Paul Russell - Canada would be a better place with one fewer province, a surprising number of National Post letter writers told us this week (even though the province in question is the largest by land mass, and is rather inconveniently located near the centre of the country).
These pro-separation verdicts came in response to two developments, the first being a letter in Tuesday’s edition from Czechoslovakian-born Helena Slampova. She suggested that Canada and Quebec start working on a “velvet divorce,” similar to what her home country went through 20 years ago. “Looking back, it was probably the best thing to have happened, and the relations between the two separated countries have never been better,” she explained.
Her letter sparked the question of the week on the Letters page: “Does Quebec have a future in Canada?” By 2 p.m. on Friday, close to 60 people had responded, with approximately 40 stating that Canada and Quebec should go their separate ways.
Monday’s Letters page will be devoted to running as many of these responses as possible. Here’s a taste of what’s to come.
“French-Canadians [in Quebec] will never be happy until they separate, so go right ahead,” wrote S.R. Watkins of Calgary. “Czechoslovakia separated years ago, and both sides now agree it was a good thing. Quebec’s future is to be an independent nation; the sooner, the better, for all of us.”
“Quebec has no interest in playing in the Canadian sandbox,” wrote Brian Purdy of Calgary.
“There is a growing resentment in Alberta toward sending what amounts to $14,000 per family, every year, to other Canadians, mainly Quebecers. Canada without Quebec will finally be able to be a nation with national ideals and goals. It will finally be one nation, not two. Whether velvet or not, Canada needs a divorce from Quebec. It is the absence of Quebec which would be the cement that binds this nation together.”
Other readers were nonchalant about Quebec’s future.
“The future of Quebec is becoming increasingly irrelevant,” wrote Norm McDougall of Thunder Bay, Ont. “Globalization, free trade and the effects of technology in homogenizing culture worldwide have changed the playing field. Irrespective of what happens to Quebec, Canada will remain strong, and Quebecers will assume both the benefits and obligations of being maîtres chez nous [masters of our own house]. If Quebec leaves Confederation, it won’t matter very much in the larger scheme of things.”
“Perhaps a better question would be to ask whether or not Quebecers know what their long term future is, and do they care,” added Jeff Spooner of Kinburn, Ont. “They flirt with every political party federally and provincially, and yet have no long-term allegiance to any. Many dream of going it alone, yet are propped up financially by the rest of Canada. Quebec, inevitably, will be shaped by the attitude of the rest of Canada.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, a significant number of the pro-separation letters came from Quebec residents.
“Canada can go it alone without Quebec,” wrote Alex Sotto of Montreal. “Without Quebec, Canada may not be one contiguous territory, but at least the English-speaking provinces will have a common language. And they are all signatories to the Constitution and pledge allegiance to the Queen of England. Quebec is the stumbling block to the unity of Canada; and once we get rid of it, the happier Canadians will be. It has been a bad marriage from the start and we may as well end it.”
Only about a dozen respondents wanted Quebec to stay in the federation, and many of those responses were less than enthusiastic.
“Does Quebec have a future in Canada? I sure hope so,” wrote Mark Sidloi of Côte Saint-Luc, Que. “It certainly would not have much of a future outside of Canada.”
“We have failed to solve the Quebec/Canada impasse, but I believe our grandchildren will be more creative,” added Lloyd Atkins. “Quebec can be a royal pain in the butt at times, but la belle province is an indispensable member of the Canadian family.”
– Readers are always correcting our grammar and word usage, as shown by this note.
“A few days ago, I sent an e-mail to the letters editor, decrying an editorial’s use of the term ‘safe haven,’ ” wrote Ted Scott. “Since the word ‘haven’ refers to a safe place, the use of the descriptor “safe” is redundant. On Thursday, I found in another editorial that the Post had succumbed (twice in the same sentence!) to the colloquial habit of combining a singular noun with a plural pronoun: ‘the best way to get to know the enemy was to send one of your own to live among them [the singular enemy] and hope they [one of your own] came back, loyal and full of information.’ The job of a maniacal reader is never-ending.”