I’ll make an aside here. In some previous thread, I asked some English Canadians why they opposed Quebec independence, and I was answered “goalies”. Yes, I know it’s a joke, and I know your comment is one too. But it does lead me to wonder whether English Canadians can really put into words why they are opposed to Quebec independence, and even to Quebec nationalism inside Canada. At least, put it into words in a rational way. In my first post to this thread, I introduced two conflicting notions of Canadian identity, one that builds on the idea of a single, bilingual, nation from coast to coast, and a second one that recognizes that Quebec, at least, is a nation inside Canada. I referred to a book by Ray Conlogue. Nobody really commented on this; most of the answers I had said that the different groups inside Canada can live together peacefully, and that an eventual separation of Quebec would be difficult, two things I don’t deny. I’d like to know how English Canadians really see their country, and what really infuriates them about Quebec nationalism.
Well, I won’t claim to be able to tap into the minds of English Canada at the time, although I’m sure I could find some polls. I’ll try to do so when I’ll have time. But I’d also like to see all of you give more credence to what Valteron observed at the time. He was in English Canada during the discussions for the Meech Lake Accord, and he did see something. He deserves more than automatic dismissal of his experience. I know you don’t like to believe that some of the great people of your great big country might be bigoted, but it’s possible.
What I was saying is that the Accord didn’t fail because of opposition from English Canadians, since it wasn’t put before the people in the first place. But there clearly was opposition to the Accord from English Canadians (as RickJay described), and this opposition served to cement in the minds of many Quebecers that Canadians aren’t ready to give them the means to exist as a nation inside of Canada. The Meech Lake Accord’s rejection really is an important event in the history of Canadian unity for Quebecers, and there is a reason for it.
Are you saying there are no English Canadians living in Quebec?
In any event, an “internal affair” within a sovereign nation is of interest to all its citizens. Freedom of expression is quite specifically wihin the purview of national law, after all.
Imagine if, tomorrow, the province of Alberta were to make it illegal to speak French in any public place. Would you advocate the repeal of such a law, or would you say, “Hey, it’s none of my business, it’s an internal affair”? Sure, you may not have a vote if you don’t reside there, but you can’t seriously say that discriminatory provincial laws should be ignored by other Canadians.
But, er, you haven’t “studied the Meech Lake Accord in detail.” Absent an understanding of what it said, how do you know YOU would want it to be the law of the land?
Of course I do understand why it was popular in Quebec; you’re preaching to the converted here. But your statement that “English Canadians absolutely refuse to accept” any powers for Quebec is, obviously, wrong; millions of them voted to give exactly that to Quebec in 1992, even though that deal was WAY worse than Meech for everyone, and in fact read as if it had been written by ninth graders. If that’s the way many Quebecois see it then so be it, but they are (like many English Canadians, I do not deny it) demonizing the other side based on generalities and prejudices.
The real issue with Meech Lake was not that some opposed it, but that few people supported it. Any movement for change is based not just on reducing opposition but on getting support. An excellent example of such as issue is the monarchy. Very few Canadians give a flying crap as to whether or not we should have a King or a Queen, and I’d bet dollars to donuts you could convince most people that a republic would be better. But there’s no substantial support for republicanism; the majority of voters do not care either way. Consequently, monarchists - who are absolutely fracking RABID about monarchy, and write furious Letters to the Editor every time anyone hints at dumping Liz and her inbred brood - would always win such a debate, because they’re the ones who care and would invest time and effort into the debate.
Meech Lake was not opposed by most English Canadians. Truth is, most English Canadians didn’t understand, or care about, what 11 rich white men were deciding behind closed doors. But as I explained, nobody was given any reason to support it; it was impossible to discern any benefit that a normal human being would have gotten out of it. Consequently, the small but vocal opposition carried the day.
If you want people to support legislation, give them a reason to. Meech Lake was one good but extremely vague idea (distinct society) married with a bunch of really, really stupid ideas, like the opt-out clause. I agree that provinces should be allowed to opt out of federal programs, as long as they also opt out of taking the money. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
So when someone immigrates to Montreal, should they be forbidden from moving to Winnipeg?
This is a separate issue, but handing immigration to the provinces would not work for the simple reason that the provinces do not and cannot have control over their borders. It’s a preposterous idea. Control of borders is the entire point of HAVING an immigration policy. It’s silly to have a provincial immigration policy if those people can just move to another province the week after they arrive - unless you plan on taking away more Charter rights, of course - specifically Section 6(2)(a).
Of course. Which is why we’re here to dispel such notions 
I agree with you. I was rather young and living in Alberta at the time. I often heard (and I shamefully admit agreed with) the sentiment that “we send all our oil money to the Frenchies now we must also consider them special?”
I (and I’m sure others did too) often felt Quebecers were looking down their nose at us because their language and culture were so much better than ours. That we needed them more than they needed us. We might have provided the money, but they were the ones who kept us progressive and from being a cultural wasteland.
But fortunately, with age and travel comes wisdom. I now realise Quebecers can stand on their own financially and the rest of Canada can stand on their own culturally.
I personally would be fine with separation if that is what Quebec wants. I also have no problem with Quebec having more nationhood within Canada. However, in that case Quebec has to justify how it will benefit (or at least not cause problems) for the rest of Canada.
Giles Duceppe has been quite clever about this recently. Repeating the mantra, at least to English reporters, “Canada is a great country and Quebec is no better or worse, just different.” Analagous to the break up line “it’s not you, it’s me.” Because I think a lot of us Anglos, just like in a break-up, would take separation as an insult, that we are not good enough for you. Assuring the rest of Canada that this is not the case will go a long way to making separation amicable. This could also improve the chances of separation because I imagine many people would vote against it in fear of a difficult separation.
As to Quebec separating leading to a destabilization of Canada, I think quite possibly it would be just the opposite. A lot of western alienation has been due to Ontario paying more attention to Quebec than to western Canada. Recent troubles in Newfoundland have some roots in the financial effects of the Churchill falls deal with Quebec.
I expressed myself badly. I meant the citizens of the “English” provinces, whatever their language is. Although, while I have heard francophones from outside Quebec complain that Quebecers are arrogant and think they’re the only francophones in Canada (a complaint that has some merit, I must admit, and I have also made this complaint myself during discussions with other Quebecers), I’ve yet to hear them complain about policies of the Quebec government.
Anglo-Quebecers (meaning those whose primary language is English, regardless of their ethnic origin) have, of course, a right and a duty to take part in the public debate of their province. This I am certainly not disputing and I will defend this right. But I must admit that, especially in the linguistic debate, they seem to have often in the past taken an unnecessarily antagonistic posture. They certainly have the right, for example, to believe that laws about the language of commercial signage should be liberalised or even abolished. On the other hand, I remember their leaders trying desperately to attract the attention of the national and international press, and even of the United Nations, over the supposed plight of the English-speaking in Quebec. I guess this was their idea of putting pressure on the Quebec government, but it almost seemed intended to create ill will against francophone Quebecers in the rest of Canada and in the US. So I must admit that I feel a little uneasy about anglophone Quebecers. I can only tell myself that these were their most vocal leaders, not necessarily representatives of the community at large.
I’m not disagreeing with you, although I believe that many Canadians from the “English” provinces just aren’t familiar enough with the issues to take an informed decision. They should have reserved their judgement for after they had reached some understanding of the reason for these laws, instead of just assuming the worst of us.
Actually, that exact same hypothetical (and unlikely) example came to my mind when I was writing my first message. This said, there really is a difference between forbidding the use of a whole language (or languages) in a jurisdiction and putting some restrictions on the language to be used on commercial signage. This said, I must admit that demonstrating and complaining about decisions by foreign governments that don’t affect you but that you consider egregiously bad is a common way to try to effect some positive change. Many people complain about human rights abuses in China, for example, even if they don’t have any connection to China. And I think this is a good thing. I guess what bothers me more isn’t that anglophone Canadians would express displeasure at some Quebec laws, but rather that they would do so without taking the time to understand them well.
I said it in my first post, I was young when the Meech Lake Accord was drafted and I don’t remember all the debate of the time. I’m trying not to say too much about it because I know I’m not educated enough on this precise subject. I read some texts describing the Accord, and the opinion I had was that it wasn’t entirely satisfying. I guess I should take the time to read the whole document. I’ve never said I want it to be the law of the land. I’m just giving my opinion on the specific aspects of the Accord you are bringing up, and saying the importance the rejection of the Accord had for Quebec.
I’ll also have to take your word for it. I’ve just read a summary of the Charlottetown Accord to refresh my memory, and I see it would have brought many changes to Canada, but I’m not really sure what the consequences would have been.
Okay, I can see your point here. English Canadians, in general, just don’t feel that there is anything wrong about Canada, and don’t feel the need for change. If you suggest improvements, they may find them nice, but they just don’t feel strongly enough about them to ensure that they actually happen. But what this means is that recognition of Quebec as a different entity inside Canada (in any terms you want to use) is unlikely to happen, since Canadians just don’t care, and those who are opposed would lead the debate.
Of course not, but when you immigrate some place, usually you plan on staying at least some time. You’re describing a way that an eventual system that would leave immigration in the hands of the provinces could be abused, but I see no evidence that it would be. The fact is that with so many responsibilities in the hands of the provinces, they know their needs better than the federal government. Immigration should at least be a shared responsibility.
All of this misses the point. The point is, the First Nations have every bit as much right to sovereignty as Quebec does, Quebec has no more say over the sovereignty of First Nations in Quebec than Canada has over Quebec sovereignty, and if the First Nations in Quebec wish to express their sovereignty by remaining in Canada rather than being forced to join a newly independent Quebec against their will, then Quebec ought to respect that wish. If Quebec does not, then it would be doing to the First Nations precisely what Canada would be doing to Quebec if we were to forcibly prevent Quebec from seperating. That is the point. Sure, what territory is involved and such would be complications, but we’re talking about splitting up the country here. Of course it’s going to be complicated.
You realize, of course, that people in the rest of Canada perceive Quebec as having taking exactly the same “unnecessarily antagonistic posture”? When Lucien Bouchard was Premier it was almost tiresome; virtually anything, including the sun rising in the East, was a “provocation” or a “humiliation,” according to Lucien.
Much can be learned by everyone involved in this debate by asking themselves a simple question; “how do I regard the people who’re a linguistic minority to ME, and is that really any better than the way I’m claiming to be treated?” Anglo-Quebecers bitch and moan that they’re mistreated by Quebec, but they treated their own Jewish minority like shit for years. Quebecois bitch and complain about how Canada treats them, and then they treat their own linguistic minorities the same way. Canadians bitch and complain about how the Americans are big and mean and threaten their culture, and then disregard the same concerns from Quebecois. All sides are guilty of plenty of hypocrisy.
I wholeheatedly agree that the majority of Anglophones in this country do not understand why Quebecers would support such laws, or the history behind them. We’re completely in agreement on this point.
No, you do not see my point, because I didn’t say that.
English Canadians apparently feel plenty is wrong with Canada because they complain about it all the time. I’m not saying the rest of Canada doesn’t want to change anything. What I’m saying is this; if you want people to support something you have to give them a reason to want to support it.
Meech Lake (and for that matter, Charlottetown) was sold to Canadians basically by telling them, “We rich white guys are a lot smarter than you, so we’re right and you should do as we say.” Nobody believed that, and for good reason. Objections to the potential negative ramifications of the Accord were basically ignored. People will not support major changes without a reason. Quebecois had a reason to support Meech - it was quite openly marketed to Quebec as being a way for Quebec to take all kinds of money and power from the federal government. There was a specific benefit to it. Everywhere else in Canada, there was simply no reason at all to support it.
An obvious counterexample was the 1982 Constitution Act, an even more substantial change to the Constitution, that WAS supported by the great majority of Canadians - and, incidentally, including a great number of Quebecers. The reason for this is that it was presented to the populace as having significant positive impacts on the government and on their relationship with the government - most notable the Charter, of course, but also just the fact that Canada would have total sovereingty over itself.
As an anglophone Quebecois, let me clarify.
The original Bill 101 banned certain English speakers from going to school in their own language. No group in Canada has been treated so poorly except natives. (And we all know how horribly they’ve been treated over the centuries.)
And the linguistic attacks against the English language continue. The cities of Beaconsfield and Town of Mount-Royal, which have been mostly anglo enclaves* ever since they were founded, made news this past week because the Office de la Langue Francaise takes offense that the word “chemin” isn’t large enough on street signs.
Get real! It’s a street sign. Sending in the language police to measure the height of letters is just a stupid waste of tax dollars. It’s not like any francophone is suddenly going to abandon his language because he’s looking at a sign saying “Highbridge Rd” instead of “Rue Highbridge”.
It’s also incredibly petty. For people who claim they were denied opportunities for power until the Quiet Revolution to turn around and start banning a language demonstrates a fundamental lack of empathy, and clearly demonstrates how power can be used to get revenge.
[sub]* I say mostly because growing up in the West Island my neighbours were Cyrenne, Trudeau, Pelletier, and Rehal…[/sub]
Are you talking about those whose parents or themselves had studied in English, elsewhere in Canada, but hadn’t ever studied in Quebec? If so, I think you’re right, they weren’t given access to English public schools, although I could be mistaken. Still, you’ll notice that this was changed pretty soon, such that now they only have to have had taken the major part of their studies in English, somewhere in Canada. And of course, according to an article I’ve heard recently, the Supreme Court of Canada is still overruling parts of the law to allow more and more francophones to attend public school in English.
You gotta be kidding me. :rolleyes: Hate to break it to you, but in the beginning of the 20th century, Franco-Ontarians kids (all of them) not only weren’t allowed to study in their language, but they were punished if they were hearing French on the school grounds. Sure, you’re going to tell me, but it’s not the case anymore. Maybe not, but you can find many, many examples of groups in Canada (think only of the Jews, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) that have been treated much, much worse that Anglo-Quebecers over the years. Anglo-Quebecers ruled the province until the sixties, and now they’re still a very well-treated minority group.
Just for those who wonder what is the deal with Quebec’s public education system, here’s a quick summary. Public education in Quebec is in French (the official language of the province) until high school, while higher education is available in French and English. However, those who are part of the province’s English-speaking minority have access to public schools in English. What has changed over the years was the definition of who qualifies as English-speaking. I could check if someone is interested, but as I said earlier, I think that to have access to English schools, they or their parents must have taken most of their studies in English, somewhere in Canada. I think this makes sense: French is, after all, the official language of Quebec, and the one in which business in conducted, so education should be in this language. Speakers of English, as a major minority group that has been there for a lot of time, are also given access to education in their language. There is also a parallel private education system, that is still somewhat funded by the state, and while the schools may select their students, I believe instruction may be in any language (students must still show linguistic competency at levels that are fixed by the Ministry of Education).
Meh. Yes, that’s possible, and yes, I think it’s not really useful, but I don’t think that might be construed as an “attack on the English language”. In a sense, I agree with you: who cares if some stop sign is both in English and in French if the shopkeeper is still going to tell you to “Speak White!” if you try to speak French with him, but the language of business in Quebec is French, so signs should be in French. Street signs, I didn’t know applied, so I will ask for a cite for this, but not because I don’t believe you; as I said, it wouldn’t surprise me. This said, how were you made aware of this? I can guess that it is through English-language media in Quebec, which does seem to take great pleasure in constantly screaming at the supposed horrible mistreatment of anglophones in Quebec (such that some people start getting the idea that their treatment resembles that of Natives through the ages).
Who’s talking about “abandon[ing their] language”? The point is that French is the language of business in Quebec, and signs are a part of this. True, French is more protected in Quebec than, say, English is in Ontario (at least now), but that’s what you can expect from a language that is after all strongly in a minority status in North America. But the reason isn’t at all that there is a risk of someone losing their language when they see English-language signs.
As everyone who takes the time to take a clear look at the status of languages in Quebec will see, English isn’t banned in Quebec. It is a recognized minority language that actually has a special status that other minority languages don’t have. But French is the official and majority language, and it has been decided that it requires some protection because of the fact that English (yes, this same language) has a strong force of attraction, even in Quebec, because of the presence of 300 million English-speaking North Americans surrounding the eight million Quebec people (of all languages and origins). There’s no lack of empathy and desire for revenge anywhere near this, and you’ll need to do a lot better if you want to convince me that there is.
I’m sorry I didn’t answer the other replies in this thread; I’ll try to do it as soon as I can.
This is indeed an extremely unfortunate statement, inasmuch as it is almost comically false. You need to study the history of Francophone minorities in the rest of Canada, dude. You REALLY need to study it carefully.
I have to be more liberal with my use of smilies. In any case, Bill 101 as it originally applied to English students was blatant discrimination.
I was reading La Presse’s website 
When you get right down to it, English is a restricted language in Quebec, precisely because it is the national language for Canada (and the U.S., and many other countries).
And, as I view it, the OLF moves to punish those who would rather use a language other than French, taking actions that are just absurd. It comes across as an official, government-sponsored attack on me. And that’s just stupid, considering that no lesser personage than Jacques Parizeau would be willing to kick the ass of anybody who wasn’t willing to learn English (Senator Prud’homme, 1820)
Overall, it saddens me. Montreal used to be the best city in the country. All the movers and shakers were in Montreal. Then a bunch of fucking morons brought in a bunch of discriminatory policies, and Toronto winds up being the center of the universe. Blech.
Aw crap, this is GD, not the Pit. My apologies for those offended by swearing.
The example I had in mind was when the Quebec government petitioned the federal government for a constitutional amendment to free Quebec from the obligation of maintaining Catholic and Protestant schools boards in Quebec City and Montreal, in 1997, as part of the Quebec’s government plan to introduce language-based school boards. I remembered that the Reform Party had voted against the amendment, despite the consensus in favour of it in Quebec, and I thought I recalled that their reason for this wasn’t very convincing, opening the door to the possibility that they only did it to spite Quebec and be able to show themselves as “strong” in front of their electors. However, checking articles of the time from Le Devoir, I see that the Reform Party actually did have legitimate questions, even though I disagree with their eventual decision: they wanted to hold a referendum in Quebec to be sure there actually existed a consensus on the question, they wanted the Supreme Court to decide whether this constitutional amendment was valid only with the approval of the federal and Quebec parliaments, or if it needed approval from seven provinces representing 50% of Canada’s population, and they wanted to be sure that “minority rights would not be in peril”. So I’m ready to cut them some slack about this, and after all, 12 Reform MPs even decided to ultimately vote for the amendment. What I noticed going through these articles, though, was that despite the work of the Quebec government and then-federal Intergovernmental Affairs minister Stéphane Dion (who wasn’t usually known to be a friend of the Bouchard government), there seemed to be a lot of doubt in Ottawa about the validity of the Quebec consensus, despite the fact that almost all comments coming from Quebec were supportive. As I said, Manning wanted a referendum, and several Liberals also expressed doubt. So it seems to me to be an example of the federal government having trouble recognizing the Quebec government as the representative of the Quebec people, and that, despite all evidence that, at least in this case, the people is behind its government.
Hmmm, maybe he was keen on using these words, I honestly don’t remember, but you also have to remember that he was premier when Jean Chrétien and his Liberals were in charge in Ottawa, a government that was very keen on centralization, and that was pursuing its “plan B” about Quebec independence, which of course was seen as a provocation by Bouchard and other nationalists. It claimed that Quebec is not allowed to separate from Canada unless the federal government (and presumably the other provinces) agree to it, and that, they can even set their rules after the fact, by saying, for example, that the yes majority in an eventual referendum just isn’t sufficient. I know this won’t seem to be a provocation to someone who thinks Canada is an entity and every change must be approved by the provinces, but to someone who believes that Quebec has the right to choose its own destiny itself, as a nation, it is a provocation (regardless of whether this person actually wants Quebec to be independent or rather to remain in Canada).
Well, in the particular case of Anglo-Quebecers, who are the linguistic minority to me, while I’m ready to recognize that there are cases where they weren’t given rights that they should have been given, I think they are treated very well. The fact that a great number of francophone Quebecers do speak English isn’t foreign to this, but even without this (and in regions where much less people will know English), I think there isn’t any organized movement to take from them the rights they need to thrive as a community.
Okay then. Actually, that’s closer to the impression I get, although I also get the impression that complaining about Canada is mostly done in the regions that don’t feel they are listened to enough, as opposed to, say, Ontario. I hear what you say about the difference between Meech Lake and the Constitution Act of 1982. This said, do you think there are, currently, issues (constitutional issues, since that’s what we’re talking about, but you may throw issues that don’t have anything to do with the Constitution either) that could unite Canadians and make them feel the need to do something?
You sure have to. Or rather, maybe you should try to avoid such hyperbole with these issues. I have no doubt that there are people who would actually believe that the treatment of anglophone Quebecers is the worst of any minority in Canada in history except for Natives. Realize that us francophone Quebecers are mindful of our (undeserved) bad reputation in all of North America. (I could give examples from this very board.) This is why I consider it important to set the record straight and not joke about such things.
My understanding is that English students from inside Canada but outside Quebec were not allowed access to public schooling in English if they moved to Quebec. Let’s take this step by step. I think, given the fact that French is the official language of Quebec, that it makes sense for immigrants who come here, if they want to use our public school system, to study in French, to allow themselves to integrate into the community. We could argue that this is true even for immigrants from English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom or Nigeria. And I think that right now, this is what the law says: as for public schools, they have only access to the French-language ones. Now, I don’t entirely agree with this – I think letting English-speaking immigrants join the English-language community is probably better – but it is a debate that has good points on both sides, we can discuss it between people of good faith. Originally, English-speaking students from Canada (outside Quebec) weren’t considered any differently than immigrants from any other English-speaking country. What is the difference between Canada and any other English country? The answer, right now, is obvious: Quebec is part of Canada, and so must obey the Canadian constitution that ensures for French and English language groups access to education in their language (or something of the sort). The government that implemented bill 101 was a government committed to the independence of Quebec, so it’s understandable that to them, Canada wasn’t really a different case than other English-language countries. This isn’t to say that what they did was right; they did as if Quebec was independent when clearly it isn’t true. And it’s something that I’ve noticed they do tend to do sometimes. They were put back in line by the Supreme Court. But having said this, if saying that students coming from Nigeria (for example) should go to public French-language schools isn’t wrong – and as I’ve said, I think we can have a healthy debate on the question – then saying that students coming from Canada, in the context of an independent Quebec, should do the same isn’t any more wrong. This decision by the Lévesque government wasn’t right, but to me, mostly because they tried to do as if one of their pet issues had been resolved in their favour, while it wasn’t true and didn’t even have the support of the people, at least at the time.
Furthermore, we can add that private education has never been restricted in any way. And public schools in Quebec are actually largely subsidized.
Fair enough.
Well, it is both protected/favoured and restricted. Protected and favoured, because it is the language of an important minority in Quebec, which is given access to rights that speakers of other languages don’t have, such as public education and access to government documents in their language. This would remain true even if Quebec became independent, for example. Restricted, too, but not more than any other language that isn’t French. Rather, French is favoured in Quebec (more than English) because it is the majority language, but a majority language that does still require protection, since it is immersed in a large majority of people who speak another language in North America. And this other language happens to be English.
As everyone can see, this is all rather complicated. I guess we can understand why, depending on how we describe and explain the actions of my government, they can be seen as either a coordinated attack on the English language and those who speak it, or as a quite rational decision to ensure the survival of the French language. Or anything in-between.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that he said such a thing. Knowing English is a really important skill today, for those who want to succeed in their professional life. Parizeau knows it very well. And many young educated Quebecers today speak fluently in French, English and often a third language too. The point is that the purpose of our laws isn’t to “punish English” or those who speak it. As I just said, they can be seen this way, but it isn’t their purpose, and Parizeau knows it.
I might read more of these minutes. They are very interesting, and they give us an idea about what different political actors think the status of both official languages is and should be in Canada.