I know that. But at the same time, that type of comment is what make people vote for the Bloc. That same comment was made over 30 years ago (by Bill Van der Zalm is memory serves me well). It is not a single slight that annoys us here in Quebec, it is an accumulation of small ones (like the preceding one, especially when it comes from officials or when the French version of the Canadian anthem is booed, or when you’re told to “Speak White”). That is one of the main reason the Conservative Party do not do well in Quebec. It is perceived as the party for the English.
Wilhelmus Nicholaas Theodore Marie “Bill” Vander Zalm. Wow. The more you know!
You’re making a huge assumptive jump between claims that some economic policies are stupid, and the implication that I (or others) are saying that Stephen Harper’s economic policies are correct. In fact, several conservative voices in this thread have gone to pains to point out that Harper’s government is proposing measures, and has implemented policies, of dubious economic worth, and to be honest he’s received very little praise.
Sam Stone basically hit it on the head; politicians will tend to make promises based on what they think will win votes, and then will cook up economic rationalizations AFTER the fact. The ND idea of shutting down the oil sands - which I’m not even sure the federal government can legally do - is an obvious example. It’d be a devastating economic move that would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and cost the country untold billions for a smidgen of benefit. **Jack Layton knows that. ** He’s not a stupid man. He’s making the promise not because he’d do it - he knows he won’t win the election and therefore will never have to honor the promise - but because it’ll position his aprty well to win votes that might otherwise have gone Green (or, less likely, Liberal.)
You can assign the same reasoning to, I’d guess, 95% of all specific promises being made.
I cannot accept this apology, because you have nothing to apologize for. I had thought you’d misunderstood what I was suggesting, so I clarified. I’m perfectly happy to have been mistaken. 
If I might just say to all participants in this thread that I truly do enjoy Canadian politics threads on the Dope. I’ve learned a great deal here and in many past threads from all of you. That we get such civil and substantive discussion between people of such varied political views makes it a most satisfying pastime.
Few are those who would pretend it doesn’t exist (though I will concede there are some). Here’s a comparison: does anyone pretend that the Chinese culture in British Columbia doesn’t exist? Of course not, we know it’s an important part of BC culture. When I travelled to Vancouver I visited the Chinatown, went to a Chinese garden and spent a few hours there, and enjoyed it. I know it’s an important part of what makes BC great. Also, I’m sure there are many people in Vancouver who speak Mandarin Chinese at home and many Chinese BCers who do business with each other in their language. All this is wonderful. But, and here’s the but, despite their relatively large numbers, they shouldn’t expect the BC government to communicate with them in their language, offer public education in their language, and they shouldn’t expect their language to become the de facto language of business in BC, even among other ethnic groups. And (unless there’s something I’m misunderstanding), the Chinese in BC for the most part agree with this. Many of them do not speak English, but they still recognize that it is important to know it in BC, they ensure that their children know it, and they accept the fact that English is the common language of British Columbia.
Now to Quebec. I don’t think I hold much romantic attachment to the French language; I mean, it’s true that an important part of world culture has been done in French so the language is a window to this, but I don’t think I would say it’s a “beautiful” language like you do. What does this mean anyway? Is it any more beautiful than other languages? I also don’t give much importance to the fact that I am (presumably) mostly of French-Canadian ethnic heritage. I could be ethnically German or Afro-Caribbean and it wouldn’t matter to me; after all, French-Canadians aren’t really well-known for their contributions to world culture, like the Irish with whom they’ve bred in large numbers, they mostly have a reputation for being poor, Catholic, and for drinking and not working very hard. But the fact of the matter is that right now I live in Quebec, and Quebec, for better or for worse, is a society where the common and official language is French, because if we set the native peoples aside for a moment, it was originally populated by French-Canadian settlers. It doesn’t for a moment mean that the only important part of Quebec culture is the one that’s being produced by Quebecers of French-Canadian ancestry (which actually means Quebecers of mixed French-Canadian, Irish, Scottish, English, Native, etc. ancestry). It just means that when in Quebec (if you’re living here, I mean, if you’re a tourist we can do a lot to accommodate you) you should be using the French language when addressing the wider community, not because it’s better or more beautiful – its written version doesn’t even correspond to the spoken one! but then again, the same is true for English 
– but because it is the one we’ve traditionally used and mostly use even today.
Now, of course, there is a large English-speaking minority in Quebec. This minority has existed for a long time, and along the way, gained rights that the Chinese minority of British Columbia couldn’t expect to have. For example, they have up to a point the right to be addressed by their government in their language, and they have the right to a network of public schools (from kindergarten to university) in their language, funded by the Quebec government. That’s all right, I agree with this. They produce a lot of culture too, of course, which is certainly part of Quebec culture.
Now here’s what the problem is. For a large part of Quebec’s history since the Conquest of 1760, the French-speaking majority was, well, basically what the stereotype of French-Canadians is (i.e. poor, among other things) while the economic elite was composed of British immigrants who spoke English. English became the prestige language of Quebec. Even though it wasn’t the language of the majority, a large number of immigrants started learning it and didn’t learn French (some did, though, among them the previously mentioned Irish, and many Latin immigrants like the Portuguese). By the 1960s francophone Quebecers were ready to become something more, and it was decided that it would be a good idea if French became the language of business in the province, and if a larger proportion of immigrants learned the language of the majority like they do in almost all countries (I say immigrants, not “expats” who in many cases don’t seem to care about integrating into the host population, it seems). This was the reason why Quebec governments starting in the early 1970s started passing language laws.
On the other hand, Quebec anglophones were used to a position of privilege, and didn’t like that they were suddenly treated like what they are, a minority. (Note that there isn’t anything wrong about being a minority: the Chinese in BC are a minority.) They also didn’t feel much attachment to the majority of Quebec, they had their own “expatriate” culture. Many of them left starting in 1976. Some businesses didn’t like the idea that they’d have to start doing business in French and left. But today there seems to be a new sense among many anglophone Quebecers. Nearly 80% of younger anglophone Quebecers know how to speak French. More of them consider themselves part of Quebec society. In fact, I’d say that far from English-language culture in Quebec being ignored, it’s finally taking the place it deserves. It’s becoming part of Quebec, not appended to it but never truly part of it.
I think one of the reasons why people in the rest of Canada have trouble understanding what’s happened in Quebec since 1960 is that they’re still in the paradigm of French in Canada being the language of French-Canadians. So language laws (just to name an example, which actually isn’t the best since, as René Lévesque said, it’s humiliating to have to legislate language in the first place) are racist laws intended to favour French-Canadians over other ethnic groups. It’s understandable that they’d think that, since in the rest of Canada the only people who use French from day to day are French-Canadians. But in Quebec many ethnic groups use the language, some as a first language and others as a second language. That’s why many francophone Quebecers don’t see themselves as “French-Canadians” anymore: many of us aren’t that in the first place, and even those of us who are, are culturally different from the French-Canadians in the rest of Canada. I remember RickJay correcting me for calling him an English Canadian, since after all he isn’t English. Would he have corrected me for calling francophones in Quebec “French Canadians”? It’s just as wrong. Many Quebecers are no longer willing to play the role of the main focal point of the French-Canadian minority and founding people of Canada, which is how I understand many people in the rest of the country view us. We view ourselves as a different nation (note: not necessarily a different country).
Canadians like you, Ministre, think it’s important that Canadians know French in order to celebrate our French-Canadian heritage. I can’t say it’s a bad idea to learn another language (I’ll have to improve my Spanish one day), but the fact of the matter is that most Canadians have no need for French and many of them resent the place it occupies in Canada. What bilingualism in Canada means is that Quebec will be bilingual (and therefore much of business will take place in English and many immigrants will decide that there is no need to ever learn French) while the rest of Canada will be incessantly apologetic about the fact they can’t seem to learn French and say that we in Quebec are being much better Canadians since we know both languages. I don’t see what is good about this.
RickJay, do you want to know the reason for Quebec separatism? Nothing to do with “linguistic purity”, whatever that is, and certainly not ethnic purity. If Quebec wasn’t part of Canada, people wouldn’t come here expecting that they’re coming to an English-language country and realize upon arrival that the language here is French, but they can still live entirely in English, except that they’ll be isolated from the majority. There would also be less Canadians insistent over Canadian bilingualism, which basically means what I described in the last paragraph. These are really the reasons for it. You’ll see sovereigntists say that an independent Quebec would be able to find its place among the nations of the world like other small nations such as, for example, Denmark (I just chose this country at random). What this means is what I described. Not all Danes are ethnically Nordic. There are minority languages and cultures in Denmark. But, and despite the problem I understand they have with some immigrant cultures, most people who come to Denmark understand that they will communicate in Danish (and not German, for example) and start seeing themselves as Danish. On that point, the separatists are right. I’m not saying that separating Quebec from Canada is the best idea, but I agree with some of the arguments.
Heh, I could argue that separation would be good for anglophones, since it would necessitate them to finally decide what they really are. Do they consider themselves Quebecers? Or are they members of the majority of Canada who happen to live here?
What is the national raison d’être of Canada? That almost sounds like a Canadian version of American exceptionalism. According to American nationalists, the US is the country where people from all over the world have moved to repudiate the old ways and become free. That’s not untrue, but it leads to the observation I’ve seen in places like [post=10210824]this post[/post], that Americans have trouble understanding that other places in the world (and even in Europe) are nearly as diverse as the US. I suppose that to you the raison d’être of Canada is to show that a country can function with two linguistic groups and many ethnic groups who maintain their own colour. Well, sure, I don’t disagree with this, but the way it’s applied it only serves to marginalize Quebec, since under this philosophy what purpose does French have in Canada other than celebrate our French-Canadian heritage? Anglophones with French-Canadian ancestry will learn French to get in touch with their roots, other anglophones will learn it to be good Canadians, but nobody will point out that in Quebec, learning French should be a requirement, while in most other places in Canada there really isn’t any reason to learn it, which leads to resentment and which is why anti-bilingualism parties like the Reform develop.
Depends what you mean by “Reason for.” The reason for its creation in the 1960s? Legitimate grievances; that can’t be denied. Reason TODAY? Very, very different, I’d say.
Well, no. But again, you’re implying two different questions; why was Canada created, and why does it exist now?
The reason Canada was founded, and created and developed the way it was, was that two linguistic groups HAD to function together. There wasn’t any sort of “show” about it. It wasn’t a social experiment or a demonstration for the rest of the world; it was practical recognition of a fact.
Canada exists today because it’s existed for 141 years, and has developed an identity and a significance of its own that encompasses not only its founding truths but the things it’s learned and chosen to become since then - but even the issue of multiculturalism is a direct product of its having two founding peoples, and the realization of what that foundation could be expanded to include.
Well, I don’t see that as being a purpose at all. I don’t for the life of me see who’s being marginalized (by anything I typed, anyway.)
French and English serve the purpose of allowing people to talk to each other. They’re languages. What other purpose do they need?
The Reform party wasn’t formed because of bilingualism, it formed because the West wanted a voice in Ottawa. Just like Quebec wanted to be heard and voted for the Bloc. It wasn’t all about you and how we wanted to spit in your face yet again.
You mean like having to turn the cereal box around in order to read the majority language, English, hmmm?
Like living in BC and being forced to take French in school rather than something more appropriate for the region, say Chinese, or Spanish? Something that could potentially help finding useful jobs in the area.
Like having to listen to the threats of separation (on the level of taking your ball and going home) ad nauseum? Maybe go already or shut the f*** up about it!
Or, hearing that Quebec shouldn’t be treated as one of ten provinces because, well, just because.
Or, frankly, the most annoying thing, sitting on a plane leaving from Calgary to Frankfurt and having to listen to announcements in 3 languages, English, French, and German. Like anyone who was travelling between these two points couldn’t understand either German or English and needed to be told in French to buckle their seat belts?
Note: when I say annoying, I mean it in the rolleyes and get on with my life variety not the lose sleep over type. So, don’t read into anything here that I’m really upset about these things.
You’re kidding about this, right?
Initially and still mostly. I was responding to the poster’s comments about continuous slights to Quebec. What slights? Me bitching about having to turn the box around to read the thing? That is a slight?
Yet, for the little that I bitch about turning around the box, does anyone in Quebec recognize that the only reason that French is on my cereal box in the first place is to acknowledge their place in the country? There is no other reason pretty much anyone in Alberta would need it to be there. French is the 4th most used language in Alberta, not the 2nd. If we were to be rational about it and wanted to make a minority feel welcome by putting another language on our cereal boxes it should be Chinese.
Okay, fair enough, though I’m sure that the two colonies of Upper and Lower Canada could in theory have become two independent countries. (This would still have had the complication that Lower Canada had an anglophone minority that was becoming its dominant economic class, so it might not have made things any easier.) Or they could have joined the US. But yes, if we wanted to make an independent country out of British North America, we probably went about it the best possible way.
Not everyone will agree with you there, RickJay. Listen to Uzi. He doesn’t seem to consider the concept of two founding peoples very useful when looking at Canada from Alberta. There’s room for a debate over what the identity of Canada is.
I could have expressed myself more clearly. I listen to Le Ministre de l’au-delà and other francophile anglophone Canadians talk about the French language, and they clearly have a strong attachment to it as the language of their friends, or their ancestors. So they go on with their high theories of why every Canadian should know both languages in order to celebrate our linguistic duality, but they don’t seem to notice that, as you said, the only purpose of languages is to communicate with each other. People in Quebec should know French, and people in the rest of Canada should know English, not because of any high purpose, but because these are the common languages of both places.
Maybe “marginalization” wasn’t the correct word, but my point is that this philosophy reduces French from the main language of Quebec to a relic of Canadian identity that’s important but mostly for historical or “celebratory” reasons. I don’t mean to attack Le Ministre, but I’m wondering if it might not be significant that he chose his username from a song from La Bottine Souriante, a resolutely folk band. Le Ministre loves Quebec because his roots are there, but how aware is he of what it’s become today?
What I was puzzled about is this; does your cereal box always happen to have the French side turned towards you when you pick it up? And why would anyone in Quebec give a shit?
I mean, I can’t even understand why someone would even take the time, and expend the third of a carloie of energy, to type something like that.
The problem with this logic is threefold;
-
Your statement is flatly false. The primary aim of product packaging laws is to provide the consumer with accurate information as to the contents of the package.
-
Determining product packaging law based on what the minority languages are in Alberta is only slightly less logical that determining it based on what the minority langages are in your house. Food packaging is - in most cases - not done on a province-by-province basis, but rather nationally. Sane companies are obviously not going to go to 10 different packaging companies. On that basis, French is an overwhelmingly more commonly spoken language than any minority language, especially as measured by the number of people who speak it more or less exclusively. (It’s also cheaper in the long run to just design one bilingual box, as opposed to an English and a French box.)
-
At the risk of pointing out the brutally obvious, food packaging regulations are set by the federal government, not the provincial government. The government of Alberta isn’t required to do much of anything in French, and they don’t.
It’s not my or your place to tell Le Ministre why anyone should or should not learn both languages. That’s (her?) personal decision, and whatever a person’s reason for learning a language is is valid to me. A language is merely a means of communication, but each individual person can attach whatever significance to their actions they like.
However, that’s a separate issue from the role of GOVERNMENT in handling the issue of language. Why individuals wants to speak a given language is entirely up to them, and in the long run it doesn’t really matter if everyone in Canada decided to start speaking Tagalog. The government’s job is to ensure that the reality on the ground is practically reflected in the law. The reality in Canada is that we have two linguistic groups that are
- Overwhelmingly larger than any other,
- Established as majority languages in significant geographical areas, and
- Already systemically implanted.
These are facts that aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. I appreciate that a lot of people in Markham speak Mandarin, or that there might be more Hindi speakers in Vancouver than Francophones, but it’s plainly stupid to pretend those languages are anywhere near as common and as important in Canada as French; they don’t even begin to approach just the importance of English in Quebec. Most people in this country who speak Italian, Hindi, Mandarin, or any other common minority language are getting along to at least some degree in English or soon will be.
The system we have is, to my eye, as logical as can be asked for. The federal government is bilingual. Most provinces are unilingual, except one. It seems a lot of people on both sides are incredibly quick to take offense but that’s human nature, I guess.
Ask the Quebec guy as to why he felt slighted by my comment, not me. From my point of view it was a gentle prod in his direction.
Jezus, why does anyone do anything? Plus, I’m on a diet and thirds of calories add up, heh.
Then why waste space duplicating the information in French in a primarily English location? Give me more information that is important. According to the link below some manufacturers complain that there isn’t enough space on the package to duplicate the information in two languages. What important information is being left off to accommodate two languages?
No it isn’t. See linky below.
But, there already is an English only box. It is the one sold south of the border. If the two federal governments, US and Canada (NAFTA partners, in fact), agreed to what would be on the box, it would save money for the manufacturer so that he only designed and printed one box. Thus saving money for the consumer. If the manufacturer wanted to sell in another location in Canada that was predominately French he could choose to make a box that had that language on it and sell it at an appropriate price. Or if he wanted to make a package that targeted Hindi speakers he could. His choice as long as he put the required information on it.
What does the Alberta government have to do with this at all? You are the one bringing it up. I just mentioned that in my location/market, Alberta, there isn’t much call for French packaging. Which to be brutally obvious, is true. Why would there be when there are few French speaking people?
From the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages:
Cost Impact Of Two-Language Packaging And Labelling On Small And Medium-Sized Businesses In Canada - February 1997
While the costs are small to these businesses (they probably just pass the price along to the consumer), it is still not zero. And the price for this extra packaging cost in an area that doesn’t need it does what? Subsidizes the area that wants it, doesn’t it?
From the link:
Health, safety, and security of who? Sure the 1.8% of French speakers in my market area, but how about the 3.2% of Chinese speakers? We don’t care about them, I guess.
Better to let the market decide what languages are on the package. Let the government decide on what safety information is required no matter what language it is printed in.
And another point from this link. It says that most businesses consider the cost of dual languages is just the cost of doing business in Canada. How many companies decide not to do business in Canada because they don’t want the cost or the hassle? Probably more than zero. Does not having them in the market drive up prices due to less competition?
The only reason that there are two languages on any packaging in Canada is because it was done to accommodate the French speaking minority in Canada:
If no one was complaining there would be little reason to do it, wouldn’t there? So, who’s doing the complaining according to the Canadian government?
Hey, I’m just answering you here. Again, in case you missed it:
RickJay, I don’t think Uzi was literally suggesting that cereal boxes in Alberta should have English on one side and Chinese on the other. He was merely using this as an example (granted, not the best one) of the fact that bilingualism policies mean that we have to expend money on French in Alberta even though francophones are a small minority there. What I wonder, though, is why some anglophones seem so obsessed about cereal boxes that it’s the first example they pick. Yes, I understand that the only French they see or hear in a normal day is on their household products, but why cereal boxes rather than, say, cans of pea soup or bottles of Pepsi?
Yes. The thing is that people in Quebec who speak Italian, Hindi, Mandarin or any other common minority language should be getting along to at least some degree in French (or soon be able to). As it stands, those who speak Italian probably do, but those who speak Hindi or Mandarin probably don’t. That means that two separate cultures unable to speak to each other develop in Quebec unlike what typically happens in other provinces. The government has taken a lot of measures to solve this problem but always gets criticized by pro-bilingualism advocates for them.
Yes, and it amazes me to hear complaints that someone might have to take a single one-semester course in French when that’s not a popular language in their region, as if learning a (any) second language, even at just an introductory level, isn’t valuable. And one class in French is all that’s required in Ontario, even, a province with a significant francophone population.
And further, if you want to go somewhere at the national level in this country, you really need to be able to express yourself in both languages – and with good reason. A prime minister needs to speak to and for the population in general, and not just in his home city, and a senior member of the public service will have to supervise or interact with people from every region. I’m a military officer – my colleagues are an integrated team from both language communities (again, with very good reason), and one of them struggled with learning his second language when he joined the CF, because he didn’t get a good intro to it in youth. So French might as well be the language people get introduced to in school, even if only for one semester. And one of my friends from Nanaimo managed to learn a bit of French and some Japanese, so there’s no need to fear that you can’t have both a language that’s relevant to your place in Canada, and one that’s relevant to your local region. Heck, Dutch kids learn 3 languages (at least), and Swiss kids 4. It’s not a big deal.
Lastly, I’d like people to remember that “Rest of Canada”, outside Quebec, does not mean an absence of French. I grew up in Sudbury (northeastern Ontario) and went to school in French, and know people whose English is passable for basic things, but not good enough to do their taxes or their legal stuff, and who definitely understand municipal service brochures and nutrition information much better when its presented to them in French.
What, seriously? Passenger safety briefings, especially for people who aren’t aircrew and don’t know how planes work, are tremendously important, and like my friends who don’t know what ‘glucides’ are in English (carbohydrates, FYI), they need to be done in a way that people will understand, so of course they’re bilingual. Do you really want Transport Canada to come up with some crazy scheme based on the linguistic makeup of the specific pair of cities being connected by the flight, or something? Do you want Air Canada to complicate its in-flight procedures and checklists to avoid saying things in both languages on the small fraction of flights that wouldn’t likely have many francophones on them, when they’re already doing it in three languages anyway? And is it really a hassle to hear the extra announcement?
The choice of languages is always going to change depending on how fine a spatial scale you look – in Canada it’s clearly English-French, but in a given province it might be English-Chinese, and in a specific town in the province English-Russian. Like RickJay says, the current situation is about the best that can be done rationally, and it amazes me to hear people complain about seeing French on their cereal box.
I would imagine this distinction may have something to do with the relative amount of time those ethnic groups have existed in Quebec in significant numbers, and I suspect over time the more recent immigrant populations will end up speaking French.
Here’s the thing; people complain about immigrants groups in ENGLISH Canada not wanting to learn English. I’ve heard people bitch and whine about business in Markham being primarily Mandarin, or in Brampton being Hindi or Urdu. It’s invariably the case, however, that the longer that specific group is here the more English becomes their primary language. It’s just part of the immigration and integration process.
Again, they don’t make boxes for each province. It would be silly to have separate boxes for different locations; you’d introduce a huge level of complication to the process, whereby you’d have to have a multitude of different prints and then ensure you had the correct quantities for each market. You couldn’t shift inventory from one market to the other without running afoul of a territorially specific packaging law. Isn’t it easier, if you’re selling to a market with two dominant languages, to just have one box with both?
My point about the cost was not comparing bilingual boxes to having just one language on all boxes. Obviously there’s a small cost involved; translation isn’t free, for one thing, and it adds a few complications to the design process. But it’s cheaper than having TWO different packages, both in immediate terms and in avoiding the complications involved in the preceding paragraph.
It’s not exactly the same thing in Quebec. These Hindi and Mandarin speakers may not speak French, but it’s not totally unlikely they speak English – especially the Hindi speakers. And if they speak English, they don’t necessarily have to learn French. It’s possible to live in Quebec, especially in Montreal, in English only. It’s not possible (or very very hard) to live in Toronto speaking only French, and so even the Haitian or Lebanese immigrants to Toronto will find it useful to learn English or ensure their children know it.
French in Quebec is the majority language, but it only recently established its domination, so the normal immigration and integration process doesn’t work in the same way it does in other provinces. Yes, over time more recent immigrant populations will end up speaking French, and we’re already well into this trend. (matt_mcl likes mentioning his Texan friend who was surprised to hear Asian girls speaking French on the Montreal Metro.) But the process isn’t as easy as it would be in other places.
This point is obviously true, so much so that at work I’m starting to see lots of the electronics we get come with both North American and European standard power cords in the box, and a language count far surpassing merely French and English. Obviously the manufacturers would rather be able to shift inventory between markets (or even just not bother to keep track of which boxes are for which markets) than to save a few pennies in printing, or a few bucks on power cords.
plus, I’ve been noticing trilingual instruction manuals for a lot of household items: French, English & Spanish. i assume it’s because the manufacturers want to be able to ship to anywhere in the US, Canada or Mexico, without having to differentiate the product. Simple market economics.
I’m not feeling attacked, I’m just not sure what to say. I could just as easily have called myself L’Homme a deux pieds bots, Pierre Lamontagne, Toothpick, Fréderick Chir de Houppelande, Le Phoque d’Alaska or Un Musicien parmi d’autres. Then again, I could also have called myself Manitoba Mack, Feuchtig Nass füllt mir die Nase, Ironia sud’bu or la Podestà a Fucecchio, come to that. (Track every one of those correctly and I’ll take you and your SO out for supper when we’re within 100km of each other.)
What I know about Québec has been gleaned from working there, talking to family and friends who are there (Anglo- and Franco-, Federalist and Separatist in almost every combination (I’ve yet to meet an Anglo-Separatist)) as well as lots of Francophones from other parts of Canada. I’m an opera singer, and for whatever reason, Francophones outside of Québec seem to be drawn to the arts, so you’ll meet more of them in rehearsal than you necessarily will on the street.
The longest I’ve been in the province has been 3 months - I’ve never lived there, at least not in the sense of changing my mailing address and getting a new driver’s license. I don’t know; I don’t want to get into ‘some of my best friends are Quebeckers’, but I don’t think I’m as out of touch with the present in Québec as you seem to think I might be. I don’t think my point of view is that far off from that of a bilingual Anglo-quebecker, but we’ll only find out for sure by talking to each other…
And if you want to recommend someone other than La Bottine souriante, go ahead. I already know most of Harmonium, Cano, Beau Dommage, Jorane and Chantal Krevaziuk, but I’m open to suggestions. My tastes in English pop music are pretty much on the same lines. (Harry Manx, Reid Jamieson, you’re getting the drift, I can tell.)
Just a guess - Probably because it’s our first and strongest association with the packaging. I remember sitting at the table, eating my cereal and reading the box, then flipping it around to compare the languages. I learned some French that way long before I took it in school. We don’t usually have tins of soup on the table. 