Isn’t it because this seemingly harmless folksy phrase has been hijacked by the White Canada nostalgiacs? I have a cousin who has lived with his wife for 20+ years in Nova Scotia. Both were born and raised in the Toronto area, but he hears “from away” many times more than she does. She’s white, he’s Asian. Heck, their daughter hears it and she was born in Nova Scotia. Irish-Canadians in Nova Scotia aren’t “from away” after 40 years, and certainly the second generation is not, but Chinese Nova Scotians will seemingly always be.
I think warrants can only be used when Parliament is not sitting. If Parliament is sitting and the appropriations are running out, Parliament would have to pass another interim supply bill until the final budget bills are passed.
There hasn’t been a defeat on a budget since Clark’s 1979 budget, although Martin came close, when the Speaker voted to continue the budget debate on a tie vote.
I am not the author of The War of the Worlds. But that’s right, my point was that Islam is also very much not associated with a particular ethnic group. Though @Northern_Piper’s suggestion that I may have been thinking about Arabs is interesting. It’s true that some people associate Islam with Arabic ethnicity, but it probably depends on where they live and what ethnicity most Muslim people living near them have. In my case, I would typically associate a “Muslim” with either someone of North African/Maghrebine heritage (which you can think of as “Arab”, even though they probably have substantial Berber ancestry), or Subsaharan African (Senegalese, Malian, etc.) heritage. And the North Africans do feel somehow more “Muslim” than the Subsaharan Africans, even though I can’t exactly describe what I mean by this. But it’s very context-dependent; I think some of Malcolm X’s writings use “Muslims” to specifically mean “Black Muslims”, which is a very non-standard usage. There certainly are places in the world where “Catholic” is used as an ethnic term, probably Northern Ireland for one.
Not sure you can really argue an ethnic distinction between Irish in Northern Ireland. A tribal marker more than an ethnic one.
I thought they were called McCain Superfries.
Never heard either term used. Just don’t make fun of dulce. Some eat this seaweed like potato chips, for reasons that escape me.
That’s really getting deep into the definition of “ethnic group”. Are Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims separate ethnic groups? I feel that once two groups start identifying as separate, they evolve into separate ethnic groups even if they might not have been at first.
And also, aren’t many Northern Irish protestants actually Scots-Irish, that is, the descendents of settlers from the Scottish Lowlands?
(Bolding mine)
About that issue, I’ve got an interesting conversation starting piece. Last year I’ve read this article from CBC which I found very interesting; TLDR: anglophones move in small French-speaking town in New Brunswick and are surprised that public services are in French only. What do you think about this?
They didn’t check the town out before moving there? I think they hired a bad realtor.
I think, assuming they even knew New Brunswick is the only officially bi-lingual province, the newcomers thought it would be like federal bilingualism where services are offered in both languages. Obviously a small town has a harder time managing that and so there appears to be a cut off.
Yes, last time we were vacationing in New Brunswick we were surprised to find a francophone pocket, where no one seemed to speak English.
ETA: It was the same place as in the linked article (Rogersville).
Having spent time in the Miramichi, it is true that some do not speak much English. It is also true Acadian French has a few differences from that of much of Quebec, and these are sometimes echoed in Louisiana French. Many people I talked to supported bilingualism in New Brunswick “because it keeps the peace”, and many Acadians are still mightily aggrieved at their expulsion centuries ago. I presume there is a good faith effort to supply services which sometimes falls short of ideals.
Brief background for the few seeking more information on this.
Personally, I don’t assume Justin Trudeau is Catholic because he’s from Quebec. I do think he’s likely a Catholic, because his father was a notable Catholic, and often religious identity gets transmitted by your parents.
However, your premier does not seem to agree with your analysis:
Eh. Legault doesn’t really disprove HJ, as he is the type of person that would wear a conservative or traditionalist label with pride.
He even told people to vote for the Tories last election.
Re: the Catholic/Protestant thing.
I barely remember anything I learned in high school history but this one perticular factoid has stuck with me. By 1989 (when I took the class), there was a distinct pattern in past Prime Ministers: all the Conservative ones had been Protestant, but the Liberal ones alternated Catholic/Protestant in an unbroken pattern since confederation. I don’t know if that’s changed since then, as I couldn’t spot Paul Martin’s religion on his wiki page at first glance.
I’m afraid that’s not correct.
-
John Thompson, Joe Clark, and Brian Mulroney, all Conservatives, were all Roman Catholic.
-
Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, and Justin Trudeau were all Roman Catholic. Pearson was the last Protestant Liberal PM.
Y’know what, you’re right. I totally remembered the factoid wrong. I learned it as, the Cons alternated, and the Grits were all Catholic. But how did Pearson slip through there? Did my dull-as-dirt grade 10 history teacher mislead us?
I happily stand corrected.
The Grits did alternate for a century
- Alexander Mackenzie, Baptist
- Wilfrid Laurier, Roman Catholic
- Mackenzie King, Presbyterian
- Louis St Laurent, Roman Catholic
- Mike Pearson, Methodist/United
No, it’s both. I think that political parties are associations of like-minded people, getting together to advance particular policy or ideological goals in the political area. Their freedom of association is a protected Charter value, and they get to decide who should be part of their association. If a party is organized for ideological purposes (rather than just being a vehicle to get candidates elected), then the party should be able to set rules as to who can be a member and who gets to vote on important issues, like candidates.
For example, the NDP kicked out Waffle supporters, because the NDP had a rule that you couldn’t belong simultaneously to two different political associations, and the idea of an organized sub-political group within the NDP, possibly with different electoral goals than the NDP at large, was problematic.
The party, like any other association, should have the right to control its own membership and its own ideology.
A good example was Stanfield when he was leader of the PCs. In the late 60’s, the PCs went through a bruising internal policy debate on bilingualism, and eventually settled on a modified support for official bilingualism. Then Leonard Jones, mayor of Moncton, New Brunswick, got the local PC party nomination on an anti-bilingualism platform. Stanfield refused to sign his nomination papers, because that was not party policy. Jones ran as an independent and won.
Stanfield’s calculus was that it was more important for the party to have candidates who supported the party platform on a contentious issue, than to have a candidate who was opposed to the party’s platform. He was willing to risk the seat to maintain the party platform.
If nominations are set by the electorate at large, the party loses control over its ideological platform. And in a parliamentary system, having a generally unified caucus is a very important value.
Was Pierre Trudeau a “notable Catholic”, in the sense of moreso than a typical French Canadian person of his generation? Personally, I wouldn’t expect religious identity to necessarily transmit from parents to children, especially in the increasingly plural and secular modern world.
Yeah, I did see this, and I was afraid someone would bring it up. 
It made the rounds on the Quebec subreddit, and suffice to say people there forcefully disagreed with Legault. But Legault is also a man of a previous generation (he’s older than Justin Trudeau, who’s himself older than me), so from a time when French Canadians might have identified as Catholic despite not practicing this faith or even being believers. Kind of like my father, who takes communion in the rare cases when he attends mass (last time being at my maternal grandmother’s funeral, four years ago), despite being quite obviously atheist.
But I don’t agree with Legault here, just as I wouldn’t call my atheist colleague Muslim. He, on the other hand, says that since his country of birth passed a law making it illegal for anyone to drink alcohol in the presence of a Muslim, that means he wouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol in the presence of himself over there. He’s making a joke, but it’s an interesting viewpoint. Then again, maybe he would legally be considered Muslim by that country’s authorities. Just as I assume the Catholic church considers anyone baptised according to Catholic rites to be Catholic. Which might also be what someone, even Legault, means when they tell you they’re Catholic.
It is interesting, though, that this honestly fairly innocuous statement by Legault was reported on by the media, including anglophone Canadian media. I feel it played into some perceptions Canadians have of, either Quebec, francophones, Legault, or a mix of those. It is a bit of a fear to me that anglophone Canadians view me as Catholic first and foremost (even though I don’t consider myself as such) and that it shapes their expectations of me as well as their interpretation of what I think and say.