, leader of a smallnationalist party, to couple a declaration of sovereignty with an offer tonegotiate with residual Canada a form of political and economic partnership,similarly modeled on the European Union. By naming Bouchard the chiefnegotiator of such a partnership during a year s grace period after a YESvictory, the Quebec premier yielded center stage to his far more popular ally. Bouchard gave full reign to his passionate goal. Within a week, opinion pollsshowed the YES vote climbing level with the NOes. The reasons for Bouchard s appeal to the people of Quebec are clear. A truck driver s son who became who became Canada s ambassador in Paris,in 1990 he stormed out of the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney,where he was environment minister, over constitutional differences. He builtup the Block at extraordinary speed, to achieve its triumph in the 1993elections. As leader of the opposition, he made Quebec s mark in Ottawa. Hisrecovery from a near fatal bacterial disease, which led to the loss of his leftleg, gave him a certain aura. Capping all this is the conviction he projectsthat a YES vote will force the rest of Canada into swift and almost painlessagreement on a partnership that will solve all major problems for a sovereignQuebec. True, on occasion Bouchard goes beyond oratory to absurdity, likewhen he calls A YES vote A magic wand that will transform Quebec. Hisspeeches, added to a brilliant PQ advertising campaign suggesting that thepeople of the new Quebec it dreams of would be able to keep the Canadiandollar and still enjoy dual citizenship, have enlightened a dreary campaign, tothe separatists advantage. Of course the federalists had some response to all of this. Both sidesrealized that the key to win would be to win over the undecidedFrench-speakers. Quebec s English speakers had already made up their mindsto show strong opposition to separation. On October 13th Christine broughtthe other nine provincial premiers to Montreal to discuss what he called Team Canada in building prosperity through trade. Chretien did so to some effect, quoting Parizeau on the remarkableadvances Quebec has made, and pointed out that Quebec did it all as part ofCanada. He also demolished the idea of a political partnership by asking whowants another layer of government. Yet, the most persuasive NO campaignerhas been Jean Charest, one of the two survivors of the Conservative disasterin the 1993 federal election. Charest, like Bouchard, aimed at the womenvoters who made up most of the undecided The federalists made no such offer as to redraft the Constitution inQuebec s favor. As a result of the political unrest the polls were extremelyclose. Quebec lost the election by a mere one percent. Even though these events concluded with a certain amount ofdignification and authority, one can t help but ask themselves, is this the waythat events should have happened. A person shouldn t rule out the fact thatmaybe things would have been better if Quebec had won the election. Howwould that have affected Canada? Also, how would it effect the UnitedStates. If Quebec had been allowed to declare its independence it would haveaffected the culture, the economy, and the stability of both nations. First we need to look at how it would affect culture. This aspect ofchange would not affect the US near as much as Quebec s mother country,Canada. Since cultural differences is what moved people to want to beindependent in the first place, there would probably be even moredistinguishing differences between the two nations. If the French people ofQuebec had a place to call their own they probably wouldn t feel so muchdiscrimination against the English speaking people in Canada. The people ofQuebec just need something to call their own. They need something thatdistinguishes their culture from the surrounding country. They difference inculture would not affect the US near as much. We would see little or nochange in our society. Another type of change to look at, if Quebec had won its freedom,would be changes in the economy. Would Quebec use Canadian dollars, orwould they develop their own money system? This question was never reallyanswered during the election. No matter what system of money they usedthough, the formation of a new nation would boost the economy of not onlyCanada and Quebec, but also with the United States. A new nation wouldopen new trade agreements. Quebec would also have to supply its ownsource of supplies, this need would create new jobs for the people of Quebec. With independence would also come prosperity, and by Quebec gainingprosperity so would its neighboring countries, Canada and the United States. The last kind of difference to consider would be the stability ofCanada, with the loss of one of its large provinces. There are a lot ofpossibilities here. Some people believe that a civil war would occur. This isthe type of consequence that would involve the United States more thananything. We would have know choice but to take action in the war. Our onlychoice would be, which side do we help?The possibility of civil war is far fetched to say the least, though. Therewould probably be some political unrest in the beginning, but after the dusthad settled the people of Quebec would be happy and a lot of tension wouldbe let off. Political relations not only Quebec and Canada, but also with theUS, would be a little rocky to start out with, but a formation of a new allycould be to the advantage of everyone. Should Quebec have won the election? None can say, at least not at themoment. The members of the separatists say that they will not be defeated. Perhaps in the next few years all of the questions asked will be answered.