Why Now Is The Perfect Time to Wave a Friendly Goodbye to Quebec. Lowell Green
has become an unfair situation. Canada’s government and laws are tilted in favour of Quebec to the point that most Canadians feel the treatment to appease Quebec (e.g., unequal representation in the Senate and the Supreme Court, official bilingualism, transfer payments, disproportionate cultural grants, etc.) has resulted in unfairness.
While Quebec was treated badly in English-Canada in the past, the means used to redress that situation have been excessive, resulting in an inequitable situation for Canadians outside Quebec.
Perhaps a national referendum would be appropriate.
Mac Walker, Edmonton, AB
~ • ~
In all, I received more than 200 emails and phone calls from that one two-hour program. At least 90 per cent of them indicated that my assumptions were correct, they would not seriously regret the loss of Quebec. Some, as you can see, still hold grievances, particularly as it applies to what they deem to be “forced bilingualism”, but for the most part it’s primarily a matter of just losing patience with the constant demands.
The sentiments expressed to me in the phone calls, the emails and from people who stopped me on the street following the program are perhaps best summed up by this hand written letter that arrived just the other day from Surrey, BC
“Lowell”, “you and I have never met, but in listening to you the other day as you discussed the issue of Quebec and its role in Canada, I couldn’t help but hear some anguish in your voice. You said, and I believe you, that you are totally frustrated with all the problems that Quebec continues to present. The corruption, the constant demands for more money, for more special treatment, etc. etc. You are perfectly correct we are all getting very tired of it.
But I also sensed that in some way you are also sad. No doubt the fact that you have worked so hard for so long to try and keep Quebec within Confederation plays a role in your reaction to what’s happening and how you feel about it. No one likes to lose. I understand that many members of your family, even your daughter and granddaughter still live in the province. This must make it even harder for you.
What you should know is that you are not alone. There was a time when I and all members of my very large family out here on the west coast were adamant federalists. We didn’t go to Montreal in 1995, some of us weren’t even alive then, but several of us did drive around with those famous bumper stickers saying, “My Canada includes Quebec”. But, sadly, just like you, we have all come to the same conclusion. Quebec will never be happy in Confederation no matter what benefits it receives from the rest of Canada.
Lowell we tried to convince Quebec to stay. We used every means in our power to keep them in Confederation. But let’s be very honest here, for all the money and other benefits we poured into that province we never once heard a thank you, or even an acknowledgment—only complaints and demands for more.
At the very least now that you have conducted your programs on the matter, tapped into the sentiment outside Quebec and written a book about it, a few Quebecers will begin to understand that we have lost patience, certainly out here in the west. We tried, we gave and gave and gave and received precious little in return. There’s a limit to our patience and at least around here that limit has been reached.
I’ve conducted a little poll out here among friends and family and without exception we all agree with you. Let’s start the process towards a very friendly parting of the ways. No bitterness please; no recriminations. We’ve all shared a very long, sometimes bumpy road together so now that that road is coming to an end, let’s sit down in good faith, both sides and work out an agreement that, while it will never be perfect, at least lets us be good friends after all is said and done.
Other countries around the world have managed to cut the apron strings and are happier now that they have become independent nations. Maybe the same will hold true for Quebec and Canada.
We’ll still be living side by side. We’ll still need to trade with each other, but as you said more than once on your program, maybe, just like some of us who have divorced, maybe we can be better friends after the divorce than we ever were before. A sweet dream, I know. There will be problems, but we’re a good people we Canadians, we can work it out. But you are right, it is kind of sad. Could the great experiment of two languages, two cultures have worked out? We will never know.
Shirley Westover. Surrey, BC
~ • ~
I don’t doubt for a moment that there still a kind of wistful affection percolating amidst our two solitudes, I detect that sentiment in much of the correspondence, but as with a middle aged couple that has been bitterly feuding for decades the passion, the ability to wound, even to disappoint is gone. In relationships such as those, scant attention is paid to anything that is said or done. A document may claim they are still married, but in reality each goes their own separate way, living semi-independent lives, bound together only by economics, apathy and inertia. If they were still hurting each other they would consider divorce, but why bother?
Fact is, if they did bother to get a divorce there’s a good chance they might become, if not lovers again, at least friends. Who among us doesn’t know at least one couple that will readily admit that they are better friends today, after the divorce, than they ever were when married? It works that way with some nations as well. The Republic of Ireland springs immediately to mind, but there are other, perhaps even better examples of where a national breakup has ended centuries of animosity, feuding and fighting and made way to good solid friendships.
For example, Scotland and England.
CHAPTER FIVE
HISTORY TELLS US QUEBEC SEPARATION IS INEVITABLE
On June 23rd and 24th, 1314, an army of Scots under Robert de Bruce defeated a much larger English force led by King Edward II at the battle of Bannockburn in central Scotland.
It was here that Sir Henry de Bohun galloped ahead of the advancing English army to challenge the Scots King Robert de Bruce to single combat, one of the most historic events in the almost thousand year war for Scottish independence.
According to The Scottish National Archives records:
“Robert de Bruce rode forward to meet de Bohun who was fully armoured with lance and shield and rode a heavy destrier horse. De Bruce had a much smaller horse and was armed only with a sword and short axe. De Bohun rode at de Bruce with lance couched. De Bruce evaded de Bohun’s lance point and as the English knight thundered past he struck a deadly blow to his head with his axe.”
De Bohun fell dead demoralizing the English troops who were subsequently slaughtered as they fled.
King Edward managed to escape.
For the Scots it remains to this day the most famous of all the countless battles fought over the centuries for Scottish independence.
What the Scots would sooner forget is what happened about 200 years after the Battle of Bannockburn.
On September 9, 1513 an army of about 20,000 men led by King James IV of Scotland invaded England in response to several provocations including warrants issued by Catherine of Aragon, the Regent in England, to seize all the property of Scotsmen in England.
The Scottish army was met by the English commanded by the Earl of Surrey at what is today know as the Battle of Flodden, or Flodden Field.
It was a terrible disaster for the Scots. King James was killed in battle along with many of the most important noblemen of the day. Total Scottish losses were about 12,000 killed. The English lost 1,500 men killed.
It was the largest battle ever fought between the two kingdoms. Historians describe it as the last great medieval battle in the British Isles. And the last battle on the British Isles during which a monarch was killed.
The battlefield