The Plains of Abraham: Let's Try This Again!

In My Humble Opinion
21

Well, it changes the fact that you no longer have to assume that in Alberta, English is the only language you can be served in. You can now definitely state that while English can be used everywhere in Alberta, supplying services in French is also done as a matter of provincial policy where numbers and/or demand warrant it. All I was doing was offering simple evidence of a fact that rebutted your blanket assumption.

Now, perhaps the Alberta government doesn’t offer services in French to the same extent/level as the Quebec government offers them in English; but the fact remains that the Alberta government is not forcing Alberta’s Francophones to speak English in absolutely every dealing they have with their provincial government. They can get certain services in certain areas in French or English, as they choose.

Same here–there’s a good discussion here somewhere, but it’s taking a while to appear.

22

All right. It’s a bit late right now, but I’ll try to construct an interesting debate thesis tomorrow.

To be honest, the main reason why I started this thread in IMHO was to point out what I consider to be arrogance on the part of some people. These threads about the Battle of the Plains of Abraham were an example of this: the message was that “we” are a good people, who’ve always respected and loved our minority groups ever since we came together, while “they” live in the past, fume about real or imagined past wrongs, and, as Little Nemo says, oppress their minority groups. This was my way to say, “hey, that’s not right! There’s a whole lot you don’t know about this country, that you’ve never even been told, and before declaring you white as snow and us guilty of all charges, at least try to learn this stuff!” Since this arrogance is probably basic human nature, I accept that it’s likely bidirectional.

What did I expect? Maybe to show Canadians the Canada they don’t even know exists in the faint hope that they’ll notice the arrogance of their beliefs. And again, I’m not singling out anyone here, we’re all guilty of this.

Anyway, as I said I’ll try to write something more tomorrow. We’ll see how it goes.

23

Let’s try to clarify what I want to talk about. (Sorry for not getting back here earlier.)

It seems to me that there is a current in Canada to try to build some sort of common national identity. By this I mean a common way to think of Canadian history, values, culture, etc. For example, Canada’s status as a multicultural country isn’t usually seriously questioned anywhere, even though we’re not even sure what it means. The Bouchard-Taylor commission on accommodation of cultural minorities, which was held all over Quebec in 2007-2008, was derided all over Canada as an exercise in legitimizing racism, even though the basic question under discussion is something we desperately need to consider: what do we do in a multicultural country when cultural minorities’ practices conflict with our laws or our customs? Similarly, there has been for a long time a movement to try to build a pan-Canadian history curriculum to teach in our schools, which has until now failed to yield any results.

My point is that all these attempts to build a national Canadian identity are doomed to failure and put Canadian unity in jeopardy. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham was my example, since this symbol was fresher in my mind at the time. With exceptions, it’s seen by Quebec francophones as a symbol of losing their country and becoming a subjugated nation (estimates of how “bad” it was vary, of course) while anglophones across the country – those who know of this event, of course, since it’s less widely known – see it as a founding event of Canada, placing the two main ethnic groups in contact for the first time and forcing accommodations that continue to this day. I mean, these two viewpoints are diametrically opposed. How can you build a consensus over what the symbol “really” means “for all Canadians” without telling someone that they’re simply wrong? There’s no way. And that is just one example.

What would be better would be to acknowledge that several different nations exist in Canada, each with its own customs, language, history, etc. And try to learn about these other nations, so that we can learn to see through their eyes. Nobody would then feel that Canadian nation-building is actively trying to steamroll over their identity. But for some reason, the whole idea of there being more than one nation in Canada is completely rejected by some Canadians. See the reaction when PM Harper passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation in Canada (which we will all agree was simply a political move to cut the grass under his opponents’ feet, with no concrete consequences whatsoever): some were close to call it the end of Canada; he even lost one of his ministers. But why? Why is it bad that there be more than one country inside our borders, so to speak? Is there only one way to see “Canadianness”, and everyone who disagrees simply wrong?

24

Maybe look at the “Happy Canada Day!” threads. Full of inside jokes about what could often as well be a foreign country.

Well, for one, our history is totally different, which is what I’m saying here. Especially since you’re Albertan, a place where European history only started sometime during the 19th century. We don’t honour the same great men and women in our history. We don’t read the same books and magazines, or watch the same movies and television shows. We don’t discuss the same important political issues. Of course we’re both from industrialized Western nations, but then so are Americans and the Dutch (etc.), and I’m sure you’d agree that there’s a difference between us and them.

It is of concern to me because I don’t like being told that my people is simply wrong because we may disagree with some Canadian truisms. Or accused of some serious moral failings (racism, for one) based on some half-understood – if at all – comments. And about the benefit, what do you think of my previous post?

25

My point is that if this is true, it is true of all peoples.

I never felt oppressed in Toronto, but then again I don’t expect Torontonians to accommodate me.

I may not know what it’s like to be “born and raised” in all these places, but yes, mnemosyne, my point is exactly that I share more than just speaking the same language with these people. Okay, maybe not those who are from Kuujjuaq, since most of them will be Inuit and native peoples in Canada form their own national groups. It may have to do with having similar customs as well as the same language and the same history (meaning the same literature and art, with all the shared cultural references that come with it), but they are familiar to me in a way that other Canadians are more foreign. I don’t know how you, with a sort of mixed identity as I remember, feel about it, but you probably do understand what I mean.

I’m doing no such thing. I’m saying that Little Nemo, no matter that he may claim roots in Quebec dating back centuries, is an American, English-speaking, and so what he knows about Canada will have come from English-language Canadian media, or from anglophone Canadian friends or family. I don’t think he reads Le Devoir, or watches Radio-Canada, or even has French-speaking family in Quebec with whom he frequently discusses Canadian affairs. In fact, it’s interesting because it seems that this tendency to claim even a tenuous link with your ethnic identification is typically American. I think there was even a Pit thread about the following kind of dialogue, which is apparently not uncommon:

  • Hey, where are you from?
  • I’m Irish, actually.
  • Oh? Where in Ireland, Dublin?
  • No, I’m from Boston.

Given America’s reputation as a “melting pot” of cultures, which is not unwarranted (do you think of hot dogs and hamburgers as German food? No, of course not, they’re American food), this is actually a bit surprising, but there are reasons why Americans identify with their ethnic background. This, of course, would be a whole other thread.

But the point is: you recognize that there is something that makes Americans American, and different from Canadians. This thing can also be seen between different groups of Canadians.

This would actually be a very interesting discussion, but maybe not really feasible here. I read a book by historian Marcel Trudel where he discusses just this, but the material he studied is obsolete today. It was pre-1950 manuals.

26

No, I said:

English is the only language in which I can be certain to recieve services from the Albertan government. That much is true. There may be others, in some places. Sometime during the late 1970 the federal government decided that they would start enforcing Constitutional provisions regarding access to public education in minority official languages, so I can at least assume that there is public schooling in French in some parts of Alberta. (Don’t know if it’s true in the whole province.) But given the very low percentage of francophones in Alberta, I must concede that the fact that any non-Constitutionally mandated services are offered comes at a surprise to me.

27

You’d be correct. A friend of mine (Ontario Francophone) has substitute-taught in the French school board in Edmonton; his wife (Quebec Francophone) is (was? not sure if she still is) a principal in an Edmonton French school. I believe Calgary has a French school board also. I don’t believe that smaller centres would be able to afford French school boards and all-French schools, though I would imagine French Immersion programs would be offered in existing English-language schools for those who wish to to take advantage of those programs. That’s the case here in Lethbridge, anyway.

Good clarifications, by the way. Pretty sure there’s something the Canadians can grasp there–let’s see what develops.

28

You mean like the English having to put up with the French practice of putting cheese on fries?:slight_smile:

Seriously, do we need to discuss this? New cultures coming to Canada are expected to fit in. The best practices from their culture will likely become the norm if they are better than what we have currently. Most won’t be adopted because a large majority of people coming to Canada came from places where they were recently driving an ox cart.

Listening to someone else’s pov is a good thing. But it doesn’t make them right in their assertion. I’m not saying you are wrong, btw. Just that not all opinions have merit. The Quebec Francaphones think they lost their country. This assumes a number of things: That they had a country in the first place, for one. France apparently didn’t want you so abandoned you to the British. So, France apparently thought it was their country to sell/give away. Who is right?

That was pretty much my contention in one of the other threads. There are many cultures in Canada. The ‘two founding nations’ idea should be abandoned and people’s cultures can be addressed as required within the common legal framework of the country eg. You have the right to form The Scottish community association, but if you want a new roof, you get to pay for it yourself. Don’t expect the rest of us to do so. What else does anyone need?

Once you figure this one out you’ll understand English Canadians a bit better (and also find out why they get upset when Quebec bitches). I swear I wouldn’t do it as it doesn’t make sense in my region.
I’ll make the suggestion it is likely done because we feel that Quebec, and its people, are a part of Canada. And you do things for your fellow Canadians. But I could be way off base here.

You don’t do ‘history’ on a regular basis.
Of course we talk different politics. I talk about Ed Stelmach, you talk about that funny haired guy, Jean Charest. You don’t talk Calgary politics like how the ring road was once again blocked in the SW of the city due to no agreement with the Tsui Tsina. I’m sure we both talk about how Canada may have to go to the polls again if Iggy has his way. So, how is this different in French rather than English?
We could read the same books and watch the same TV, but the reason we don’t is that I don’t speak French, so, obviously, I can watch them but I won’t understand them.
My point being other than the language what is different? My contention is that we are exactly the same in what we do and whatever differences there are come down to language and our individual peculiarities and beliefs.

29

Yes, but most Canadians seem to believe that immigrants, while “fitting in”, should be allowed to keep some of their traditions alive. I certainly do, up to a point, but where is this point? Can Sikh RCMP agents wear a turban instead of their traditional hat? I don’t see any problem with this. But can Sikh boys bring their kirpan to school? Now this is a more delicate question, and it’s certainly possible to answer “no” without being a racist.

Listen, I’m not saying that the French colonists in Canada had much control over the political process in their country. They were living under an absolute monarch, in a near-feudal class system. But we can’t deny that after being transferred to Britain, they eventually found themselves in a situation where all the political and business dealings in their country was happening in a foreign language, which they had to learn often simply to get a job, assuming the bosses even wanted to hire people like them which isn’t at all obvious. Maybe they weren’t much in control of their destinies before, but they weren’t after either. Maybe you think our opinions have no merit, but look at yours as well, is what I’m saying. History is never objective.

The two founding nations model still describes Canada very well. Yes, English Canada is culturally diverse (and yes, I know “English” Canada is a misnomer for this reason, but then so’s “French” Canada); much of Western Canada’s been colonized by non-British or French people and a city like Toronto has nearly half of his residents born outside Canada, but French-speaking Quebec is diverse as well. Maybe not as much as English Canada, but at my university – in Sherbrooke, not even in Montreal – we have plenty of students from places like Africa, Latin America, Europe, etc. Working in French and contributing to modern Quebec society. This must be understood: Canada becoming more ethnically diverse hasn’t reduced us to a mere ethnic minority. We’re still a national group; the majority in its part of the country and different from what it used to be due to integrating other cultures. In the same way that immigrants to Canada slowly become Canadian, maybe over generations, immigrants to Quebec tend to slowly become (francophone) Quebecers. (It’s a bit more complicated than this, but that’s how it should work anyway.)

Well here’s what you must understand: Quebec doesn’t care how you treat your francophones (unless you actively mistreat them, I suppose, but that won’t happen). It’s too bad for your francophones, I guess, but the fact is that francophone Quebecers’ national identity has evolved from being part of a pan-Canadian ethnic-based minority national group to being a language-based majority national group tied with the territory of Quebec. This happened 20 years at least before I was born, but somehow it seems that the rest of Canada hasn’t noticed or has deliberately ignored it, possibly because it doesn’t fit what it wants to be true. (Again, that’s one subject I’ve touched in this discussion: how the way we view our country affects what we see and what we don’t.) So when you declare French an official language of all Canada and offer services in French to minorities in Alberta or Newfoundland, in order to please Quebec, you must know that Quebec isn’t looking and wouldn’t care even if it were. A large number of Quebec francophones don’t even know anyone speaks French in Canada outside of Quebec and (maybe) New Brunswick. Heck, there are even people in Gatineau who are shocked when they hear Ottawans speak French. And look at that! :wink:

I’m not saying I approve of this level of ignorance. But the fact is, to many if not most Quebecers, Canada outside their borders might as well be 100% English-speaking. If I visit Alberta, I don’t care that they have French schools or some French services or if I can speak French in federal government offices, because I’m going to speak English anyway. I’m in a foreign country (so to speak), so I must not expect any accommodation. But what I do expect is to be able to speak French inside Quebec.

Maybe I’m misstating the difference, but it should be obvious that the way we see our country is fundamentally different.

30

You’re really looking for best three out of five, aren’t you? :smiley:

31

Certainly I believe it. Just don’t expect me to pay for it. Also, there are some fundamentals that should be followed. If your women have the status of less than dogs in whatever shithole you came from that changes when you come here. Frankly, there should be a separate orientation for all members of the family going over things like this when people get off the boat to ensure people know the rules and have numbers in hand in case they aren’t followed.

If this level of ignorance exists about the ROC, then what other things are Quebecers wrong about? If people want to remain ignorant and make decisions based upon that that is their business I suppose, but don’t make it out that the ROC doesn’t understand how a person in Quebec feels about things when they have no idea what the ROC actually thinks. You have already been educated in this thread about what other parts of Canada do for Francaphones in their provinces, what other misconceptions are you holding that you assume are facts, but aren’t? What I have gathered, based upon what you say about French speakers outside of Quebec, is that all you guys care about is yourselves. Maybe I’m wrong, but it certainly sounds that way. If that is the case, then why should we care one iota on what makes you guys upset about how you fit within Canada?

I’d be surprised if we didn’t. But then I don’t see things as a BC’er does, nor do I see things like a NFLDer does, either. It doesn’t make you any more special, nor different, because of it.

32

Ahhhh, that’s all you Albertans think about isn’t it? :stuck_out_tongue: But my example (which did actually make the news in Quebec a few years back) doesn’t involve “paying for it”, it involves bending rules which we’ve established for obvious reasons in order to accommodate people of different cultures. So, what do we do in this case?

Well, you’ve also showed some major ignorance about Quebec, so don’t go claiming the upper moral ground here. There’s a reason why I say that “we should be talking to each other”: it’s to stamp out this kind of ignorance. But even if it were stamped out, it remains that francophone Quebecers and francophones outside Quebec show some major differences, culturally speaking. It’s not that I don’t care about them since I only care about myself; I do care, but they’re kind of a foreign people, so what duty does my government or I have toward them? And more importantly, if we were to establish kinship with them and start asking for recognition of the francophone minority all across Canada (which I gather is what you’d rather us be doing, no matter that it could be expensive to you as I’m sure you’d complain) then how could we expect Quebec to retain French as a common language and immigrants here to learn French? We couldn’t, we’d have definitely established that French in Canada (including Quebec) is only a minority language, only accepted because of the goodwill of Canadians, and that French-speakers are only an ethnic minority, not a national group.

It may sound cruel, but francophones outside Quebec have made the choice to go live in English Canada, so they should accept the consequences of this choice. The francophones in Maine, Mass., NH, have already done so; do we “only think about ourselves” by not thinking about them much? If, I don’t know, I decide to go do a postdoc at UBC, I waive my right to live in a French-speaking society. (And that’s not merely theoretical; if I do a postdoc I probably should do it abroad.) That’s how it works if language in Canada is to be tied to territory, which I think is how it should be.

I’m not surprised that you say this, but I still believe that the difference between an Albertan and, let’s say, a Nova Scotian, and an Albertan and a (francophone or frenchified) Quebecer isn’t the same kind of difference. Sure, your history isn’t the same, but as you yourself say “[we] don’t do ‘history’ on a regular basis.” But most of your cultural references are the same, you speak the same language and live in the same information bath, if you will. It may be a bit hard to explain since it deals with impressions; what you feel you are and where you feel you belong, for example. Maybe mnemosyne, whose identity is somewhere between francophone Quebec and anglophone Canada, and who therefore has touched both, can explain better.

33

But why should anyone pay for another person to keep their culture? If it is worth keeping then they should do what is necessary to do so. If they can’t find enough people to help them, then it probably wasn’t worth keeping.

No more so than for any other province, or my own for that matter. I don’t claim to be distinct, nor do I feel the need to inflict my ‘distinctiveness’ on others. If the Chinese took over tomorrow and there was nothing I could do about it, I’d be learning Mandarin. That you aren’t required to says a lot about the rest of us Canadians.

[QUOTE]
It’s not that I don’t care about them since I only care about myself; I do care, but they’re kind of a foreign people, so what duty does my government or I have toward them?
[/QUOTE

They settled the areas they are in just like your area was settled in many cases earlier than their ‘British’ counterparts. They are your fellow Canadians. That is where we differ. People in Quebec are my responsibility as they are Canadians. This is one of the reasons that we get upset when you try to inflict language laws on other Canadians even if we don’t know them or have anything in common with them. Just what would happen if the ROC tried to do that to Quebec now? You’d get your undies in a bunch. Why? Because you think the French culture in Quebec is special and needs preserving. And because of it you think you are special and deserve special consideration.

Yeah, it pretty much is. I work in the ME in a culture that is vastly different than what we have in Canada. The differences between us are minor other than the sense of entitlement that you seem to have because you happen to live in your region.

34

WARNING: post cobbled together from random ideas over the past couple of days - please ask for clarification over the parts where I become nonsensical!
Sorry, Hypnagogic Jerk, but I’m not sure what you’re hoping I can explain. I don’t feel the same way you do - I don’t feel that Prince Edward Island, or BC, or Yellowknife are “foreign” to me…the things I don’t know about them are things that I don’t know about my country, and I embrace that opportunity to learn a little more when I come across references, stories, traditions and expressions that I don’t understand. I am not conflicted about my identity as a Canadian and as a Quebecker.

I think you choose to feel different when it comes to the ROC. You choose to reject that Canadian identity, whatever it may be, as your own, rather than embrace it, and you choose to not recognize that you are, in fact, both francophone and anglophone (if your writing is this good, I strongly suspect your spoken English is very strong as well). You have learned to speak English for a reason, because it is of value to you, and I think it’s unfair to then turn around and say that English is “foreign” to you and you don’t identify with the culture that gave it to you when you use it every day. You choose to only love the French part of you and your environment, but you are missing out on so much more.
You said that Albertans and Nova Scotians live in the same “information bath”, and they speak the same language, and therefore have more in common with one another than with Quebeckers. Can I ask you this, then: do you feel a common identity with someone from Lennoxville or Westmount? Those anglophones in Québec who watch American TV, read the Gazette, who listen to English-language music, who recognize and respect the anglophone historical figures who have formed this country, who are federalist, but who also eat poutine and maple syrup, grew up watching Passe-Partout, singing songs to Carmen Campagne, learned to speak (some level of) French since Grade One, and who choose to live and love in this province? They talk about the same politics, the same infrastructure issues, the same health care dilemmas, the same social and cultural events as you do. They are Québecois too, in the same “information bath” as you. Are they like you? Are they a part of you? Or does the fact that they identify primarily as English make them foreign to you?

Because if you say no to that, then I stand by my initial statement - you have chosen what you want to identify with, and reject so much else that also actually makes you who you are, and that, to me, is a very sad thing.

I agree that trying to come up with a single national identity in Canada is doomed to failure, because this country is so big, with such differing regional experiences, that it’s hard to lump everyone together and say “this is what it is to be Canadian”. This would be true even if Québec wasn’t right there in the middle of it all! Adding Québec in just adds a layer of complexity to an already complex issue. But I don’t think it’s as ridiculous as it seems to be able to point to some things that Canadians identify with, and say that that’s a part of what it is to be Canadian. Clichés like Maple leaves, maple syrup, hockey, Tim Hortons and Ben Mulroney (love him or hate him!) are “Canadian”. More serious things like our parliamentary system, our laws, our positions/views on healthcare and education are also largely the same from province to province, and unite us even when we are divided on the details. Sure, many of these things are also found in the States, or even worldwide, but all these, and more, make up the Canadian identity. This is our country, and how we choose to run it makes us us. We are Canadian because we make Canada what it is.

The thing is, there’s nothing there that says that people must reject the additional identities that other “nations” have. Someone can be a proud member of the First Nations, speak their native tongue and be well versed in the entire history and traditions of his people, but still cheer for [insert hockey team of choice], and enjoy sugar on snow while watching This Hour has 22 Minutes and changing the channel whenever eTalk comes on TV. A proud Québecois can still take part in the national (federal) debates about healthcare, about proportional representation, about national defense or whatever, and still speak French, read Michel Tremblay, and watch Loft Story.

I don’t think Canadians reject the idea of recognizing several nations within their boarders. I think most Canadians are fully aware that this country is made up of several groups, but I think the problem becomes “where does it stop” when it comes to political action and school curricula? Recognizing French-Canadians is one thing…but that includes Franco-Albertans, Franco-Ontarians, Quebeckers, Franco-New-Brunswickers, and all the other little pockets of francophone-ness in the country. Are they all different? Are they all distinct? Don’t they all have their own histories and traditions and stories? Do they all need to be told they are different and distinct by the government, and what does that even mean? Reminded daily? Weekly? Yearly? What will this even change for these people; how will it change their lives, change their financial situation, change their health? Quebec demands recognition for what, exactly? We shouldn’t be insisting that we are different…we should just be different, and let that speak for itself.

I think Québec is doing a disfavour to francophones outside Québec by not “caring” about them, by not trying to form a broader, more national identity with them. I think it is a terrible idea to define cultures by territorial lines, because someone always ends up on the other side of that line when maybe they don’t really need to be (As an aside: if that line gets officially drawn and Québec separates, can you tell me where I should go? Where do I belong? If I am both Canadian and Québecoise now, what will I be then? I don’t want to choose a side of the line to stand on.)

There are so many other tangents and issues I could write rambling paragraphs about, but I think I’ll leave it at that and see where this goes. I think this thread will end up being several conversations at once. My apologies if I’m not very clear or if I’m too vague…writing is not my strong suit!

35

I have no problem with ditching the idea of a Canadian national identity. The first problem with a Canadian national identity is the mistaken idea that Canada equals Ontario (and since this was pointed out to me, I have noticed it frequently). I also think that regional myths are far more important that national ones. I have a regional identity that serves me much better than a national one that doesn’t fit me as a western Canadian any better than it fits Quebeckers. I would like to see Canada operate much more on a provincial or regional level rather than the federal level we have now, where the policies are created by a central agency for everyone. I can happily co-exist with Ontario and Quebec if they mind their own business, and the western provinces mind theirs.

36

No, I think you’ve done a wonderful job of making your thoughts on the issue clear to the rest of us. Nicely done, and thank you!

I’m another who really doesn’t see the kinship between Alberta and Nova Scotia; or indeed, between any two nominally-English provinces. Attitudes and outlook can vary a great deal, and to claim that because we all speak English, we think the same way, is something I’ve never noticed. In my travels across this country, I’ve met Canadians who think federalism is a crock: Albertans who think Alberta would be better off going it alone, Newfoundlanders who still think joining Confederation was a mistake, and New Brunswickers/Nova Scotians who really don’t care about the rest of the country as long as Ottawa continues to pay them not to fish. Somewhat similarly, I’ve met Torontonians who hate Calgarians (“uneducated, pickup truck driving rednecks”) and Calgarians who hate Torontonians (“stuck-up New York wannabes”). Neither is true, but both speak from ignorance caused by lack of communication with the other.

But at the same time, these animosities pale beside what any two groups have in common, no matter what the language: Tim Hortons, a good hockey game, no quarrel over universal health care (though its delivery will give rise to discussion), a cold beer on a hot day. Everybody in this country, French and English both, wakes up in the morning, goes to work or school, comes home in the evening, and looks forward to the weekend. We live in a modern, western First World country; not too different in standard of living from the US, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, and Australia, among others. Uzi makes an interesting point when he notes the differences between Canada and the places he goes in the Middle East–there he finds cultural differences, and understanding his point, I’d have to say that any such differences we may claim exist between regions in Canada, are not significant.

There are differences in culture between the various regions of Canada, of course; but these are more due, I think, to the various histories and experiences of the regions themselves. Alberta loves rodeos, but they might not be so popular in BC. The people of the Atlantic provinces have a unique kind of music that you wouldn’t find in Saskatchewan. Ontario enjoys what people from all over the world have brought to it, and celebrates it at events like Caribana, which probably wouldn’t fly in Newfoundland. The fact that Quebec has developed its own culture should not come as a surprise, nor should the fact that Quebec’s cultural offerings should be in French. This may make them inaccessible to the ROC, but IMHO, it should not be used as an excuse for claiming such vast differences that a line must be drawn between Quebec and the ROC. If Quebec would have difficulty gathering 20,000 people for a rodeo in the Big O, then Alberta shouldn’t be expected to embrace The Plouffe Family.

Some thoughts for now. Hopefully, they’ll keep the discussion going. Right now, I’m off to spend my Saturday at the golf course. Again, maybe we’re not so different–I’d imagine many French-speaking Quebeckers like golf too. :slight_smile:

37

Canada is one of the most decentralized nation-states in the history of the world. If it was any LESS federally run, it would soon no longer be a unified state.

What’s federally run that affects you? Education is provincial. Health care delivery’s provincial. You deal with the province when you get a driver’s license. Most interactions you have with the government are with the province. In those cases where you do deal with the feds it’s often something that is inherently NOT downloadable to the provinces - border control, for instance.

38

Education and healthcare (and income tax, if I recall correctly) are supposed to be under provincial jurisdiction, but in order to get your federal money for them, you have to follow the federal government rules. I guess you can say that the provincial governments are technically running these programs, but with strong interference and control by the federal government.

39

The feds set no rules around education I’m aware of.

And be honest; what interference is there, really, in health care? The requirements of the Canada Health Act are extremely general, amounting to “everyone should get basic health care” and take no meaningful control away from provinces.

40

I’m not ignoring y’all, but I have to take some time to craft a response to the most recent posts. I’ll do so as soon as possible.