Marriage On The Rocks

When most Americans look to the north, they see a secure, stable, democratic, and peace-loving country, but that country could well be on the brink of dissolution. Unlike the United States, Canada's union of provinces has never been challenged by an attempted secession. But Rene Levesque, the new premier of Quebec, has called for the future separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada, thus casting doubts on the future of Canadian unity.

The casual observer of Canadian affairs is probably unaware of the cultural differences that exist between the French-Canadian and his English-speaking counterpart. Sociologists generally trace current social problems to historical origins; and Canada's problem is no exception. Until the defeat of French soldiers by the British on the Plains of Abraham in 1759 the French played the major role in developing the territory now known as Canada. In the tradition of British colonialism, the vanquished French were allowed to exist alongside their conquerors, maintaining their own language, religion, and culture. As a result Canada became a cultural mosaic in which separate nationalities constituted distinct but integral parts. This cultural mosaic worked well enough to result in the emergence of Canadian Confederation in 1867.

One of Canada's most compelling problems relates to its vast size and its geographic regionalism. Quebecers find themselves cut off from British Columbia in western Canada by thousands of miles of land and by the Rocky Mountains. When this feeling of isolation is compounded by a feeling of cultural dissimilarity, the people soon lose their sense of a common national identity. Unfortunately, more than three-fourths of Canada's 6 million French-Canadians live in Quebec where they outnumber English Canadians 3 to 1; the remaining French-Canadian population lives mostly in the adjoining provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick. Canadians west of Ontario have thus had little chance to shake hands with a French-Canadian, even, though French-Canadians constitute more than 25 per cent of Canada's population. Hostilities on both sides are fanned by ignorance. Like a giant centrifuge, Canada's geography has polarized its two major ethnic groups.

Although most Canadians still consider their mosaic experiment successful, English-French differences have spawned inevitable problems, some of which may cause the dissolution of the 110-year-old Canadian nation.

"Language is the first thing; language is the vehicle for thinking," Gratia O'Leary, an avowed separatist and Levesque's press secretary, said last week. The most obvious difference between Quebecers and "les anglais," the language issue has been a constant irritant in Canadian politics. The British North America Act, which became Canada's constitution in 1867, attempts to perpetuate a nation of two languages and Federal ministers have struggled to institute bi-lingualism by requiring manufacturers to label all products in both English and French, encouraging English in Quebec schools, and introducing French in schools outside Quebec. More and more school children learn French every year.

"That's an effort; that's nice," said O'Leary, "but if they will not practice French, they will not speak this language." Little French is spoken west of Ontario, and many people in the western provinces resent having to learn another language. Some feel that the government takes their taxes in order to "shove French down their throats." This attitude is obviously not conducive to the preservation of Canadian unity.

What about the government's stipulation that federal civil servants speak both languages? Speaking English and French "at the level of federal functionaries" is not "bilingualism around Canada," O'Leary said.

Robert L. Stanfield, Member of Parliament from Halifax, Nova Scotia, and former Leader of the Opposition, cited historical precedents for Canada's language problems. "Traditionally, when you have two languages, you have a problem," he said last week singling out the Basque drive for independence from Spain as an example.

Marc Lalonde, federal Minister of Health and Welfare and leader of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party, declared last month to the Canadian Institute on Public Affairs: "How can we, French-speaking Canadians, take seriously the perfunctory exercise that is taking place in most English-language school systems in Canada? It shows an agonizing lack of determination, a dragging of feet, a purely lip-service commitment to the notion of two official languages in Canada."

Lalonde's point is valid. High school students in British Columbia generally learn the Parisian dialect of French which is noticeably different from the language spoken by Quebecers. Despite the federal government's investment of several million dollars in British Columbia, the teaching of French lacks continuity and is ineffectual.

John Fraser, Member of Parliament from Vancouver South, British Columbia, explained current Quebecois separatist aspirations at a level deeper than language differences. "It doesn't matter which one you scratch, you find a French-Canadian nationalist," he said last week, refering to French-Canadian Quebecers. "They look upon Quebec and themselves as a separate nation. They do not see themselves culturally or ethnically as part of the English-speaking mosaic of the rest of the country.

"We've been easily lulled by patriotic rhetoric and fervor about one Canada. Well, to the Quebecer, there are two Canadas; there's the Canada, les Canadiens, and there's the Canada, les Anglais. Those who are federalists are prepared to have the two nations within a single state, but almost all of them by instinct understand what you mean by two nations."

Despite worldwide respect for their country, Canadians have traditionally treated their nationality with a cynicism bordering on embarrassment. In a country whose people are unaccustomed to national pride, the separatists have a least for the moment seized the initiative. The "patriotic rhetoric and fervor" which Fraser mentioned presently belong to the Parti Quebecois. "This country will be lost if people aren't prepared to get just as tough as Levesque is," Fraser suggested.

Jeanne Sauve, federal Minister of Communications and Member of Parliament from Ahuntsic, Quebec, said last week the Parti Quebecois may have a deleterious impact on Quebec's economy. "The uncertainty that exists in the province of Quebec is very damaging economically. The kind of irresponsibility [the Parti Quebecois] has introduced in Quebec... will probably mean economic hardship for a lot of people in Quebec," she said. "We have no statistics on the indecision about investments, but all we hear is bad news... Certainly if the businesses have not decided not to invest in Quebec, they have decided to postpone [their investment] for the time being." Sauve added that "come the winter, we will have a very bleak picture in the province of Quebec... That, I think, is irresponsible on the part of the people in charge because the first thing people want, and I'm sure Quebecers want their culture very badly, is to have a decent standard of living."

William Clarke, Member of Parliament from Vancouver Quadra, British Columbia, voiced the doubts of many economists: "There's no evidence that Quebec can survive alone. I think Quebec would have a much more difficult time."

Stanfield agreed with Clarke about Quebec's economic prospects as a separate nation. "Maybe there are some Quebecers who believe that Quebec would be healthier economically apart from Canada, but they are deluding themselves," he said. He also took a backhanded slap at the present government's economic policies, claiming that "if the economy of Canada is weak...[the separatists] will feel they have nothing to lose economically. A strong, healthy economy would be an attraction to Quebecers."

Could Quebec survive economically as a separate nation? The answer to this question depends largely on the person who is quoting the statistics. Belonging to the Confederation cost Quebec 9 billion dollars between 1965 and 1975, according to Parti Quebecois statistics. Federal politicians prefer to use the year 1976 as an example. In that year, they say, Quebec received from the federal government $3 billion more than it contributed. Of course, separatists must also consider the costs they would incur if they were to form an independent nation. Such responsibilities as maintenance of foreign embassies and defense bite heavily into the budget of independent states.

Levesque's plans for the economy of a separate Quebec depend on a continuing economic relationship with Canada, or a "New Deal" as O'Leary called it. "We want a kind of Common Market with the rest of Canada. That's in the interest of Canada, principally of Ontario, that has a market very, very important here in Quebec."

Many English-Canadians do not agree that it is in their interest to continue economic ties with a breakaway Quebec. Federal Finance Minister Donald MacDonald told New Yorkers last March 10 that "nobody in his right mind" can believe that a breakaway Quebec would be welcome in an economic union with the remaining Canadian provinces.

Resentment toward a separated Quebec could well be characteristic of many Canadians. Fraser's remarks place him in the resentful category: "There's no such thing as a nice, tidy, happy separation. You're not going to get agreement from English Canada on the basis of what Levesque thinks he can have..."

"It's going to be a very brutal affair," Fraser continued. "I have to say as a Member of Parliament that, if...they decide to go, I say 'Look out!' because that going is going to be on my terms... The self-interest that I'm going to exercise is not their interest."

This is the point that has made Americans, notoriously ignorant of Canadian affairs, take more interest in Canada. According to Henry Giniger of The New York Times, one-fourth of U.S. foreign trade is with its northern neighbor. America has more than $31 billion invested in Canada, more than in any other foreign country, and much of this money is invested in Quebec in mining, forestry, and manufacturing. Would these investments be secure in a fractured Canada?

Since the election of the Parti Quebecois, political-economic uncertainty has already decreased the value of the Canadian dollar by more than ten per cent in relation to the American dollar. It would certainly not be in America's interest to see such a trend continue for very long.

Would the federal government use force in order to keep Quebec within the Confederation? All persons interviewed agreed that Canadians would not support such action.

Sauve asserted that "if a good majority of Quebecers wanted separation from Canada, I wouldn't think that the federal government would try to keep them in Confederation by force." Problems arise in defining a "good majority." O'Leary claimed that 51 per cent of the voters would constitute a majority large enough to warrant separation. Fraser disagreed, saying that 51 per cent of the people do not "have the right to destroy the citizenship of 49 per cent."

Fraser also refused to deny the possibility of a civil war. "It's absolutely absurd for intelligent people having lived in the last century to completely rule out that possibility."

Is Canada on the brink of civil war? To say so would be an exaggeration, although hostilities have already developed between the federal and provincial levels. Jacques Y. Morin, Quebec Education Minister and Marcel Leger, Quebec Environment Minister, recently startled international conferences by stating that they spoke for Quebec, not Canada. Trudeau responded with a threat to ban Quebec representatives from future international conferences if such situations recurred.

Camille Laurin, Minister of Cultural Development, may even have challenged Canada's constitution when he presented a white paper on April 1 recommending that French become the sole official language of the legislature and the courts in Quebec. Section 133 of the British North America Act guarantees the use of both English and French in Quebec courts and legislature. If the Parti Quebecois passes these recommendations as law, it could face a determined federal opponent in Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau.

Despite disagreements between the Parti Quebecois and Trudeau, the threat of civil war seems remote after considering the results of a recent Gallup Poll by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion. The poll showed that only 18.7 per cent of the 1043 English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians interviewed thought that "Ottawa should use force to prevent Quebec's separation."

Many observers believe that the Quebecers' election of the Parti Quebecois was more a protest against the incumbent Liberal government than a declaration of support for separation. Levesque hardly mentioned the sensitive separation issue during his election campaign.

Furthermore, the latest poll of Quebecers, which reflected data gathered up to March 24, showed that only 16 per cent of Quebecers favored "pure" independence from Canada. Sixty-six per cent of the pollees were opposed to "pure" independence while 17 per cent were undecided.

Levesque does not have a mandate for separation, but Canadians must take the separatism prospect seriously. In the interview O'Leary emphasized that the number of Quebecers desiring "pure" independence has doubled since 1968.

According to Peter Newman, the editor of Maclean's magazine, a recent demographic study of Quebec voters showed that, by the time of the next election, 42 per cent of Quebec's voters would be between the ages of 18 and 35, if "that age group is almost entirely separatist," as Newman says, Canadian federalists are in trouble.

How can Canadians deal with these difficulties? As in most racial conflicts, I suggest that the answer lies at the level of individual relationships. If Canadians from the Western provinces spent some time in Quebec, they would be more sympathetic to the French-Canadian's desire to preserve his culture. Likewise, the Quebecer should certainly see other parts of his country before he decides to separate from it.

The federal government should encourage more strongly a program of cultural exchanges. As Harry Bruce, a contributing editor of The Canadian magazine, suggested, English-speaking Canadians could mount a federalist campaign by sending "love letters" to their countrymen in Quebec. As corny as this sounds, the point is clear: it is the individual who can save Canada, not bilingualism in the school system or rhetoric from the government.

Examples of the beneficial effects of individual contact between English- and French-speaking Canadians are omnipresent. Two weeks ago in Montreal I encountered a high school band from Vancouver visiting Quebec on a concert tour. Several Vancouver students stayed in the homes of French-Canadian hosts, with guests and hosts establishing strong friendships. The musical performances of the tour became incidental as the students formed deep personal attachments to one another. Many tears were shed when the time came for good-byes. It is my opinion that you would not find a single separatist among either of those groups...

[John Weston '80, a government concentrator residing in Straus Hall, is a Canadian citizen from Vancouver, British Columbia.]