|
Post by PTH on Jul 19, 2004 22:31:44 GMT -5
Francophones in NB do have the same opportunities, as do Francophones in Ontario. Having spent 6 years in Ottawa, I can tell you that's not true. A Francophone has a chance once he accepts he has to live and breathe in English the second he steps out of his home. Even when working with large numbers of francophones. Even in the Federal government.... A unilingual Anglo can get hired and have tens of thousands of dollars (of taxpayers' money, of course) worth of billingualism training to allow him to get a decent level of French to be able to get promoted. And will probably complain along the way about needing to take all this training. A unilingual francophone won't even be hired. Am now really shutting up about all this.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 19, 2004 23:22:04 GMT -5
I don't agree or disagree, but I think there's a tendency in the ROC to see premiers kinda like city mayors - maybe well intentionned, but they shouldn't have too much power. That view isn't in Quebec. Well, a consitution that has a strict amendment formula is one thing that can't be reworked without the proper consent. Well, this could be interpreted however we want, should Quebecers be deprived of the country they're sharing, or should they be deprived of having their very own country ? The 10% was just to illustrate that Canada is very good, but that I think an independant Quebec or a Canada with a reviewed, Meech-type constitution, would be better. Well, if the rest of the country saw things the same way, we wouldn't have a problem. Because of the very real possibility of getting stomped on by a majority government that includes little or no Quebec representation, a government that would view the country as a "red canvas". Yes, to me, it is. Again, because of the "red canvas". What's to stop the next PM from funding a huge program that simply doesn't work in Quebec because Quebec is socially fundamentally different, and waste our share of that program when we could have used it properly ? Well, to me the problem is that those who don't get "my view" or the majority.... ie: "Quebec is another province that has its challenges and like all other provinces will face them to the best of its ability", ie, "Quebec is just another province and should stop whining" The separatist purpose is to maintain Quebec's culture, and we just don't trust Canada to allow us to do that in the long run. It could be done of course, but Canada has refused to seriously look at the question. I'm not a hard-core sovereignist, but given the attitude from the rest of the country I don't see a solution to the current constitutionnal impasse. Let's keep in mind that the current constitution is unacceptable to Quebec governments. --------------------- Note for All:Guys, it's great to have this debate rationnally, but I'm getting tired with just about everyone having dissenting opinions, not that I'm suprised, given that this is an English-language forum - I'm just getting exhausted replying. I think if people want to understand my POV they should read over my posts in this thread, they pretty much contain a response to most replies. Hey PTH...what ;s with the contract today? OK. One might make a small case for small gains with losing Canadian identity. You would of course be losing Canada. That loss is I believe something that is not really comprehended, or appreciated by those who would give up, and in my opinion end Canada. None of the provinces are "just another province". and Quebec has particular fundamental needs. We don't divorce people based upon what they might do one day, and the idea that a less than perfect university support program reuires an opting out provision vitiates the whole idea of a nation. I probably find the unreflective eliment of Canada's and Quebec's culture as depressing as you do, but they are distinctly a minority, the vast majority of Candadians simply aren't that stupid. You know that. What do you think some supposed goofy group could get away with? And that is my point there really is nothing, absolutely nothing even remotely approaching circumstances that call for losing Canadian citizenship. And nothing that isn't remediable through ordinary means. That's what I mean by finding the idea frivolous. I mean that the time to talk separation is when there is a very, very serious problem powerfully affecting the people of the province without other remedy. There is nothing even remotely approaching this circumstance. Issues barely reach the level of annoyance. Most Quebecers know this, and but for the sponsorship business, it would have been reflected in the last election of our most recent Quebecer prime minister. Quebec does a great job growing them. Vive les habs libre. I'm about out of gab for now too. Mon ami, I think signing Kovalev will advance national unity by furthering the day when the Stanley cup will return to it's natural home!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 24, 2004 21:21:02 GMT -5
The law ? I mean, what's to stop Quebec from sending the Sureté into Newfoundland to cut down the best trees and lay waste to the land ? As a hypothetical, let's say Quebec seperates and Newfoundland stops the electricity flow to Quebec. What's the law going to do? Firstly, you would not be able to take the province of Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of Canada because Quebec would not be a part of Canada and would not recognize Canadian Law. It would have to be settled in the World Court in The Hague. That could take years. Do you honestly think that the American Eastern Seaboard would wait years for the power they buy off of Quebec coming from Labrador? As an aside, there is a movement in Newfoundland now to seperate as well. The NLFirst party is trying to get up and running for the next federal election. The way it is viewed here is that Quebec is going to eventually seperate, and that will cut us off from the rest of the country more so than we are now. In a utopia kind of way it would be best if NS, NB, PEI, and NL combined to form their own state in the event Quebec seperates - nobody has gotten screwed more by Canada/Ottawa/multi-parties than the east. All the parties promised reforms to equalization, now they are say no, they agreed to give the east their oil revenue, now they are saying they might not. Quebec and Alberta really kills the east when it comes to equalization. Alberta's revenue/GNP doesn't count and Quebec get such a huge chunk of it due to population (Quebec a have not province? really?) Here is what has me miffed by Canadian politics. Liberals = dictators for the past 12 years or more, lying, thieves, corruption - yet people in Ontario vote for them, let face it it only takes Ontario to win a Canadian election. Conservatives are a self promoted western party, with western values, that has a mandate to bring the west to the fore. The Bloc is a seperatist party with Quebec as their only agenda. The only truly federalist party in Canada is the NDP, and nobody will give them 4 years to see what they can do. Everyone bitches about the other 3 parties and still votes for one of them ..... the way I see it you have no one to blame but yourself after that. Finally, if the Bloc had to run candidates in Newfoundland they would have won at least 2 seats. The consensus here, was Duceppe would have made the best prime minister.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 24, 2004 21:45:22 GMT -5
As an allophone (neither French or English as a mother tongue) ex-patriate first generation Québecois, I must say this: The francophone inhabitants of Canada historically have far greater justification for grievance against anglophone government than vice-versa. Not sure I agree with that statement in its entirety. All regions of Canada have great issues with the government that reach intot he far past and still exist today. Being an Easterner, I feel that the rest of Canada views us as dependant on the rest of the country, EI loving, fishing bums. Quebec and the West have similar problems I am sure. Newfoundland has led Canada in GNP growth and overall GNP for 3 consecutive years now, but we can not get out of debt because Canada claws back 77%. The we have Harper making disdainful comments about the east ..... the East is looked upon as a third world country in Canada, and in fact we are leading the way economically for the past decade. Also the comment "anglophone government". That is a bit of an oxymoron. I believe the last anglophone government was Lester Pearson. The sad truth is to be prime minister in this country you have to speak french, an anglophone can not be prime minister (well not for very long anyway) - if one could John Crosbie would have been prime minister instead of Joe Clark. Now it is true that Kim Cambell was prime minister and from BC. But she only served 4.5 months and wasn't elected. Joe Clark served 9 months and was defeated on a confidence vote. To me these did not constitute a government. All angl-phone usually get ousted pretty quickly. Cretien - Shawinigan, QC Mulrooney - Baie-Comeau, QC Turner - England (another short termer - 3 months) Trudeau - Montreal, QC Since 1968 an anglophone has held office only for 16.5 months. Now we have Martin. From Ontario, and again he will be another of the short term prime ministers, well if Duceppe has his way anyway ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) .
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 24, 2004 22:28:27 GMT -5
So, if tomorrow there were a referendum on a new constitution, basically giving Quebec, and Quebec only, a constitutionnal veto on anything concerning Quebec (ie, not limited to one province) along with an opt-out clause on any and all federal programs so that we get back our share of the funds, would you vote for it ? 'cause that's what it takes to keep Canada as a whole and kill serious discussion of sovereignty in Quebec. Yes I would , if the same clause was written 9 other times for the nine other provinces. In other words I would want the 10th clause of the (call it) THE PTH ACCORD to read "Newfoundland has a constitutional veto on anything concerning Newfoundland, and can opt-out of any and all federal programs, while retaining the money set aside for said program provincially, and us the funding as the province of Newfoundland desires." Then yes I would vote for it. Trivial Pursuit time: What is the only bilingual province in Canada? Answer: New Brunswick. How can you not call them a distinct society. Only three provinces have strong french cultures in Canada: Quebec, NB, and NL. How can you not call all three distinct societies. Kids in Labrador have to be bused to Quebec to go to French immersion. Newfoundland embraces the french culture and the french language to such a degree when a trained person is not available to give the services warranted, they transport them across the border. Now the parents are up in arms because rightfully so, they should be able to learn in their own province. And I am sure the ROC have other points that make them distinct. The problem I have is when it becomes an exclusionary clause to hold Quebec higher than everyine else. I would give Quebec every power it wanted, as long as Newfoundland has the right to do the same if it wanted.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:07:25 GMT -5
After much time to reflect (and time now that I'm on vacation), here we go. Forgive the many posts in a row . . . I thought it better than jumbling all together.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:09:07 GMT -5
That's a typical anglo-Canadian view, which I can understand and respect, but it lacks the asterisk for Quebec's distinct heritage and culture. Sorry – that is the asterisk. There must be an allowance for cultural diversity. No, there must be a realization of and an acceptance of cultural diversity, and freedom for those inside to develop that diversity. I would in fact like that diversity shared and emphasized more than just for a week at something like Winnipeg Folklorama (which is often but a caricature of French Canadian life anyway).
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:10:07 GMT -5
I want to avoid a big controversy where none is needed, but the main problem of immigrants joining the Red instead of Blue is caused because that is what the immigrants choose. Francophone Quebecers remain loyal to their heritage, a noble point of view. Immigrants, given a choice, generally choose Red as the path to success. And the immigrants make their choice based on where they live: someone moving to BC from Hong Kong will not chose blue because that is not an option. If (when?) more people wind up red than blue then PTH’s fear of eventually being overshadowed becomes reality unless there is some protection for one of the two founding cultures of Canada.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:10:58 GMT -5
Albertans so they can elect a senate of all the dumb ideas and thereafter enjoy a US style federa; executive Or so that the Senate is not just full of old political hacks that are owed a favour and are then appointed to a cushy job where they don’t have to think at all and can in fact get paid for sleeping. Sweet job. But then the impossible needs to be done: have a bipartisan Senate where constructive not political work gets done. Fat chance.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:13:11 GMT -5
Having spent 6 years in Ottawa, I can tell you that's not true. A Francophone has a chance once he accepts he has to live and breathe in English the second he steps out of his home. Even when working with large numbers of francophones. Even in the Federal government.... A unilingual Anglo can get hired and have tens of thousands of dollars (of taxpayers' money, of course) worth of billingualism training to allow him to get a decent level of French to be able to get promoted. And will probably complain along the way about needing to take all this training. A unilingual francophone won't even be hired. Changes are coming if they are not here already. Uni-Anglos are not being hired in Ottawa (more whining: speech discrimination – I can’t get a job because the Francos get preferential treatment). Besides which, how many unilingual francophones are there? They (very carefully I say you) are the smart ones: you have grown up with (perhaps forced to grow up with) a second language and so have a distinct advantage. And the advantage is multiplied by the fact that standards are lower for francophones knowing English than Anglophones knowing French. There’s no smiley for me to say “I’m not bitter or snarky when I say this; I'm just pointing out fact” but if there were I’d use it. I say “big deal” Others don’t. They need to get a grip, and learn the language (points finger at chest and says get with it dummy).
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:14:11 GMT -5
The we have Harper making disdainful comments about the east Harper puts his foot in his mouth and regrets it, and in fact tried (unsuccessfully) to distance himself from the comment. There is, though, a lot of resentment about redistribution payments from the past, so do give him a bit of slack, as most here give you some slack for comments about Quebec abusing Newfoundland’s hydro. Don’t forget that Alberta has had its share of immigration from the far East – the Atlantic provinces. Many Newfies did not in fact get lost and wind up in Toronto, but made it all the way west and are now fighting the call “home” so that they can make some money.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:14:47 GMT -5
Only three provinces have strong french cultures in Canada: Quebec, NB, and NL. Um . . . Manitoba could qualify as well, with whole Franco-communities in and around Winnipeg!
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2004 21:19:11 GMT -5
This has indeed been a fun discussion. Do we need a referendum vote as to whether it should be put to rest? Before we do, the suggestion that has been made many times as to our future: Quebec separates. The Atlantic Provinces band together to form an economic union. So too the Western Provinces. Ontario goes it alone (surprise, surprise . . . and does Toronto then try to become a separate province?). Fifty years down the road the United States tries an economic and cultural take-over (OK, the cultural is already happening). In desperation, Toronto (which has mostly an American mindset now anyway) realises its mistake and joins up with Ontario to try to fight off the invasion. Realizing that they are still too weak on their own they cry out to the great western country of Alumtowan which is also worried about the offensive (after our oil! after our oil!) and unite to repel the barbarians. Atlantica tries to reach across the great divide because they fear assimilation as well, but there is still not enough strength. They prevail upon the country of Quebec (not a French colony, although that European country has had thoughts about making it one) to join with them to make a stand and drive back the awful aggressors. To which the Premier (President?) of Quebec, who is also just slightly worried about the US says . . . Let’s talk: will you join me at Meech? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Happy month and a day after St. Jean Baptise Day, all!
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 25, 2004 22:20:04 GMT -5
Besides which, how many unilingual francophones are there? They (very carefully I say you) are the smart ones: you have grown up with (perhaps forced to grow up with) a second language and so have a distinct advantage. And the advantage is multiplied by the fact that standards are lower for francophones knowing English than Anglophones knowing French. Standards are lower ? I doubt it. An anglo who speaks some French is called billingual, a francophone who babbles an equivalent level of English won't pass the initial interview.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 25, 2004 22:29:17 GMT -5
Hey PTH...what ;s with the contract today? Sorry, but I like to respond strongly - especially when I feel I'm strating to repeat things I've already said in that thread. If the consequences are that bad, then why isn't the ROC willing to discuss anything giving Quebec a bit of breathing room ? That was just an example, and there are quite a few when you start digging. Bah, losing Canadian citizenship and gaining Quebec citizenship would really change very little... would you really think very differently of a Belgian if he was a Walloon rather than a Belgian ? I think the problems aren't pressing as in urgent, but they are constant irritants. They don't stop anything but they make everything more difficult. Hence the need to clarify and either give Quebec a bit of breathing room in Canada or give Quebec independance. As a hypothetical, let's say Quebec seperates and Newfoundland stops the electricity flow to Quebec. What's the law going to do? Firstly, you would not be able to take the province of Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of Canada because Quebec would not be a part of Canada and would not recognize Canadian Law. It would have to be settled in the World Court in The Hague. That could take years. Do you honestly think that the American Eastern Seaboard would wait years for the power they buy off of Quebec coming from Labrador? No, but NL would be subject to sanctions from Quebec and elsewhere in the world. Going against signed contracts isn't a good way to make friends, anywhere and anyplace. Especially when the deal has been discussed and revised over and over.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 25, 2004 22:29:57 GMT -5
Yes I would , if the same clause was written 9 other times for the nine other provinces. In other words I would want the 10th clause of the (call it) THE PTH ACCORD to read "Newfoundland has a constitutional veto on anything concerning Newfoundland, and can opt-out of any and all federal programs, while retaining the money set aside for said program provincially, and us the funding as the province of Newfoundland desires." Then yes I would vote for it. The problem then is that it means that Quebec is in no way recognized as being in any way different, and the country will be impossible to rule, provincial PMs will get out of programs left and right, and no single program will be applied across the country. And fact is, usually solutions are the same across the country except for Quebec. It's not about being "higher", it's about being clearly different. -------------- Sorry – that is the asterisk. There must be an allowance for cultural diversity. No, there must be a realization of and an acceptance of cultural diversity, and freedom for those inside to develop that diversity. Well, to me that asterisk has to be set in the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2004 16:01:31 GMT -5
The problem then is that it means that Quebec is in no way recognized as being in any way different, and the country will be impossible to rule, provincial PMs will get out of programs left and right, and no single program will be applied across the country. And fact is, usually solutions are the same across the country except for Quebec. Don't get me wrong, I am all for giving Quebec breathing room, and I am not against them seperating or being recognized as a distinct society. Canada is a socialist country, and as such were are all recognized as equals. I would want the same advantages/benefits/opportunities availed to me as the average Quebecer. I do a fair bit of travelling to Labrador, and as such, I spend alot of time in Blanc Sablon. The North Shore of Quebec has the same problems as much of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now I know there are very distinct differences between francophone and anglophone cultures/socities (even the North Shore issues with the ROQ)but we are all different in some context. Take the gun registry: It would work in some places. But not in Newfoundland. We should have been able to opt out of it. Why? Well there are 700,000 guns in the province of Newfoundland and only 553,000 people. Crime (more correctly, crimes involving guns) is not a problem in Newfoundland. In the late eighties and early nineties the city of St. John's went three consecutive years without a murder. The murder rate is up now, but there I have never heard of a crime involving a gun. Mostly it is knives here. If the purpose of the registry was for prevention of gun crimes, obviously we didn't need one. Then the Cod issue: We have been arguing for 50 years to have control of the Atlantic continental shelf, to have custodial management, and for the ROC (exemoting BC, NS, NB and maybe PEI) to stay out of fishery issues. Ottawa and the ROC does not seem to give a damn about those Cod stocks. DFO's (ie Ottawa) mismanagement of the resource is what caused it to go belly-up. Now they are starting to listen, but they still won't fight Denmark, Portugal, and Spain whole-heartily on our behave. It is well known that an important part of the Newfoundland diet has always been fish, yet we aren't allowed to catch any, yet Nova Scotia has a food fishery where they can fish all they want. That not only is discrimination, it is a slap in the face to the moratorium period. There are other issues too. In one of your posts you said that on most issues Quebec are the outliers. I am willing to bet so is Newfoundland. Our population is the slowest, our economy growing the fastest (but Ottawa stagnates it), our mortality rate is the highest, and appartently our sexual activity is the highest, we have the most gamblers, the most drunks, etc etc ...... there are hundreds of issues were we are the outliers. I have no beef with calling Quebec different or giving them special exemptions. I would want to know what those exemptions are, and I would like to recoginze the Newfoundland society as being different in certain circumstances as well. You say the ROC won't recognize Quebec as being different, yet you would lump in the Newfoundland society with say Manitoba. A primarily agricultural society and a fishing/oil society. The fact is right across Canada we are all different, yet we co-exist.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2004 16:15:05 GMT -5
Harper puts his foot in his mouth and regrets it, and in fact tried (unsuccessfully) to distance himself from the comment. There is, though, a lot of resentment about redistribution payments from the past, so do give him a bit of slack, as most here give you some slack for comments about Quebec abusing Newfoundland’s hydro. Don’t forget that Alberta has had its share of immigration from the far East – the Atlantic provinces. Many Newfies did not in fact get lost and wind up in Toronto, but made it all the way west and are now fighting the call “home” so that they can make some money. Hey, I almost voted for Harper. I was swaying bewteen parties this election and considering voting for him to get the "crooks" out but the week before the election I turned on the Edmonton channel (ITV?) and there was an interview with Harper. He stated "The Conservative party is a Western party, with Western Canadian values, whose primary objective will be to get Western Canadians issues looked after." That changed my vote, then and there. He can have all the slack. I thought he did a good job during the campaign and during the debates, and I also thought he managed to get get alot of Easterners to forget his comments from before. The redistribution payments (ie equalization payments) are such a sticky issue because of the West. Alberta doesn't count because it is an land based oil province. Alberta should count or Newfoundland/Nova Scotia and possibly BC should have their oil revenues exempted also. Newfoundland wouldn't need handouts if we were allowed to have our resource money, and I praise Harper for realising this and offering to give us our resource money. The Newfie joke goes something like this I believe: Name the three largest Newfoundland cities? The newfie thinks long and hard and says after a moment: "Sin John's, Fart McMurray, and Taronna!"
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 26, 2004 19:06:38 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I am all for giving Quebec breathing room, and I am not against them seperating or being recognized as a distinct society. .... There are other issues too. In one of your posts you said that on most issues Quebec are the outliers. I am willing to bet so is Newfoundland. Our population is the slowest, our economy growing the fastest (but Ottawa stagnates it), our mortality rate is the highest, and appartently our sexual activity is the highest, we have the most gamblers, the most drunks, etc etc ...... there are hundreds of issues were we are the outliers. I have no beef with calling Quebec different or giving them special exemptions. I would want to know what those exemptions are, and I would like to recoginze the Newfoundland society as being different in certain circumstances as well. You say the ROC won't recognize Quebec as being different, yet you would lump in the Newfoundland society with say Manitoba. A primarily agricultural society and a fishing/oil society. The fact is right across Canada we are all different, yet we co-exist. Well, if NL really is an outlier on as many issues as Quebec then I'm fine with seeing some exemptions there too. But I suspect they aren't, though I don't have the numbers handy anymore. Essentially, I think NL is an outlier not in any kind of a social sense, but purely on an economic sense. Economics doesn't effect how people want to live or how they want their society run, so to me a purely economic basis for differences means little. And as far as I can tell, the difference between Manitoba and NL is one of terrain and economics, not of basic culture. As to the exemptions, I would never want them specified in much detail. The whole idea is to establish the principle that Quebec can opt out of programs as they come up - if we try to define them closely we'll never be able to agree on all the little details. Much better to agree on principle and later try and make deals on individual issues as they come up while respecting that principle. Kinda like the Rights and Freedoms - things like Gay marriage are the logical conclusion but nobody would have dared write that into the original paperwork.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 26, 2004 19:08:31 GMT -5
.....and there was an interview with Harper. He stated "The Conservative party is a Western party, with Western Canadian values, whose primary objective will be to get Western Canadians issues looked after." That changed my vote, then and there. Kinda like the Green Party leader stating "if 66% of Quebecers want to separate then separation is perfectly OK" - that cost him my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2004 20:22:18 GMT -5
Well, if NL really is an outlier on as many issues as Quebec then I'm fine with seeing some exemptions there too. But I suspect they aren't, though I don't have the numbers handy anymore. The things about statistics and numbers is that there is one for everything. What one person sees as not important, another sees as life or death. This is where I totally disagree. Economics has everything to do with social issues. Newfoundland has an unemployment rate of 17%, give or take. The national average is around 8% I think. If one does not have any money, then the social issues are magnified. Single mothers struggling to put food on the table is a social issue. Homelessness is a social issue. Poverty is a social issue. I believe you are trying to say that Newfoundland is not an outlier in a cultural sense, (even that may be incorrect). By that I mean, that Newfoundland like the rest of Canada is a primarily english/scottish/irish/etc descent, so we all can relate. The french issues are slightly different and we can't relate so much. I agree with that. But the fact that Newfoundland is the perverbial "joke" (everyone - even a Newfie - loves a good Newfie joke) suggests that the problems Newfoundland face are more than economic, but also social/cultural/discriminatory (most people think newfie just fish and we live in igloos)/ and persception. In this regard I believe we are more like Quebec than most provinces. Without a framework, then Quebec would opt out of everything just to promote their difference. They would refuse to pay into programs that the rest of the country depend on, and then what to join when it is to their liking. That is fine. But I would want to have a "framework" in place for certain things they can not opt out of (disaster relief/ medicare for example) and items that are francophone specific that they can. I wouldn't want to have Quebec opt out of something for the betterment of all Canadians (say universal daycare, but I believe Quebec has the best daycare in the country already. Bad example but something like that ... ) on the basis that they are french, and take the money and spend as they see fit, when something may be shoved down Newfoundland's throat. I totally agree more power should be given to the provinces, and the first minister should sit down and work out a framework for whatthe provinces should control and what the federal government should control. Then when they agree on that (1000 years from now because 10 premiers will agree on little), the federal items can not be opted out by anyone.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 26, 2004 20:59:55 GMT -5
This is where I totally disagree. Economics has everything to do with social issues. Newfoundland has an unemployment rate of 17%, give or take. The national average is around 8% I think. If one does not have any money, then the social issues are magnified. Yes - but the approach to the solutions is cultural. There are poor areas in both Quebec and NL, but the approaches desired to solve the issues are different because of cultural issues. We're arguing different points. You want general decentralisation, I'm arguing a specific case for Quebec. To which extent decentralisation is widespread is, to me, another issue altogether. What I want is an asterisk for Quebec for cultural reasons. You don't want federal programs shoved down your throat, and I can respect that - but Quebec has more reason than any other province to need to be able to opt-out, we have both economical and cultural reasons, the ROC essentially has only economics. I want Quebec to have opt-out provisions for cultural reasons (which I don't want want to define as just "French" since daycare would seem language-independant, wouldn't it ?) As to the framework, I'd be fine with seeing key issues defined as being without opting out options - but I'd rather spell out the key issues and let the rest of it be up for discussion than the other way around. In other words, I'm willing to list programs we can't opt out of to get a deal done.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 26, 2004 21:27:57 GMT -5
Kinda like the Green Party leader stating "if 66% of Quebecers want to separate then separation is perfectly OK" - that cost him my vote. "If 66 2/3% of Quebecers want to separate and over 35% of the electorate votes for separation AND 50% of Canadians agree that they should leave AND George Bush gives his permission ratified by the US congress, the province may separate." Sorry PTH, just trying to get a rise! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) The ballots must be printed in English and French, chad must be completely punched through, and tabulation ratified by the Supreme Court of Florida.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 27, 2004 7:39:20 GMT -5
Standards are lower ? I doubt it. An anglo who speaks some French is called billingual, a francophone who babbles an equivalent level of English won't pass the initial interview. Ah, the discussion/debate continues. Round and round and round . . . ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Standards was perhaps a poor word; for that I’ll apologize. How about requirements for the written portion of the test not as stringent for francos as for anglos (again, let me point out that I am not one of the complainers but that I am just pointing out something that is happening). I am merely suggesting that the odds are that a franco is in a better position than an anglo to be hired by the Federal Government – at least in Ottawa (I think we are veering away from the initial discussion and am wary of starting yet another “thread-within-a-thread). The reason: anglos don’t always speak French/can get away with being uni, but francos often (and usually by necessity) speak English. I think it would be great if I could communicate in either language. Laziness (oh . . . I’ve been too busy) has kept me from taking the course (honesty here) though I’m about to rectify that.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 27, 2004 7:50:56 GMT -5
I'd rather spell out the key issues Ah . . . we're to the point where we get specific -- that's what I've been waiting for. Beyond the rhetoric to the nitty-gritty. What would keep Quebec in Canada (for some people I realize it's "nothing")? Is it merely a realization that Quebec is distinct? Is it jurisdiction over some now federally-mandated programs? Is it more of a leadership over other programs that you feel should be federal (gun registry?)? Just wondering . . .
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 27, 2004 12:11:09 GMT -5
Yes - but the approach to the solutions is cultural. There are poor areas in both Quebec and NL, but the approaches desired to solve the issues are different because of cultural issues. We're arguing different points. You want general decentralisation, I'm arguing a specific case for Quebec. To which extent decentralisation is widespread is, to me, another issue altogether. What I want is an asterisk for Quebec for cultural reasons. You don't want federal programs shoved down your throat, and I can respect that - but Quebec has more reason than any other province to need to be able to opt-out, we have both economical and cultural reasons, the ROC essentially has only economics. I want Quebec to have opt-out provisions for cultural reasons (which I don't want want to define as just "French" since daycare would seem language-independant, wouldn't it ?) As to the framework, I'd be fine with seeing key issues defined as being without opting out options - but I'd rather spell out the key issues and let the rest of it be up for discussion than the other way around. In other words, I'm willing to list programs we can't opt out of to get a deal done. Before I married I signed a pre-nuptual agreement enabling me to opt out of: Dishwashing, cooking (other than BBQ), cleaning, and picking up my clothes and putting them in the hamper. I can leave the toilet seat up or down and so can my wife. We learn to live with eachother's cultural preference re toilet seats. It is forbidden to install fuzzy toilet seat covers that are so thick that they cause the seat to fall down automatically. Marriage is a series of compromises. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 27, 2004 20:32:30 GMT -5
Yes - but the approach to the solutions is cultural. There are poor areas in both Quebec and NL, but the approaches desired to solve the issues are different because of cultural issues. This may be true. But sometimes the solution may be the same. I think we have come to an agreement on this point. It was a bad example. But being ignorant of french cultural issues I would like to ask what you mean by cultural issues. If it is simply a matter of "language dependence" or "language protection" the yes I whole heartily endorse your asterisk. I enjoyed learing french in school, I enjoy going to Quebec and struggling to recall my french, I let out a big sigh of relief when the person I am talking to says "We can speak english if you like, thanks for trying" (a newfie accent and french = butchering the language, and I am always worried I will offend someone), I enjoy trying to translate stuff on here and I enjoy the fact that Canada has two languages and we should protect the french language (let's face it the english language does not need protecting). This is all I would ask. Smarter men than me would have to determine these no-veto issues. But any "cultural" issues I would agree should be subject for debate. The key cultural issue here would be the fishery. I don't know what would be the #1 key cultural issue in Quebec, probale language protection?, ...... but I agree with you on this point.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 27, 2004 21:19:00 GMT -5
Ah . . . we're to the point where we get specific -- that's what I've been waiting for. Beyond the rhetoric to the nitty-gritty. What would keep Quebec in Canada (for some people I realize it's "nothing")? Is it merely a realization that Quebec is distinct? Is it jurisdiction over some now federally-mandated programs? Is it more of a leadership over other programs that you feel should be federal (gun registry?)? Just wondering . . . Well, I'm not a provincially-appointed negociator here..... and keep in mind that the vast majority of Quebecers were in favour of all of their taxes going to Quebec rather than Ottawa.... but most of the current federal government can stay as is, Quebec simply wants to be able to opt out. Key things they couldn't opt out of would be international deals, the army, taxes, etc. The basics. Essentially, I'd want to see the federal government butt out of provincial jurisdiction in Quebec and simply transfer funds equivalent to whatever program they're dreaming up.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 27, 2004 21:20:54 GMT -5
I am merely suggesting that the odds are that a franco is in a better position than an anglo to be hired by the Federal Government – at least in Ottawa ..... The reason: anglos don’t always speak French/can get away with being uni, but francos often (and usually by necessity) speak English..... There's the rub. The francophones who even try are already billingual - whereas anglos get paid language classes. Trust me, I've got plenty of contacts in Ottawa who see tens of thousands spent on someone who wants that last promotion before retiring, so he gets an extra level of French to be eligible...
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 27, 2004 21:26:33 GMT -5
This may be true. But sometimes the solution may be the same. I think we have come to an agreement on this point. When the solution is the same, then Quebec has no reason to opt out. Language is part of it, but culture is more than just a language. I'd even say that language is one of many aspects of culture. Another point we can agree on. But what needs to be realised across the country is how if we want a billingual country, some sacrifices need to be made sometimes. Protecting French means protecting everything that comes with it. Fisheries ? Nothing cultural there, just like there isn't for hydro-electricity in Quebec. It's economics pure and simple. I use the word culture perhaps a bit too liberally, to mean "sociologically different". Go back in the thread and you'll see a number of issues where Quebec needed a different strategy than the rest of the country - but we could agree to make exceptions for all of those, and in 5 years you'll have something else creep in. I'd want a high-level framework so that even if we elect federally a bunch of Bush-like rednecks, Quebec has the rights it needs to opt out when needed. Remember the red canvas.
|
|