EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnASSISTANT EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnGONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.J. Brown, KatherinernDalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rnJ.O. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, William Mills,rnJacob Neusner, Srdja TrifkovicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditoriai and Advertising Offices:rn928 Nortli Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstiurd Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Way, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright © 1998 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $39.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surface delivery, $48 for Air Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street,’rnRockiord, IL 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional mailingrnoffices. POSTN’IASTER: Send address changesrnto Chronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrndie views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelrjpe.rnChroniclesrnVol.22, No. 7 July 1998rnPrinted in the United States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn QuebecrnKenneth McDonald’s article (“ThernFrench Revolution in Canada,” April) illustratesrnwhy Quebec may secede fromrnCanada. The legal mechanisms havernbeen explained, but the political dynamicsrnneed to be understood.rnFirst, McDonald complains that thernCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsrn(in Sections 16-22 of the ConstitutionrnAct of 1982) has entienched Frenchrnand English as the official languages ofrnCanada. And this, he supposes, is an injustice,rnfor he thinks Quebec was alwaysrnbilingual, but not Canada. Let us set thernrecord straight: Canada was originallyrnNew France, and so was French only.rnCanada was then reformed as a confederationrnof French and English peoples,rnCanada and Quebec have been bilingualrnby fundamental law since Sectionrn133 of the British North America Act ofrn1867. Obviously, it is important that thernpublic officers of Canada should if possiblernbe proficient in French and English,rnas those of Belgium should be proficientrnin French and Flemish, and those ofrnSwitzerland should be proficient inrnFrench, German, and Italian.rnSecond, McDonald blames the CanadianrnCharter on the need to accommodaternQuebec. The Constitution Act ofrn1982 was imposed on Quebec, over thernprotest of her elected government, at therndemand of the nine English-speakingrnprovinces and the federal government ofrnCanada. This was done contrary to arnconstitutional understanding that thernlegislative powers of a province could notrnbe altered without the consent of thatrnprovince. The Constitution Act imposedrnlimitations on Quebec’s right tornprotect her unique language and culture,rnand Quebec thereby became arncolony of Anglo-Canada.rnThird, McDonald does not mentionrnthe Meech Lake Accord which wouldrnhave corrected the imposition of thernCharter upon Quebec in 1982. ThernMeech Lake Accord was signed by thernprime ministers of the dominion and allrnten provinces. It was approved by Quebecrnand enough provinces to becomernpart of the fundamental law of Canada,rnhad it been proposed as a single amendment.rnIt was approved by all parties inrnParliament and by all of the greatest leadersrnof Canada. If it had passed, separatismrnwould be dead in Quebec. But itrnwas sabotaged, on a pseudo-technicality,rnbecause hvo English-speaking premiersrnwent back on their word. The effect wasrnas disastrous to Canada as the repeal ofrnthe Missouri Compromise was in thernUnited States.rnF’ourth, McDonald does not understandrnwhy Quebec should be given constihitionalrnsafeguards to protect her languagernand culture. If he lived in anrnEnglish-speaking province surroundedrnby nine French-speaking provinces, hernmight get the point. Meanwhile, I suggestrnhe read John Calhoun’s Disquisitionrnon Government.rnFifth, McDonald complains thatrnTrudeau overcentralized the governmentrnof Canada with unfortunate effects.rnHe is right, because such consolidationrnof power over a large territory hasrnnever worked anywhere in any age.rnTrudeau constructed this weighty excessrnmainly by forming an alliance with English-rnspeaking politicians to overwhelmrnQuebec. Why then blame Quebec forrnprotesting the injustice which camernabout from Trudeau’s deception in 1982?rnSixth, it is time for Anglo-Canada eitherrnto repair the damage done to Quebecrnin 1982 or to permit Quebec to secedernin peace. I would prefer to seernCanada united in friendship and loyal tornthe Crown, which is why I favor reconciliationrnand oppose secession. The necessaryrnadjustments would be rather easy;rnfor example, adopting the distinct societyrnclause in the Meech Lake Accord as arnnew constitutional amendment. Thernquestion is whether Anglo-Canada isrnwilling to make the effort. If the answerrnis no, the secession of Quebec is only arnmatter of time. If Quebec secedes andrnAnglo-Canada resists by sending in thernarmy or by other warlike acts, the countrywillrnbe ungovernable. If a good faith effortrnis made, however, a settlement willrnbe reached, Quebec will continue to bern”le bijou” of Canada, and Canada willrneventually develop the finest constitutionrnin the world.rn—John Remington GrahamrnSt. Agapit, Quebec, CanadarnTO SUBSCRIBE…rn1-800-877-5459rn4/CHRONiaESrnrnrn