It’s one of the better shows for music usually not heard on any other radio. Ok, maybe CIUT has better music overall but still…
On a serious note, I just dont get this all out attack on CBC, an institution that is as Canadian as hockey I suppose. The only rational news and general information TV network in the country. Period.
Hearing on what’s going on I can only conclude that “someone” is tryng to undermine very things that make this country so unique all the while those very same ones claim to have more patriotic feelings than your average Canadian.
Well, if we have our annual Calgary Christmas Dopefest (well, we don’t really have one, but a few Calgary Dopers and I did manage to meet up in Calgary last Christmas), maybe we can.
I do know that many of the rioters posted photos and bragged of their actions on Facebook pages, which will make things easier for the police and prosecutors.
I’ll add that I was glad to see that many Vancouverites took the time to help clean up the aftermath. I like Vancouver and its people, and I have been there many times; and I’ll admit that the rioters lowered my estimation of the city and its people. But when the news told me that many Vancouverites volunteered their time and effort to clean things up, my impression of them returned to what it was. Good job, Vancouver, and I’m looking forward to visiting again when I can.
That was an interesting article - it sounds like young Quebec separatists don’t have a very realistic idea of what life in Quebec would be like if separation did occur. The first three obvious things that occur to me is that the Alberta/Saskatchewan money stops rolling in, they start off with their share of the Canadian debt, and they stop using Canadian currency and the Canadian economic reputation.
Others may disagree with this, but I don’t think the primary arguments used in favour of separation or sovereignty are economic arguments, they’re cultural arguments. The ‘Yes’ side’s slogan from the '95 referendum says it all - ‘Say “Yes” and it will happen’, variously written across pictures of building projects, musical instruments, branches with leaves, trucks, etc. Lucien Bouchard did a magnificent job of convincing many people that the only thing holding Quebec back was participation with the rest of Canada, which did not understand them nor respect them. It’s now almost impossible to discuss events of the last 30 years without encountering Bouchard-isms that have become the accepted terms - ‘The Night of the Long Knives’ is the first example that comes to mind.
It’s one of the difficulties for Anglos outside of Quebec arguing in favour of federalism - scenarios where Quebec suffers after separating are viewed as fear-mongering at best and threats at worst. We’re left trying to point out the advantages of remaining in Canada without referring to the consequences of leaving - a very tricky balance to strike.
I think you might have hit on a basic divide between Quebec and the ROC on the separatism issue - in my mind, I can’t even imagine not looking at it as an economic issue. A cultural issue? (Hypothetical) you are willing to gamble the future of everyone living in Quebec because of culture without considering the economic reality? That idea blows my mind.
Apparently Harper is considering other options for Senate reform now that some of the Conservative senators aren’t so thrilled with the idea. The article isn’t really clear on where the suggestion of abolition came from; if all John Kenney said was “entertain more dramatic options,” then I’d think Harper would be more likely to pull a Mulroney and add 8 senators to ram it through than to try to get rid of the Senate altogether.
But padding the Senate to pass the bill he wants isn’t a more dramatic option. It’s not dramatic at all.
He can’t abolish the Senate without a constitutional amendment, and that’s not very likely to happen. They might pass the federal portion of it, but I expect it’d get hung up in the provinces.
What he can do is stop appointing senators. Eventually there wouldn’t be any left. And the Commons could do all kinds of fun stuff like axing senatorial pay and perks, de-funding everything related to the senate, etc.
You don’t have to offer services in French outside of Quebec. As for the federal public service, you claim you must speak French (actually, you mean speak both official languages) to progress to higher levels, but while it may be officially true, I’m quite sure an unilingual anglophone (not an unilingual francophone) can get excused if she can show learning French is soooooo hard.
And if part of your job is to give services to people of both official languages, well I’m sorry but you should be able to do so.
Perhaps, but I still think an official translation should be done by an actual translator. Even if it means giving work to lazy leftist Quebecers who’re ruining this country, like matt_mcl. (Though he actually translates from French to English.)
Here I do mean official. If you’re a business, you can do whatever you want, but I can think less of you for it.
My wishing that I wouldn’t die in an Albertan hospital because nobody could understand me in my state of confusion wasn’t intended as support or opposition to English-French official bilingualism. It meant merely what it said: that there is a good utilitarian reason for ensuring that several languages can be understood by hospital staff. (Not all the staff, but at least one or two people.) Chinese languages can and should certainly be part of those.
I’m not sure what your point is. What I’m saying is that by construction, Canada is a country that is understood to be English-speaking, but French speakers are ensured at least one province where they are the majority and which will be French-speaking. I guess Le Ministre and others may disagree here, but I find it self-evident. For this reason, I’d be quite willing to “split” it in two, in a sense, such that the English-speaking provinces do not have to care about the French language anymore (maybe not even have to offer public education in French), since as you point out Chinese is more prevalent there anyway, and French obviously pisses you off. In return, the French-speaking province(s) can also do whatever they want in terms of official language.
This said, as long as there is a federal government, there is a defensible reason to ensure that it’s possible to communicate with it in both official languages. Should this be weakened, in the sense that the federal government may operate in a single official language in some parts of the country? Maybe. Please do not consider me as the bad guy forcing French down your throat. I don’t care in any way what languages are spoken in Alberta. Or Hong Kong, for that matter.
I am part of a language majority in Quebec. Please see the difference here. If I lived in Calgary, I’d work, shop, spend time with friends, go see shows, live my whole life in a language that is not my first language. I would be part of a language minority. I certainly feel that way here in Bologna. But in Sherbrooke, or Gatineau, I work, shop, etc. in my first language. I wish this to remain true. If it doesn’t, what good is this country for me? I might just as well leave (and I probably would).
And yes, I know that you’ve lived in the Middle East and now in Hong Kong, which is a truly, very different place. Only places I’ve been are part of the Western world (North America and Europe), which in a sense is a single (big) culture. But of course there is a difference between me and another Canadian. Is there a difference between an anglophone Canadian and an anglophone American? Of course. If I lived in Calgary, apart from not using my first language, like, ever, I’d find everything slightly different. People would think a bit differently. They’d have slightly different values. Different ways of entertaining themselves. And so on.
Historical considerations.
Well, perhaps I’m showing some bias here, but I get the feeling that English speakers, as a whole, don’t really care about even attempting to speak other languages. They have the idea that everybody speaks English (which we can probably both confirm isn’t true), so they can just speak that, and if doesn’t work well, they can just complain about all those rude people who pretended they couldn’t understand. While speakers of other languages are more aware of the fact that knowing a few words in many languages can go a long way.
This is especially true with English Canadians in Quebec, who don’t even feel they’re abroad, and who are predisposed (given their prior impression of Quebecers) to think that if somebody has trouble understanding them, it’s because they’re being a jerk. Someone said that on another board I used to read: Americans in Quebec know they’re in a foreign country, so things will be a bit different, perhaps language will be an issue, maybe there will be things they won’t understand. English Canadians know they’re in Canada, so everything should be just like at home, and if it isn’t, it’s probably because of those darned separatists. Those French people were so good back in the fifties!
If you know that, if you ever visit Quebec (not that I believe you’d ever want to ;)), you’d find yourself in a place where your language isn’t the main one, so you may have some communication problems, and other things might be a bit different than at home, well, I have no issue with that.
Heh, perhaps. But what you’re saying is: there may be millions of people in your country who speak French, but since they speak a different language from yours, they’re basically foreigners. People who speak your language, those are your “kind”, the people you want to know something about. I don’t mind this (I tend to agree), but do realise that this is what you’re saying, especially when you say that I’m just the same as any Albertan or Newfoundlander.
If I go to an area of a city called “Chinatown”, maybe that old woman will only speak her native language, but her daughter at least will speak the main language of the city where the Chinatown is. (Except perhaps Montreal: there it’s possible she’d speak only her native language and English. Although that was more true in the past. Today it’s also possible it’d be her native language, English, and French.)
That’s the objection that I have with Malthus’s claims about Toronto’s multiculturalism. Does he really think going to Toronto’s Chinatown is a cultural experience? There’s nothing there to make you feel any kind of culture shock. It’s just Toronto (which I agree is a great city), with a lot of Chinese people.
Heh, she was provided service in the language of her choice, she was just appalled that the clerk had the gall to speak French within earshot of her. See what I said earlier about English Canadians in Quebec.
Who says this doesn’t require any constitutional change? If the provinces don’t want to go ahead with senatorial elections, what will Harper do? (And Quebec, for one, intends to sue the federal government if Harper tries that.)
I watch Radio-Canada. The news, Infoman, Et Dieu créa… Laflaque, 3600 secondes d’extase, Tous pour un when it’s on, and probably other shows I’m not thinking about. I even streamed Laflaque on tou.tv while I was here in Bologna, and I had a friend put her webcam in front of the TV as Infoman was playing (it’s not on tou.tv :(). And on RDI I watch Le Club des ex once in a while. Heck, I even watch The Rick Mercer Report on CBC from time to time. Am I not a perfect Canadian?
I would tend to say “do not trust English Canadian media about anything having to do with Quebec”. Even when they do have Quebecers on staff, they’re usually hard federalists, so therefore not an accurate representation of the variety of Quebec thought.
This said (despite the inflammatory title) this article is not entirely wrong, given that it’s coming from a hard federalist perspective. I do have a few things to pick with Mr. Pratte though.
Of course Pratte is speaking here about English Canadians’ view, not necessarily his own. But some would argue that in a context where more and more dispositions of the Charter of the French language (and especially those about public education) are being invalidated by the Supreme Court of Canada, we can say that Quebec is still under the political domination of English Canada. The PQ has proposed making cégeps and unsubsidized private schools subject to bill 101. I disagree with both those ideas, but I understand where they come from.
Of course Pratte is a federalist, so he cannot see any non-melodramatic argument in favour of independence or any kind of Quebec nationalism. Believing this comforts him in his sense of rightness, and of course he also comforts all his anglophone readers in their sense that they are right, while all Quebec nationalists (more than 40% of the population; plenty of nationalists don’t support independence) are living in the past and cannot see this modern, dynamic, multicultural country.
So what are these arguments, André? Yes, there is the economic argument. Quebec is a net recipient of equalization payments (let’s hope for your sake that it doesn’t change!) and we don’t quite know what would happen if Quebec became independent. But is there any positive effect of being part of the “Canadian experience”, as you put it? The Rockies? Pratte’s readers presumably know what he’s talking about here (in fact I don’t know if he actually does), so can they tell me what it is, instead of just alluding to it?
I don’t care about indifference. In fact I welcome it. It’s hostility I don’t like. As far as I can tell English Canadians are nothing but hostile towards Quebec, despite not knowing a single thing about us. Perhaps when Pratte meets English Canadians, he apologises for being from Quebec in order to get them to warm up to him, so that’s why he doesn’t see that.
Ah, the artists. Yes, many of them (though by no means all) support independence. They tend to be left-wing after all. As Stewie Griffin used to sing: “establishment, establishment, you always know what’s best!” Meanwhile the simple fact that actors, musicians, comedians are important public figures in Quebec seems to confuse and infuriate English Canadians to no end. And is Pratte claiming some sort of conspiracy here?
Well why don’t you André? Tell me about Canada and the principles and values that are the foundation of the federation. I’ll see if I agree with them. And then I’ll see if Uzi and Sam Stone and Cat Whisperer agree with them as well, because it’s not like they’ll be left without a voice, especially with the Conservatives in power and Western Canada taking an increasingly large place in the political discourse.
How is that a Bouchardism, and how is it not an example of us getting fucking screwed?
“Gamble the future”? Come on. Quebec isn’t a third world country. Yes, it’s quite likely that it’d be poorer after independence. We can practically guarantee this. And yes, the fact is we don’t quite know how independence would happen. The negotiations with the federal government would be very difficult, and it’s no guarantee that Quebecers would be satisfied. That’s why independence will probably never happen. But if it did, everything would still be all right in the end.
And you may not care about culture, but trust me, if I ever feel in Gatineau or Sherbrooke or, more likely, in Montreal as I feel in Ottawa, I’ll really have no reason to stay in this country. I’ll quite accurately not have a country anymore. Can you say the same?
Anyway, speaking about politics, as I said in an earlier thread, Quebec’s electorate is currently extremely volatile, and anything may happen in the next provincial election. And indeed, according to the most recent Léger Marketing-Le Devoir survey (I’m sure there’s an English cite somewhere as well, but I ain’t bothered to find it), if an election was held during these days, François Legault’s still inexistant (but now almost certain to be created) political party would obtain 33% of the votes, compared with 21% for the PQ and 20% for the Liberals. Legault is a former PQ cabinet minister, but he’s decided independence just isn’t going to happen in his lifetime and has created a coalition to try to bring innovative ideas into Quebec politics. He’s already published a few manifestoes, and more are to come in the next few months. On the political spectrum he’s generally considered to be “centre-right”, but he eschews such labels. So it’s an interesting, though not unexpected, result. Merging his coalition with the ADQ would actually get him 41% of the vote.
But of course, this is a current snapshot, and things could still change drastically before the next election. As the pollster Jean-Marc Léger says:
or if I translate:
Wow, this machine translation actually came out not so bad. It’s only the last sentence that I would change, maybe for something like “We must be careful of how we interpret François Legault’s current poll numbers.”
Yes, it is up to me as the vendor to make my customers happy so they repeat their trade. If it means that you speak their language in their presence then you do so. I don’t personally care if the clerks start speaking the local lingo between themselves if they’ve just served me in English. Mostly because I am not self absorbed enough to think they are talking about me behind my back (while standing in front of me). I can see how someone might take it so and be offended. For example, I’ve had colleagues at work say to me that they are switching from English to Cantonese to explain something quicker to their colleague. I don’t care one way or the other, but it is the courtesy that they asked if it was okay that might have smoothed over a ‘difficulty’.
Then we agree.
I saying there is no guarantee that anyone is a majority anywhere. Say tomorrow all Albertans want to speak Chinese instead of English. There is no consitutional reason it couldn’t happen. Same for Quebec. If they want to change the language from French to something else nothing in the constitution prevents it. What type of force do you think should be used to stop it? And languages do change naturally over time. Are you going to act like language luddites?
And that is true between cities within Quebec, too. The differences between us as part of the ‘West’ are minor. Yes, you may have immigrants who come to Quebec who speak French, but culturally, they are very different.
Can you blame them when they are in North America to assume that most people are likely to have at least a smattering of English? It is more likely that the French speakers know more English than the English know French. People who think that the guy isn’t talking to because he is just being rude are stupid. People who just heard him speaking English to another person are right (that he is being rude).
This is true no matter where you are. My point is that it is the individual who should make the determination what level of language knowledge they need, not some grand scheme of the government to force it upon them.
Uh, we English have never thought the French were any good no matter what the time period.
My desire, more lack of interest, in visiting Quebec applies to most other Canadian provinces, so it shouldn’t be considered a French/English thing. The ‘vanillaness’ of Canada itself, I find boring. Which is why I live in China now. You want actual differences in culture, come here. Perspective is a wonderful thing.
No, they are people who speak a different language. Nothing more or less than that. What sticks in my throat is the sense of entitlement that I perceive because of it.
This is the main point. My perception is that the French think they are NOT the same as any other Canadian, they are superior and should have something that those lesser people don’t.
Please read your own words again. You have a problem with this Alberta lady who wants people to speak her language in her presence, yet you then say this.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that if I was to visit Quebec, I’d not have any culture shock, either. I might have some problem communicating, but otherwise not so much.
You do realize that Alberta does hold Senatorial elections? Are we violating the constitution by doing so? No, we aren’t. And take a look at the party who has chosen to not abide by our elections and where they stand in Canada right now? It takes some gall to not recognize a democratic process even if you don’t agree with it.
But, I guess if a province doesn’t want to participate by holding their own elections they can have their senators picked at the whim of the PM as it is currently done. He is giving you the choice to elect your own representatives and you say you don’t want it?
Not everything the government does has to have an entry in the constitution, btw.
The wonders of a democracy. You have to put up with the silly ideas of those you don’t agree with if they can get enough like minded people to support them.
Just being nitpicky here, but Quebec does not intend to sue the federal government over Senate reform. Rather, Quebec intends to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal; and then, to the Supreme Court if necessary. Cite from the Canadian Press wire from June 13:
Emphasis added. “A reference” in this context is simply a question–in this case, I would imagine the question would be something like, “Can the federal government enact legislation that effectively changes the Constitution without following the formal amending formula?” The Court answers the question with a “yes” or “no,” and gives reasons. Note that technically, a reference case is an opinion, and is not binding; but in practice, the Court’s answer and advice in reference cases is almost always followed.
Just wanted to clear that up before we had people asking about details of a lawsuit. Heck, I myself did a double-take when I saw the words “sue the federal government,” before I remembered last week’s news reports on this.
I don’t think this is a very realistic attitude towards Quebec’s economic future if it separated from Canada. It sounds to me like Quebecers are perhaps not completely cognizant of just how much they benefit from being a part of Canada and not doing it all on their own. As for Quebec being satisfied at the bargaining table with the federal government, I can almost guarantee you that they WON’T be satisfied; I certainly hope that the federal government wouldn’t give away the store to a province that wants to take their ball and go home.
I didn’t say that I didn’t care about culture; I just wouldn’t put it above economic realities. Not on a personal level, and not on a governmental level. As for my culture, cultures change. Trying to force a culture to stay the same is a recipe for failure.
For ROC folks, would you prefer if your province were part of Canada or part of the USA, given that being part of the USA would most likely result in a stronger economy for your province, and greater economic opportunities for your provinces people and businesses? If you would prefer to remain a part of Canada, why is that? Cultural by any chance?
The way the USA is going down the shitter when compared to Canada, I think I might disagree with my first assertion also. I was thinking in the historical context.
“Some persistent people watcher
May eventually distinguish
Why a Scotsman’s so much Scotcher
Than an Englishman is English.”
Piet Hein
Did someone coin and use the term before Lucien Bouchard?
When we sold my father’s house, we had an early buyer who was particularly interested because of its proximity to a very good school. The buyer had legitimate concerns about the condition of the basement, and the market was soft, so they came in with a low offer to the tune of $10,000. Dad came back with an offer that was $2,000 lower than the original asking price, they came back $3,000 higher than their original offer and Dad counter-offered with $1,000 more than their last offer. We tried to talk Dad out of it, but he got stubborn. The buyer walked, mostly because they were convinced that if someone was going to be that petty, something else must be up with the house, or the terms or conditions. When we eventually sold, the market was much softer, the house had sat for 2 months and Dad got less than the original offer.
So should I call that my family’s ‘Night of the Long Knives’? Or should I call it ‘the night my Dad learned not to hold out in negotiations’?
See, I’m a hard federalist descended from Anglo-Quebeckers. As far as I’m concerned, that was the night that Pierre Trudeau realized that Rene Levesque was not bargaining in good faith, and that he wasn’t going to sign anything that the rest of the country had agreed to anyway. Trudeau took the chance that the next federalist premier of Quebec would just quietly sign and the issue would be settled. It’s a shame it didn’t happen that way. Oh, well. Now we’re stuck with the combined legacies of Meech Lake, the Charlottetown Accord and Neverendum II - Money and the Ethnic Vote.
Every time I hear the separatist side of the argument, I find myself thinking of the scene from ‘The Life of Brian’, where they say “What have the Romans done for us?”
This is exactly the hypothetical I was about to construct. My answer - I am Canadian; I do not want to be a part of the USA. Even if the situation were such that we would be much better off economically as part of the US, I would actively campaign against joining the US.
(Though he actually translates from French to English.)