Collection of Hack-Phreak Scene Programs/cleanhpvac.zip/cleanhpvac/HOMEWORK.ZIP/1016.TXT

Text File | 1998-07-25 | 16KB | 314 lines

This file is copyright of Jens Schriver (c)
It originates from the Evil House of Cheat
       More essays can always be found at:
       --- http://www.CheatHouse.com ---
                ... and contact can always be made to:
                    [e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Essay Name       : 1016.txt
Uploader         : ross colwell
Email Address    :
Language         : english
Subject          : Politics
Title            : Should Quebec Have its Freedom?
Grade            : c-
School System    : Gainesville Junior College
Country          : United States
Author Comments  : persuasion paper on why Quebec should be free
Teacher Comments :
Date             : nov.11, 1996
Site found at    : yahoo search enginr "term papers"
--------------------------------------------------------------
    At the end of October in 1995 Canada came close to finally breaking
up. QuebeckerÆs took a vote on the 30th on whether or not their province
should declare itself an independent nation. Most people and the media
believe that the separatists would loose. The people drew these beliefs from a
similar election help in 1980. Although in this recent poll, these scores were
too close to call. The separatists were defeated by a one percent loss.
    The reason this past election was so close is due mainly to the change
of leadership on the separatist side. During the previous year before the
election , the YES campaign had been led by QuebecÆs premier Jacques
Parizeau. Parizeau is an economics professor, and had led a ponderous
campaign, since his Parti Quebecois (PQ) won provincial power 13 months
earlier.  The No side, led by provincial LiberalÆs leader, Daniel Johnson, was
winning , with warnings of a slump and heavy job losses if Quebec broke
away.
    On October 9th, Mr. Parizeau, realizing that his campaign was failing,
handed over leadership of the separatists cause to Lucian Bouchard.
Bouchard was head of the Bloc Quebecois (BQ), a distinct, federal level
party which swept[t the polls in Quebec in the 1993 federal elections, and
whose 53 members in the Ottawa parliament are second in number only to the
ruling liberals of Jean Chretien.
    Already in June,  Parizeau had retreated from  his outright separatist
stance by agreeing with Bouchard, and with Mario Dumont, leader of a small
nationalist party, to couple a declaration of sovereignty with an offer to
negotiate with residual Canada a form of political and economic partnership,
similarly modeled on the European Union. By naming Bouchard the chief
negotiator of such a partnership during a yearÆs grace period after a YES
victory, the Quebec premier yielded center stage to his far more popular ally.
Bouchard gave full reign to his passionate goal. Within a week, opinion polls
showed the YES vote climbing level with the NOes.
    The reasons for BouchardÆs appeal to the people of Quebec are clear.
A truck driverÆs son who became who became CanadaÆs ambassador in Paris,
in 1990 he stormed out of the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney,
where he was environment minister, over constitutional differences. He built
up the Block at extraordinary speed, to achieve its triumph in the 1993
elections. As leader of the opposition, he made QuebecÆs mark in Ottawa. His
recovery from a near fatal bacterial disease, which led to the loss of his left
leg, gave him a certain aura. Capping all this is the conviction he projects
that ô a YES vote will force the rest of Canada into swift and almost painless
agreement on a partnership that will solve all major problems for a sovereign
Quebec. True, on occasion Bouchard goes beyond oratory to absurdity, like
when he calls A YES vote ôA magic wand that will transform Quebec.ö His
speeches, added to a brilliant PQ advertising campaign suggesting that the
people of the new Quebec it dreams of would be able to keep the Canadian
dollar and still enjoy dual citizenship, have enlightened a dreary campaign, to
the separatists advantage.
    Of course the federalists had some response to all of this. Both sides
realized that the key to win would be to win over the undecided
French-speakers. QuebecÆs English speakers had already made up their minds
to show strong opposition to separation. On October 13th Christine brought
the other nine provincial premiers to Montreal to discuss what he called
ôTeam Canadaö in building prosperity through trade.
    Chretien did so to some effect, quoting Parizeau on the remarkable
advances Quebec has made, and pointed out that Quebec did it all as part of
Canada. He also demolished the idea of a political partnership by asking who
wants another layer of government. Yet, the most persuasive NO campaigner
has been Jean Charest, one of the two survivors of the Conservative disaster
in the 1993 federal election. Charest, like Bouchard, aimed at the women
voters who made up most of the ôundecidedö
    The federalists made no such offer as to redraft the Constitution in
QuebecÆs favor. As a result of the political unrest the polls were extremely
close. Quebec lost the election by a mere one percent.
    Even though these events concluded with a certain amount of
dignification and authority, one canÆt help but ask themselves, is this the way
that events should have happened. A person shouldnÆt rule out the fact that
maybe things would have been better if Quebec had won the election. How
would that have affected Canada? Also, how would it effect the United
States. If Quebec had been allowed to declare its independence it would have
affected the culture, the economy, and the stability of both nations.
    First we need to look at how it would affect culture. This aspect of
change would not affect the US near as much as QuebecÆs mother country,
Canada. Since cultural differences is what moved people to want to be
independent in the first place, there would probably be even more
distinguishing differences between the two nations. If the French people of
Quebec had a place to call their own they probably wouldnÆt feel so much
discrimination against the English speaking people in Canada. The people of
Quebec just need something to call their own. They need something that
distinguishes their culture from the surrounding country. They difference in
culture would not affect the US near as much. We would see little or no
change in our society.
    Another type of change to look at, if Quebec had won its freedom,
would be changes in the economy. Would Quebec use Canadian dollars, or
would they develop their own money system? This question was never really
answered during the election. No matter what system of money they used
though, the formation of a new nation would boost the economy of not only
Canada and Quebec, but also with the United States. A new nation would
open new trade agreements. Quebec would also have to supply its own
source of supplies, this need would create new jobs for the people of Quebec.
With independence would also come prosperity, and by Quebec gaining
prosperity so would its neighboring countries, Canada and the United States.
    The last kind of difference to consider would be the stability of
Canada, with the loss of one of its large provinces. There are a lot of
possibilities here. Some people believe that a civil war would occur. This is
the type of consequence that would involve the United States more than
anything. We would have know choice but to take action in the war. Our only
choice would be, which side do we help?
    The possibility of civil war is far fetched to say the least, though. There
would probably be some political unrest in the beginning, but after the dust
had settled the people of Quebec would be happy and a lot of tension would
be let off. Political relations not only Quebec and Canada, but also with the
US, would be a little rocky to start out with, but a formation of a new ally
could be to the advantage of everyone.
    Should Quebec have won the election? None can say, at least not at the
moment. The members of the separatists say that they will not be defeated.
Perhaps in the next few years all of the questions asked will be answered.









































    At the end of October in 1995 Canada came close to finally breaking
up. QuebeckerÆs took a vote on the 30th on whether or not their province
should declare itself an independent nation. Most people and the media
believe that the separatists would loose. The people drew these beliefs from a
similar election help in 1980. Although in this recent poll, these scores were
too close to call. The separatists were defeated by a one percent loss.
    The reason this past election was so close is due mainly to the change
of leadership on the separatist side. During the previous year before the
election , the YES campaign had been led by QuebecÆs premier Jacques
Parizeau. Parizeau is an economics professor, and had led a ponderous
campaign, since his Parti Quebecois (PQ) won provincial power 13 months
earlier.  The No side, led by provincial LiberalÆs leader, Daniel Johnson, was
winning , with warnings of a slump and heavy job losses if Quebec broke
away.
    On October 9th, Mr. Parizeau, realizing that his campaign was failing,
handed over leadership of the separatists cause to Lucian Bouchard.
Bouchard was head of the Bloc Quebecois (BQ), a distinct, federal level
party which swept[t the polls in Quebec in the 1993 federal elections, and
whose 53 members in the Ottawa parliament are second in number only to the
ruling liberals of Jean Chretien.
    Already in June,  Parizeau had retreated from  his outright separatist
stance by agreeing with Bouchard, and with Mario Dumont, leader of a small
nationalist party, to couple a declaration of sovereignty with an offer to
negotiate with residual Canada a form of political and economic partnership,
similarly modeled on the European Union. By naming Bouchard the chief
negotiator of such a partnership during a yearÆs grace period after a YES
victory, the Quebec premier yielded center stage to his far more popular ally.
Bouchard gave full reign to his passionate goal. Within a week, opinion polls
showed the YES vote climbing level with the NOes.
    The reasons for BouchardÆs appeal to the people of Quebec are clear.
A truck driverÆs son who became who became CanadaÆs ambassador in Paris,
in 1990 he stormed out of the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney,
where he was environment minister, over constitutional differences. He built
up the Block at extraordinary speed, to achieve its triumph in the 1993
elections. As leader of the opposition, he made QuebecÆs mark in Ottawa. His
recovery from a near fatal bacterial disease, which led to the loss of his left
leg, gave him a certain aura. Capping all this is the conviction he projects
that ô a YES vote will force the rest of Canada into swift and almost painless
agreement on a partnership that will solve all major problems for a sovereign
Quebec. True, on occasion Bouchard goes beyond oratory to absurdity, like
when he calls A YES vote ôA magic wand that will transform Quebec.ö His
speeches, added to a brilliant PQ advertising campaign suggesting that the
people of the new Quebec it dreams of would be able to keep the Canadian
dollar and still enjoy dual citizenship, have enlightened a dreary campaign, to
the separatists advantage.
    Of course the federalists had some response to all of this. Both sides
realized that the key to win would be to win over the undecided
French-speakers. QuebecÆs English speakers had already made up their minds
to show strong opposition to separation. On October 13th Christine brought
the other nine provincial premiers to Montreal to discuss what he called
ôTeam Canadaö in building prosperity through trade.
    Chretien did so to some effect, quoting Parizeau on the remarkable
advances Quebec has made, and pointed out that Quebec did it all as part of
Canada. He also demolished the idea of a political partnership by asking who
wants another layer of government. Yet, the most persuasive NO campaigner
has been Jean Charest, one of the two survivors of the Conservative disaster
in the 1993 federal election. Charest, like Bouchard, aimed at the women
voters who made up most of the ôundecidedö
    The federalists made no such offer as to redraft the Constitution in
QuebecÆs favor. As a result of the political unrest the polls were extremely
close. Quebec lost the election by a mere one percent.
    Even though these events concluded with a certain amount of
dignification and authority, one canÆt help but ask themselves, is this the way
that events should have happened. A person shouldnÆt rule out the fact that
maybe things would have been better if Quebec had won the election. How
would that have affected Canada? Also, how would it effect the United
States. If Quebec had been allowed to declare its independence it would have
affected the culture, the economy, and the stability of both nations.
    First we need to look at how it would affect culture. This aspect of
change would not affect the US near as much as QuebecÆs mother country,
Canada. Since cultural differences is what moved people to want to be
independent in the first place, there would probably be even more
distinguishing differences between the two nations. If the French people of
Quebec had a place to call their own they probably wouldnÆt feel so much
discrimination against the English speaking people in Canada. The people of
Quebec just need something to call their own. They need something that
distinguishes their culture from the surrounding country. They difference in
culture would not affect the US near as much. We would see little or no
change in our society.
    Another type of change to look at, if Quebec had won its freedom,
would be changes in the economy. Would Quebec use Canadian dollars, or
would they develop their own money system? This question was never really
answered during the election. No matter what system of money they used
though, the formation of a new nation would boost the economy of not only
Canada and Quebec, but also with the United States. A new nation would
open new trade agreements. Quebec would also have to supply its own
source of supplies, this need would create new jobs for the people of Quebec.
With independence would also come prosperity, and by Quebec gaining
prosperity so would its neighboring countries, Canada and the United States.
    The last kind of difference to consider would be the stability of
Canada, with the loss of one of its large provinces. There are a lot of
possibilities here. Some people believe that a civil war would occur. This is
the type of consequence that would involve the United States more than
anything. We would have know choice but to take action in the war. Our only
choice would be, which side do we help?
    The possibility of civil war is far fetched to say the least, though. There
would probably be some political unrest in the beginning, but after the dust
had settled the people of Quebec would be happy and a lot of tension would
be let off. Political relations not only Quebec and Canada, but also with the
US, would be a little rocky to start out with, but a formation of a new ally
could be to the advantage of everyone.
    Should Quebec have won the election? None can say, at least not at the
moment. The members of the separatists say that they will not be defeated.
Perhaps in the next few years all of the questions asked will be answered.










































--------------------------------------------------------------