TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century / TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO / 1990 / 92 / apr_jun / 0413001.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-27 | 6KB | 138 lines

<text> <title> (Apr. 13, 1992) Interview:Jacques Parizeau </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Apr. 13, 1992 Campus of the Future </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> WORLD, Page 38 CANADA Liberty with a Difference </hdr> <body> Separatist leader Jacques Parizeau says Quebec is finally prepared to go its own way By Michael S. Serrill and Jacques Parizeau Q. The people of Quebec are scheduled to vote next Oct. 26 on whether to declare independence from English-speaking Canada. What is the level of support for sovereignty in the province now? A. Depending on how you put the question, you'll get anything from 52% to 62%. Considering that about 80% to 85% of English-speaking Quebecois [about 15% of the population] always say no to anything, you see 60% to 70% support among French-speaking people. Q. Twelve years ago, 60% rejected a similar proposition. Then came the Meech Lake Accord, which would have given Quebec a measure of autonomy. But that was rejected by English-speaking Canada. What has gone on emotionally within the minds of Quebecois to make a majority say yes today when they said no a decade ago? A. Anger at being despised during the Meech episode. A little shame at being frightened in the past by simpleminded arguments--old age pensions won't be paid and that sort of thing. Anger at seeing Ontarians wiping their feet on the Quebec flag. Q. Federal officials are meeting in Ottawa to try to patch together a new agreement on Quebec's status. Could they conceivably come up with something you could buy? A. I can't see it. After so many efforts, including Meech Lake, all they're doing is tinkering with more of this, more of that. It's byzantine, absolutely byzantine. Q. But you do carefully use the word sovereignty, rather than independence, so there must be some middle ground. A. You see, sovereignty as a word has been a marketing trademark of the Parti Quebecois for 20 years because the word independence used to be somewhat frightening. I'm not going to change the logo. Does sovereignty have the same meaning [today] as independence? Of course it does. Q. Sovereignty normally means an independent monetary system, separate armed forces and an independent diplomatic service. Would that be true of the proposed sovereign Quebec? A. After a lot of discussion, everyone in Quebec defines sovereignty the same way. It means all our taxes, all our laws, all our treaties. Does it mean a Quebec army? Indeed it does. A diplomatic service? Of course. Concerning the currency, I have never opposed a Quebec currency. But I seem to be one of the few who don't. People say it will collapse in three weeks. So this time I say we keep the Canadian currency. Politicians [in English-speaking Canada] get red in the face and say Parizeau can't do this. But Quebecois own about a quarter of the money supply. If they want to keep the Canadian dollar as legal currency, nothing can prevent them. Q. But if you can't control the currency, you can't control monetary policy and you lose control of your economy. A. Oh yes, you do control quite a bit of your economy. But not monetary policy. And what exactly is the project in Western Europe at the present time? A central bank that is quite free of any government intervention. We're probably going to see something in the Pacific on the same order. As for North America, I'm sure down the road there is going to be one central bank. Q. What do you perceive Washington's attitude toward sovereignty to be? A. I think Washington doesn't like the idea very much. But Washington realizes it has to be very, very careful on this continent. If there is one place where democracy must run fully, it is here. Therefore, if Quebecois want to become a sovereign nation, they will. It is a matter for the Canadians and Quebecois to settle among themselves. Q. You say that the citizens of Quebec are one people. But the Cree and other native peoples in the north of Quebec say they too are separate societies deserving of their own nation. A. In 1985 the Quebec government declared these people--the Cree, the Mohawk, the Huron, the Algonquin and others--distinct nations, a within Quebec's boundaries. But if you think that 20,000 Cree and Inuit are going to leave Quebec and take two-thirds of its territory, no way. Q. How would a free Quebec deal with the mix of English and French? A. Well, we have been committed since the notorious--some would say--bill of 1977 [declaring French to be Quebec's official language] to set up a society that functions in French. Does that mean Quebecois should not learn English? By God, I'll boot the rear end of anyone who can't speak English. In our day and times, a small people like us must speak English. Q. What happens if you get another reversal and the answer to sovereignty in October is no? A. Then obviously I failed. I will retire; somebody else takes it up. Q. Would the issue be dead? A. No. When something as intoxicating as independence is in the minds of people to the extent of 40%, 50%, 60%, it never dies. All [a defeat] implies is that the leaders were no good, that they goofed somewhere, that they have to be replaced. But at that level of support, nothing vanishes. </body> </article> </text>