latest tweets ...
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Mandarin lessons anyone?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
'Canada is' from Serena Ryder
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
La souveraineté suscite peu d'espoirs
La grande majorité des Québécois rejettent le statu quo constitutionnel.
Tommy Chouinard, La Presse
(Québec) Les trois quarts des Québécois jugent que les chances que le Québec se sépare un jour du Canada sont faibles voire nulles, révèle un sondage Angus Reid-La Presse.
Mais les nouvelles ne sont pas que mauvaises pour Pauline Marois. La grande majorité des Québécois rejettent le statu quo constitutionnel. Leur coeur oscille entre plus d'autonomie et la souveraineté pure et simple.
Les résultats de ce sondage en ligne, réalisé les 4 et 5 juin auprès de 805 Québécois, tombent au moment où la chef péquiste vient de dévoiler son plan de match pour la souveraineté. Elle propose de multiplier les revendications auprès du gouvernement fédéral en attendant le moment propice pour faire la souveraineté.
Ce moment, les Québécois sont bien peu confiants de le voir, selon le sondage Angus Reid. Pas moins de 74% des répondants estiment qu'il n'est pas tellement (47%) ou pas du tout (27%) probable que le Québec se sépare un jour du Canada. Vingt pour cent pensent que c'est assez (15%) ou très probable (5%). Six pour cent se disent incertains.
Invités à faire un choix entre le statu quo constitutionnel, la souveraineté et plus d'autonomie, les Québécois sont divisés. Quelque 32% croient que «le Québec a suffisamment d'autonomie et devrait demeurer au sein du Canada». Pour 28% des répondants, «le Québec devrait être un pays séparé et indépendant». Mais 30% jugent que «le Québec a besoin de plus d'autonomie, mais devrait tout de même demeurer au sein du Canada».
Selon Jaideep Mukerji, vice-président Affaires publiques d'Angus Reid, «la stratégie de Pauline Marois semble bonne», puisqu'elle pourrait séduire la partie de l'électorat qui, bien qu'attachée à la fédération canadienne, désire davantage d'autonomie pour le Québec. Il note également que 80% de 805 répondants ont identifié au moins un domaine où le Québec devrait avoir plus de pouvoirs.
La culture (34%), l'économie (33%) et la fiscalité (26%) viennent en tête de liste de ces «domaines où le Québec a besoin de plus d'autonomie par rapport au gouvernement fédéral».
Ces résultats ont tout pour conforter la chef péquiste dans ses choix. Pauline Marois propose de récupérer toutes les compétences en matière de culture. Elle veut également mettre en place une déclaration de revenus unique : Québec percevrait seul tous les impôts sur son territoire.
Le Oui crée peu d'enthousiasme
La ferveur souverainiste est peu élevée, indique le sondage d'Angus Reid. Pour 40% des répondants, «le Québec devrait obtenir sa souveraineté après avoir fait une nouvelle offre formelle au Canada pour une alliance économique et politique». Mais une proportion de 41% est contre l'idée.
Quand la firme demande directement si «le Québec devrait être un pays séparé du Canada», le Oui chute à 34%. Le Non atteint 54%.
Le sondage en ligne a été réalisé les 4 et 5 juin, donc avant la sortie de Pauline Marois, auprès d'un échantillonnage représentatif de 805 Québécois, choisis au hasard et inscrits au Forum Angus Reid. La marge d'erreur est de 3,5 points, 19 fois sur 20.
Avec la même technique, les résultats des sondages en ligne de cette firme sont arrivés très près de ceux des dernières élections québécoises et fédérales.
Est-ce en raison de ses artistes comme Natasha St-Pier, Roch Voisine et Wilfred LeBouthillier? De sa forte communauté francophone et de son statut bilingue unique au Canada? De l'histoire du peuple acadien? Quoi qu'il en soit, de toutes les provinces, c'est le Nouveau-Brunswick qui «comprend le mieux la culture et la société du Québec», estiment 42% des Québécois interrogés par Angus Reid. Les autres provinces se trouvent loin derrière. À 9%, l'Ontario arrive au second rang. Suivent la Colombie-Britannique (4%), l'Alberta (3%) et l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard (2%). Trois provinces obtiennent 1% (Terre-Neuve, Manitoba, Nouvelle-Écosse). La Saskatchewan obtient un résultat si peu significatif que la firme l'arrondit à 0%.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Parlez-vous baloney?
Imagine what a dumb-derrière I felt like. Bad anglo dog. Bad.
A few years ago, one of my good mates, and a wonderful writer besides, was attempting to refer in a news story to "coureurs de bois," or runners of the woods. Instead, it came out "coeurs de bois." Uh-huh. Hearts of wood. We're still yukking about it. (Not only feet of clay, but yes, a heart of wood!) All of which to say is that Ottawa is possibly the phoniest bilingual city in Canada, maybe "toute le monde." (Or is it "tout" or "tous"? Feel free to chime in.) If you've lived in the capital for a spell, you will know someone like this: mid-career in the public service, seeking advancement, stone-cold anglo, sent for French-language training to gain a promotion.
Suddenly, it's eight hours of French every day, French TV and radio at home, reading franco newspapers, working on their sandpaper accents.
And stressed-out at exam time? You know it.
(Only in government, by the way, could a C result be higher than a B; and I've failed to mention the best grade, E, which is exemption. No word on D.) Anecdotally, at least, it is also common to hear that the retooled anglo will not use his newfound French much, once returned to the workplace.
(The truly bilingual, imagine!, would rather switch to English than listen to Joe Nepean butcher his way through a presentation in the other langue officielle.) Why does the public service torture itself like this? Bilingualism in the federal workplace is a sound idea. No quarrel there. It is a good idea for the country. But what jobs need to be bilingual, how do we set a standard and how do we help the employee get there? (This is rhetorical. There exists, I have glanced, a massive body of information on each question.) But what, pray tell, is the point of trying to teach French to a fiftyish anglo who has one eye on retirement? Lord, we have some stupid notions in this country.
You may have caught wind of the story reported in Saturday's Citizen about the official second-language exams that fell into the hands of a private school.
The school wasn't just "teaching to the test," as it were. It gave more than 100 public servants the actual exam to practise on. No wonder the "exemption" rate -- the highest possible score -- was more than 90 per cent, 10 times above average.
It is rather scary, too, that it took a keener student to tip off the Public Service Commission to a fraud perpetrated under its very nose. After a year-long investigation, it still doesn't know exactly what happened.
It is now going to cost $1 million to come up with new tests. A million bucks? Astounding. These are multiple-choice exams consisting of 65 questions. How hard can it be to craft a new set? An audit of the problem reported there are 61 departments and agencies that administer the second-language tests, 323 test centres and 1,200 accredited testers. Leaked exam? Seriously, how could it NOT happen? What do we know about the other practice tests used across Canada? Were they just like the actual exam too? These tests must be quietly floating around everywhere.
Is the public service, in fact, full of phoney-baloney bilingual people who faked their way through? To back up for a moment, I'm not even persuaded it is the federal government's responsibility to train unilingual workers in the other official language.
Why can't they learn on their own time, using their own money? With promotion, the financial gain accrues to them, does it not? Where is the benefit for the taxpayer? Canada is supposedly full of bilingual people. Let them step forward and fill the bilingual positions.
The feds, meanwhile, need to ask themselves to what degree, in their own shop, they've contributed to this mass fakery.
Goodbye and au revoir.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, December 12, 2008
In case anyone asks you who a Canadian is . . .
From uni.ca ...
You probably missed it in the local news, but there was a report that someone in Pakistan had advertised in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed a Canadian - any Canadian.
An Australian dentist wrote the following editorial to help define what a Canadian is, so they would know one when they found one.
"A Canadian can be English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. A Canadian can be Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, Arab, Pakistani or Afghan. A Canadian may also be a Cree, Métis, Mohawk, Blackfoot, Sioux, or one of the many other tribes known as native Canadians. A Canadian's religious beliefs range from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or none. In fact, there are more Muslims in Canada than in Afghanistan. The key difference is that in Canada they are free to worship as each of them chooses. Whether they have a religion or no religion, each Canadian ultimately answers only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.
A Canadian lives in one of the most prosperous lands in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which recognize the right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.
A Canadian is generous and Canadians have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return. Canadians welcome the best of everything, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services and the best minds. But they also welcome the least - the oppressed, the outcast and the rejected.
These are the people who built Canada. You can try to kill a Canadian if you must, as other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world have tried, but in doing so you could just be killing a relative or a neighbour. This is because Canadians are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, can be a Canadian."
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Michaelle: Whatcha Gonna Do?
Friday, November 28, 2008
Liberals to introduce non-confidence motion Monday
The federal Liberals plan to introduce a motion in the House of Commons on Monday declaring non-confidence in the minority Conservative government and proposing a governing coalition, the Canadian Press is reporting. Emissaries from the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois have been holding talks about forming a new government should Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority fall.
Constitutional Crisis Anyone?
Professor Franks (of Queen's University) said that the comparative youth of the current Parliament could mean that the governor general, Michaëlle Jean, might turn to the opposition parties to form a government if the Conservative plan was defeated. The opposition would, he added, probably have to publicly sign a formal agreement to support any resulting government for a fixed period.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Question à 5$
L'Institut Dominion, organisation vouée à la connaissance de l'histoire canadienne, vient de publier les résultats - déprimants - de son dernier sondage.
On a notamment posé aux Canadiens la question suivante: «Pouvez-vous me nommer le premier Premier Ministre francophone du Canada qui avait dit de façon optimiste que LE 20E SIÈCLE APPARTIENDRAIT AU CANADA?»
Seulement 25% des personnes interrogées ont pu donner la bonne réponse: Wilfrid Laurier. Au Québec, à peine 22% des répondants ont identifié correctement Laurier.
Interrogé sur l'identité du premier Premier ministre du Canada, 58% des Canadiens ont pu nommer John A. Macdonald, mais seulement 32% des Québécois ont trouvé la bonne réponse.
Une telle ignorance au sujet de deux des personnages les plus marquants de l'histoire canadienne - et de l'histoire des francophones du pays - est absolument renversante. Parmi les Canadiens de 18 à 34 ans, à peine 12% savaient que Wilfrid Laurier avait été le premier Canadien français à diriger le pays.
N'y a-t-il pas des cours d'histoire dans nos écoles? Personne n'a eu la curiosité de se demander qui était cet homme figurant sur les billets de 5$? Cet homme qui a des rues, des écoles, une université et combien d'autres établissements nommés en son honneur?
Pour plus de renseignements sur Wilfrid Laurier et John A. Macdonald, vous pouvez visiter ce site.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Not addressing poverty's root causes costing Ontario $13B annually: study
Not addressing the root causes of poverty is costing the Ontario economy about $13.1 billion annually, according to a study released on Thursday.
The study, entitled The Cost of Poverty, was conducted by the Ontario Association of Food Banks in collaboration with Canadian economists over a six-month period.
"It is wrong that so many Ontarians are forced to turn to food banks in our province," said Adam Spence, executive director of the food bank association. "But there is also an economic imperative to reduce poverty."
The study examines the relationship between poverty, poor health, lower productivity, and the social and economic future of children. It provides a cost-benefit analysis of poverty in Ontario from the standpoint of lost government revenues and lost economic activity.
"Poverty is a personal tragedy for everybody it inflicts. That alone justifies action," said Don Drummond, chief economist for TD Bank Financial Group, who served as a project adviser for the report.
The study's findings further strengthen the need to address poverty because it clearly illustrates the impact it is having on society, Drummond said.
The study finds that because of poverty, all Ontarians pay through increased costs for health care, crime and social assistance and in the loss of tax revenue that accompanies low earnings.
The social costs of poverty, in the private and public sectors, make up about 6.6 per cent of Ontario's gross domestic product, according to the report.
The study concludes the federal and provincial government are losing a combined total of as much as $13.1 billion a year in foregone tax revenues because of poverty.
Report says everyone pays for poverty
By not addressing poverty, every household in the province is paying an up to extra $2,895 each year.
"The cost is so large that substantial efforts are warranted to fight it," Drummond said.
The research confirms that poverty has implications for all Ontarians, not just the poor, said James Milway, executive director of the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity.
"Whenever we hear that a program to help alleviate poverty by removing barriers or providing resources is going to cost X million dollars, there is seldom any mention of the savings that will accrue — there is an assumption that there are no offsetting savings — but nothing could be further from the truth," said John Stapleton, an innovation fellow with the George Cedric Metcalf Charitable Foundation.
Developing a strategy that is primarily focused on attacking the roots of poverty could generate substantial government savings, the report indicates.
The study doesn't say how much the Ontario government would need to spend to end poverty but it urges the government to invest in areas such as childhood development, programs to improve school performance, higher education for at-risk youth, language training and workforce integration for new immigrants.
With files from the Canadian PressTuesday, November 4, 2008
Canada is Upside-down
"Have-not is no more: N.L. (Newfoundland and Labrador) off equalization"
"Ontario will qualify for $347 million in equalization payments next year."
What's next? Quebec signing the Constitution?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Breaking News: Bob Rae to run for Liberal leadership
Bob Rae will run for the leadership of the federal Liberal party, CBC News has learned.
Rae has served as the foreign affairs critic since being elected as an MP for the Toronto Centre riding in a byelection March.
He was Ontario's NDP premier from 1990 to 1995. He ran unsuccessfully for the Liberal leadership in 2006, which Stéphane Dion won. After the Liberals lost 18 seats in the Oct. 14 federal election, Dion announced he would step down as party leader when a new one was chosen.
A leadership convention is likely to happen in Vancouver in May, where the party had planned a biennial policy conference.
Monday, September 29, 2008
To the Conservatives, Size DOES Matter!!
"The issue is not so much whether the Conservatives are going to win or not, but whether they're going to win a majority. That's a very open question," said pollster Peter Donolo, partner at the Strategic Counsel.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Inspiration
The Honourable Monte (Chuckles) Solberg, September 16, 2008.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Jonathan Kay: Off the reservation
When it comes to what needs fixing, every problem in this country pales beside our signature disgrace: the state of Canada’s native reserves. The worst are bastions of truly Third World-style poverty and decrepitude, infectious disease, and stomach-churning social pathologies.
In strictly numerical terms, the problem is not large. There are about 400,000 natives living on reserves just 1.3% of the Canadian population. It would be a simple thing to cap this wellspring of misery if we had the right policies in place.
But that’s the problem: We don’t.
Every time the native file makes the news, the proposed solutions are the same: more money and more self-government. The federal government spends over $8-billlion on reserve-resident natives, over $80,000 per reserve-resident household (a statistic I never get tired of quoting, because it puts to rest the idea that natives are somehow being nickel-and-dimed under the current system). We have handed over all sorts of powers to native bands, even creating a new extra-constitutional order of government in the process.
None of this has worked, and the reason is simple: Our policy of propping up reserves with massive government subsidies flies in the face of three well-observed empirical truths learned the hard way in societies around the world.
(1) The modern global economy is driven by cities, which serve as hubs for high-value knowledge industries, skilled workers, and transportation networks. Rural economies have been dying since the Second World War. No government would pay white Canadians to confine themselves to the jobless outback, hundreds of miles from the country’s universities and job centers. Yet that is exactly what we do with our native population.
(2) One of the great lessons of the 20th century was that collective land ownership is a recipe for economic disaster. Behind the iron curtain, agricultural productivity exploded once people were given the right to own their own parcels of land outright, and sell the proceeds for profit. As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has definitively shown, denying land title to slum dwellers is one of the main impediments to prosperity in poor societies.
Yet almost two decades after the Iron curtain fell, our reserves are still run literally like Marxist workers’ collectives (to the extent anyone actually works). Every once in a while, a Canadian reporter wanders around a reserve and writes shocked dispatches about the run-down quality of housing stock. Question: Would you pay good money to take care of your house if you couldn’t sell it, couldn’t use it to acquire mortgage financing, and you knew someone else would build you a new one as soon as the old one collapsed?
(3) Welfare destroys societies. Temporary government entitlements such as EI are fine for helping people get back on their feet. But when they become the permanent income source for an entire community be it an inner-city American ghetto or a Canadian native reserve civic life unravels. In a welfare society, the discipline and pride of workaday life are absent, men lose their social function, alcoholism carries no price (the cheque arrives whether you’re drunk or sober), and people are encouraged to view government as nothing but a platform for doling out booty.
All three of these principles have guided Western policy-makers for generations. Yet when it comes to natives, we pretend we never learned them. Many aboriginal advocates claim that racism is the main barrier facing natives. I would say it’s the opposite: We somehow have convinced ourselves that native societies have the collective, superhuman ability to resist the gravitational socioeconomic forces governing every other society on earth. Like all utopian experiments, this one has led to disaster and heartache played out in everything from water contamination to glue-sniffing to abused children.
My fix for Canada is to make life better for natives by treating them like real human beings who are governed by the same empirically observed weaknesses and incentives as the rest of humanity not Rousseauvian noble savages.
A proper native policy would be guided by the three principles listed above. The most decrepit and remote reserves, such as Kashechewan and Natuashish, would simply be torn down their inhabitants installed at government expense in population centres of the residents’ choice. The hundreds of millions of dollars that go into running these hellholes would be used to teach job skills, detox the drunks, educate the children, and otherwise integrate the families into mainstream Canadian life.
Those reserves that have a fighting chance at developing a self-sustaining local economy either through proximity to urban centers, tourism, agri-business or resource extraction would be reorganized as municipal corporations. Land would be privatized and turned over to individuals, who would then own it in fee simple. Natives would stay if they chose but only if they could find the employment necessary to feed themselves: Aside from treaty-mandated entitlements and regular government social programs, they would be cut off from the government dole.
Self-government would be possible, but only in the same limited way that any Canadian city or town is self-governing. The conceit that native reserves can be reconceived as culturally distinct “nations” would be given up in favour of a model that promotes integration.
All this, of course, would represent a massive legal and political undertaking requiring not only the destruction of the Indian Act, but also, possibly, a rewriting of the Constitution. Even the act of parceling out reserve land to band members would itself be a decades-long exercise, requiring armies of land surveyors and bureaucrats to accomplish. This is a radical fix I am proposing, and I have no illusions about how wrenching the experience of integration would be for the affected communities.
That said, it is a trauma that need only be inflicted once as opposed to the status quo, under which every generation of reserve-resident natives suffers under our dysfunctional system afresh. Which, I ask, is the more inhumane?
Friday, October 12, 2007
In defence of liberalism and federalism in Quebec
The current political situation is of grave concern to Quebecers who share liberal
and federalist values. The resounding defeat of the federal Liberal Party in the
September 17th by-elections, combined with a Quebec Liberal Party that is
confined to the bottom of the polls, not only demonstrates that these parties are
electorally weak, but also threatens the very existence of both political liberalism
and of a resolutely federalist vision in the province.
As federalists and full-fledged Quebecers, we liberals (whether independent or
card-carrying) refuse to be defeated by the present state of affairs; we are
determined to overcome it. We take this position because of our attachment to
liberalism, a political ideal based on the primacy of individual freedom, on
peaceful and democratic changes in political, social, and economic institutions
to encourage the best and most durable outcomes of human endeavour, and
on commitment to a society where personal rights and civil liberties are
protected.
A liberal strain certainly runs through Quebec society. Throughout our history, this
movement has fought for modern ideas, social progress, and economic
development. The same movement has relentlessly upheld the rights and
freedoms of every individual. It has courageously promoted a spirit of tolerance,
understanding and openness to the entire world, as well as the active
participation of Quebecers in the building of Canada. The champions of this
liberal cause have always distinguished themselves by their constructive spirit,
their creative audacity, their tenacious defence of free thought and speech,
and their ceaseless concern for social equity: among the most dearly held liberal
beliefs is that each member of society must have access to opportunities
essential to his or her fulfilment as an individual.
In contrast to ideologues who were focused on the past and insisted on isolating
Quebec from the rest of the world, the liberal movement fashioned Quebec's
modern identity. To Lionel Groulx’s doleful cry of «Notre Maître le Passé» (Our
Master, the Past), the liberal tendency responded with a resonant «Notre Maître
l’avenir» (Our Master, the Future), an ideal proclaimed in 1944 by Liberal premier
Adélard Godbout, the man who founded Hydro Quebec, recognized women’s
voting rights, and was the architect of free and mandatory education in the
province.
Steadfastly devoted to the promotion of the French language and culture, the
liberal tendency identifies with (and has always identified with) the words of the
great liberal thinker and eminent forerunner of the Quiet Revolution, Jean-
Charles Harvey: «French has chances of survival only if it becomes the synonym
of audacity, culture, civilization and liberty». We liberals of Quebec cling to this
idea more than ever at the turn of a 21st century characterized by globalization.
In no way do we fear for the survival of Quebec’s linguistic identity or culture.
Unlike those who constantly sound alarms about the so-called Anglophone or
immigrant «menace», we fully trust that the people of Quebec have the
capacity to take their language and culture into the future.
The issues that now concern the planet concern us too. Liberalism embraces
multilateralism. Great Liberal figures such as Lester B. Pearson and Lloyd
Axworthy have forged Canada’s formidable reputation in the world, and
advanced causes we hold dear: human security being among our values that
are now generally accepted.
The liberal movement is alive and well today in Quebec. We are proud to be
part of it. Many of our fellow citizens share these ideals and values. However, the
precarious situation of liberal-minded parties at this time threatens to weaken the
voice of political liberalism, a voice that has contributed so much to the creation
of modern Quebec, that has proclaimed ideals and values worth defending –
now more than ever –with courage and perseverance.
This is why we are asking of all Quebec liberals that they reassert their vision with
boldness and self-confidence. Let us remain firmly committed to our convictions
and ideas, but in doing so, let us always be open to adapting them to the
challenges of today and tomorrow. So, let’s roll up our sleeves! Let all the liberals
of Quebec do their share of the work that is necessary. As our predecessors have
proven throughout history, abdication in the face of difficulty and adversity is not
a liberal trait. We pledge to keep that very same spirit alive, for the liberal
movement must strengthen its capacity to build a confident Quebec, one that
can take its proper place not only in Canada, but also in the rest of the world.
Jennifer Crane, public affairs consultant, Pointe-Claire ; Mary Damianakis, professional
mediator, Baie d’Urfé ; Stéphane Desjardins, pulp and paper worker, St-Jérôme ; Jean-
Pierre Dufault, agricultural worker, Brôme ; Nathalie Goguen, journalist, Waterville ;
Catherine Grégoire, student, Quebec City, Daniel Laprès, freelance writer, Montréal ;
Philippe Legault, student, Laval ; David Simard, master’s student in political science
(UQAM), Montréal ; Francis Tourigny, lawyer, Montréal, and many other signatories :
www.courantliberal.ca
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
A reality check for separatists
Last week's manifesto by eight prominent sovereigntists goes partway to demolishing the PQ's 'mad illusions,' WILLIAM JOHNSON says
WILLIAM JOHNSON
Now there's a breakthrough. Eight prominent Quebeckers, committed to Quebec's independence, published a manifesto last Thursday that calls for "realism," while cutting to pieces the Parti Québécois's official program for achieving secession. They also demolished the PQ's approach to its 1980 and 1995 referendums. "What energy we are wasting with chimeras, mad illusions, wrong tracks and phantasmagorical deadlines."
Can realities finally overtake perennial magic thinking? The eight have ideological credibility among separatists. Marc Briére, 77, helped René Lévesque found the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association, then the Parti Québécois. He later sat as a judge. Jean-Roch Boivin was premier Lévesque's chief of staff and later an adviser to premier Lucien Bouchard. James Walkins was Bernard Landry's director of communications. Claude Jasmin is a prize-winning novelist, filmmaker and journalist. Guy Lachappelle, Henry Milner and Jacques Beauchemin are prominent university professors. Beauchemin won a prize in 2002 from the pro-separatism publication, L'action nationale.
Their manifesto was titled, "A realistic approach to sovereignty and to put an end to certain sophistries." The "sophistries" denounced are precisely the secessionist movement's main postulates.
Constantly, PQ leaders from Lévesque to Landry insisted Quebec has the right to secede unilaterally because the United Nations recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination.
But the eight realists reject that argument as a sophistry: "Under current international law, the right of peoples to self-determination does not mean a right to independence, except for peoples colonized by imperial powers or oppressed by the state of which they are part and in which they constitute national minorities that are deprived of reasonable autonomy. For other peoples, the right to self-determination means only the right to internal autonomy." Quebeckers could hardly convince the international community that they are oppressed, the authors conclude.
They skew another "sophistry," that it is only "normal" for a people like the Québécois to have their independent state. (This was René Lévesque's constant refrain.) The realists counter: "In the world, there are more nations which cohabit in the same state than there are sovereign nations . . . The argument for normality is a demagogic sophistry that must be driven out of democratic debate."
They argue that any referendum question on secession must be clear and must bear only on independence. They propose: "Are you in favour of Quebec becoming a sovereign and independent country?" They recognize that, in 1980, the question proposed "sovereignty-association," and, in 1995, sovereignty with a proposal of a partnership with Canada. Logically, they point out, if Canada were to refuse the double proposal, Quebec could not claim a right to secede unless it then won a second referendum dealing with independence only.
The current PQ program adopted last June and embraced by new leader André Boisclair -- who dismissed the manifesto as "quibbling over commas" -- commits the party to hold a referendum early in its mandate after elections and to pass a unilateral declaration of independence right after a victory, even one with the barest majority. Negotiations over the terms of settlement would take place strictly between two independent countries, Quebec and Canada. The eight realists argue that 50 per cent plus one would merely lead to a dangerous impasse. They propose, instead, the 55 per cent that will be required on May 21 for Montenegro's referendum on secession. They also condemn the proposed UDI as futile and suicidal.
The eight offer, instead, their interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada's 1998 advisory opinion on secession which "has interpreted Canadian constitutional law as recognizing the right of every province to secede . . . if that is the clear will of a clear majority of its citizens, expressed in a referendum followed by good faith negotiations which precede the implementation of the secession and the declaration of independence."
For all their realism, the eight short-changed the Supreme Court's sophisticated ruling. They claim that the court had declared secession a right. Not so. The court stated that unilateral secession was not a right, neither under Canadian nor international law. It was legitimate to aspire to secession, but any attempt must abide by the four fundamental principles of the Constitution: the democratic principle (an unambiguous clear majority), the rule of law (an amendment to the Constitution that follows the amending procedure), the federal principle (the other provinces must assent) and the rights of minorities.
The eight defenders of realism took account of only one of the four principles, the requirement for a clear majority. They ignore the court's clear assertion that the new frontiers of a seceding Quebec would be set by negotiations, not given by current boundaries. They ignore the obvious implications: The lands of the aboriginals would not be up for grabs.
By ignoring the full reach of the Supreme Court's ruling, the realistic eight encouraged Quebeckers to waste more time struggling with chimeras, mad illusions, wrong tracks and phantasmagorical deadlines.