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.