Chung's Distortion of Quebec's Situation Fuels Separatism

Patrick Chung's Crimson editorial, "Stealing Quebec; Jacques Parizeau Is Acting on a Phony Mandate" (Sep. 20, 1994), depicts an alarmist and inaccurate image of the post-election situation in Quebec and Canada.

First of all, Chung describes the victory of the separatist party. Parti Quebecois (PQ), in the Sep. 12 provincial election as overwhelming. The number of seats claimed by the PQ do form a good majority of the seats in the National Assembly (77 of 125) but the popular vote certainly doesn't tell the same story. Chung himself points out that the PQ obtained only 44.7 percent of the votes while the Liberals won the approval of 44.3 percent of the voters. Only 50,000 votes separated the two parties.

Chung made another important mistake when he commented about the PQ's slogan "une nouvelle facon de gouverner." He wrote that this slogan had a double meaning and that the new government's "real agenda--hidden to the public--is separation."

He is right about the double meaning, however it certainly cannot be said that the PQ's goal of separation from Canada was hidden from the public. It has been known for more than 18 years that the Parn Quebecois's ideal is for Quebec to be sovereign. Furthermore, during the campaign, it was widely advertised that the PQ planned to work toward the independence of Quebec if it formed a new government. Separation was one of the party's principal political platforms. The voters knew that, if elected, the PQ would plan a referendum on the issue of separation within a year of their entry into the National Assembly. Some of the supporters of the PQ might not be in favor of separation, but when they elected the new government they knew it would be an important issue on the government's agenda.

Chung then goes on about how the new government will use propaganda to get the Quebecers to adhere to the separatist idea. He ends by writing: "[The PQ's] hope is that Quebecers won't catch on to their plan, will be manipulated by their propaganda and will be catapulted into economic and political disarray so that Parizeau can get his face painted on a 20-franc bill."

Parizeau, although he might not be the ideal leader for Quebec, is not the demon Chung describes. Parizeau has always openly stood by his belief in separation, both in 1980 when he was not in a position to take power if separation would have occurred, and in 1984 when he left the PQ because other Quebec nationalists did not stick to their original ideal of an independent Quebec.

Furthermore, the author insults Quebecers by portraying them as naive victims of Parizeau's political machine. The Quebecers have been dealing with the idea of separation for 20 years. They have tried to reconcile their idea of a country with the rest of Canada. They are part of a democracy, and they believe in democracy. Finally, it is certain that the leaders of the federalist, opposition will be there during the referendum campaign to answer the PQ's "propaganda" with their own "propaganda" on what is best for Quebec.

The attitude adopted by Chung is exactly the kind of attitude that makes Quebecers feel antagonized by other Canadians. It is this attitude that fuels their desire to separate.

The debate on the place of Quebec in Canada will certainly not benefit from misinformation and the type of inflammatory comments Chung makes. Suzanne Gaudet,   Harvard Graduate Student   Member, Canadian Club