|
Post by Skilly on Jul 28, 2004 16:36:07 GMT -5
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. This is pretty general. What do you mean by "everything that comes with it". There is nothing economical about the fishery here. Well that is not true. The fishermen and merchants were once the richest people here, and the trade has been past down from generation to generation. It is a society. But it is not the commercial fishery I speak of. It is subsistence fishery, and subsistence living in general. A Newfoundlander should be allowed to go out on the water and catch enough fish to feed his family whenever he wants, he should be able to shoot a moose or caribou to feed his family (just like many native groups), and he doesn't need Ottawa poking its nose into the different aspects of the fishery. It is a societal issue, and therefore cultural to us since it was our way of life for so long. Now a feed of fish seems illegal they way they treat it. Also, shouldn't all provinces be given "constitutional protection" from red-neck extreme right or extreme left policies? I use Harper as an example because he is the right-winger of the day (so any Harper supporter out there , this is purely hypothetical). Many policies boil down to money (in most of your responses you state "just give Quebec the equivalent money if they decide to opt out" - that is economical as well as cultural). So if Harper was elected and decided to eliminate EI. Well, Newfoundland would be devastated. We would officially have to apply to the UN for Third World status. NL is mostly a seasonal employment province, thus our high unemployment rate. This would be the type of thing NL would need protection from, and it is a real fear when you hear things like "dependant society, defeatist attitude, and economic strain on the Canadian people".
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 28, 2004 18:23:29 GMT -5
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. This could easily read as follows: the vast majority of Albertans were in favour of all of their taxes going to Alberta rather than Ottawa.... but most of the current federal government can stay as is, Alberta 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 Alberta and simply transfer funds equivalent to whatever program they're dreaming up. [edit: Alverta would probably want to opt out of medicare and the gun registry as well . . . medicare, only until the people realized just how different life would be with private only hospitalization!). "Have" provinces are better able to survive on their own, while "have-not" provinces (sorry, Skilly) need federal cooperation. But in the long run the federal cooperation helps even the haves. 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... I agree that there is a problem with paid French as it stood. For the generation that was unilingual when bilingualism came to the fore, fine. But why should I be given that training at great expense? Unless, of course, you are tyring to bring a Saskatchewanian into the fold in Ottawa -- a place where you wouldn't recognise someone speaking the language even if they told you they were (believe me, I know!). The complaint is "reverse discrimination" if a franco is given a job with bilingual demands, but come on -- it's long enough after the fact that people should be wanting to learn the language as they grow up. But again I say as it stood. No longer will a uni-anglo be given a job if he promises to evenutally get his C-levels: it's speak or keep job-hunting. Kinf of reminds me of hte Radio-Free Windsor(?) sketch a few years ago where the anglo applies for a bilingual job and wants to speak "hinglish honely" for the "hinterview" so he can better practise his "second" language.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 28, 2004 19:49:56 GMT -5
"Have" provinces are better able to survive on their own, while "have-not" provinces (sorry, Skilly) need federal cooperation. But in the long run the federal cooperation helps even the haves. No need to apologize. I realize that Newfoundland is the poor cousin to confederation. My beef with it is Newfoundland joined Confederation because of the hand-outs that were promised (Baby bonus was the big one). But ever since 1949, Canada (although they helped a great deal over the years) never helped Newfoundland get to the point where we wouldn't be a strain on Canada's wallet. Every contract ever drawn up had federal input and were total giveaways, yet if they bargained with Newfoundland in good faith from the start, then Newfoundland would be a "Have" province not a "have not". We have had to put up with Canada watching idly and making a fortune off our backs. 1) Labrador City iron ore not processed in Labrador but in Quebec. 2) Electricity "given" to Quebec 3) Voisey's Bay nickel being processed in Sudbury and Manitoba. 4) Canada was suppose to sell back their 8.5% share in Petro Canada to us years ago, but they made so much money off it they refused to do it. 5) Our oil revenues are subject to Equalization, but Alberta's is not. 6) The total mismanagement of the fishery. The list is endless. I am sure other provinces have just as many and as important beefs also, but they have the population were if they shout loud enough they will be heard. No body cares if Newfoundland complains because we won't be heard. "Just give them a few handouts and they will be quiet" ...... I say no more and just imagine how well off Newfoundland would have been if governement didn't screw us at every turn. the anglo applies for a bilingual job and wants to speak "hinglish honely" for the "hinterview" so he can better practise his "second" language. I hunderstand dat dottily cous dat's ow I speaks anyway, b'y. You CFA's , you crack me h'up! Can't ya heven hunderstand good hole henglish henymore?
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 28, 2004 21:42:29 GMT -5
This is pretty general. What do you mean by "everything that comes with it". Well, for example, equal funding for French and English-language CBC, or having cable networks made mandatory in a 50/50 split. And when a multi-cultural channel is opened up (with Federal funds) (it's channel 14 in Ottawa) it would be nice if it weren't American sitcoms in prime-time and other languages the rest of the time, with nothing, ever, in French. It means sometimes spending money when it could be avoided. People talk about the benfits of billingualism but aren't willing to accept the costs. tough call, you have to manage the commercial fisheries in one way..... Still, overall, this isn't about NL - it's a generalised fisheries issue, that probably applies to a certain extent to Eastern Quebec (Iles de la madeleine especially), NS and BC, as well as the territories. This is tied to culture the same way that logging in Quebec might be a cultural activity - it's tied into the culture but the culture can live on without it. Well, the constitution should have the basics, but it this specific case, the problem is that Quebec can easily be entirely out of the government and have a government which ignores Quebec's distinct society - ie, tries to impose nationwide a program which doesn't fit into Quebec society. That won't happen in the rest of the country for the simple reason that a government won't be formed without support in the ROC.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 28, 2004 21:47:50 GMT -5
This could easily read as follows: the vast majority of Albertans were in favour............. Which is what always happens when Quebec talks decentralisation - other groups have issues with Ottawa as well. But it mostly just shows how I haven't been able to make the issues in question cultural rather than economical. Or maybe it is cultural - Alberta doesn't like the "image" of Canada it needs it has to fit into, most Westerners complaining about having too much French in the country, while Quebec feels it's being squeezed out. Fundamentally opposite beliefs which I can't see co-existing in one country. As to the French/English issue in Ottawa, we've got different perspectives on that one and neither of us will change, and it's a side-issue anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 28, 2004 23:05:24 GMT -5
Which is what always happens when Quebec talks decentralisation - other groups have issues with Ottawa as well. But it mostly just shows how I haven't been able to make the issues in question cultural rather than economical. Or maybe it is cultural - Alberta doesn't like the "image" of Canada it needs it has to fit into, most Westerners complaining about having too much French in the country, while Quebec feels it's being squeezed out. Fundamentally opposite beliefs which I can't see co-existing in one country. It is so easy to get distracted and get "off topic" . . . and to get caught up in side issues (as we have both done by invoking things like gun registry). When TROC hears "we want to protect our cultural identity" some may hear/interpret it differently. For a while there was a Confederation of Regions Party (there still may be but if so it has fallen off the edge of the map) and the fact is they had it right: Confederation was not to make us the same but to give us strength against a common enemy (the US) -- uniting us while still allowing individuality. In this case "Canada" has forgotten its original roots and purpose. I'm not sure decentralization is the key/answer, but more federal programs surely isn't. As to the French/English issue in Ottawa, we've got different perspectives on that one and neither of us will change, and it's a side-issue anyhow. Agreed it is a side issue, but there does seem to be a move afoot here to change things. I do admit that I am not privy to everything that goes on and that perhaps this is just a molifying rumour.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 29, 2004 18:36:02 GMT -5
Well, for example, equal funding for French and English-language CBC, or having cable networks made mandatory in a 50/50 split. And when a multi-cultural channel is opened up (with Federal funds) (it's channel 14 in Ottawa) it would be nice if it weren't American sitcoms in prime-time and other languages the rest of the time, with nothing, ever, in French. It means sometimes spending money when it could be avoided. People talk about the benfits of billingualism but aren't willing to accept the costs. This is a good example. I agree I would be miffed at the CBC funding and channel selection as well. I have 5 of my 61 channels that are french here in Newfoundland, 18 are English Canada stations, the rest are specialty or American. The problem I guess is that Canada, rightly or wrongly, does everything by population. For instance, 5 out of 23 Canadian channels in Newfoundland being frnech is 23%. Quebec has 21% of the Canadian population. Now that may be a coincidence, because I am not sure what channels everyone gets across the country. But I wouldn't argue for a 50/50 split in TV programming, it should be an option. Right now in Newfoundland I would have the option to eliminate my french stations but I choose not to. I consider it expanding my french education. Whether this be a cultural, societal, or economical issue this definately does not apply to the rest of the country. The BC fishery is not under a moratorium, neither is the Nova Scotia fishery, and I am willing to bet neitheris the Quebec fishery. I call this a cultural issue in Newfoundland because we have depended on it for so long, and it is very much tied into the culture of Newfoundland. I am willing to bet not one tourist comes to Newfoundland without getting a picture of a wharf, stage, fishing house, boat, quaint fishing village etc. Because it has defined us for so long that everyone believes that is all Newfoundland is about. And the kicker is. If a newfoundland boat goes out and fishes the Grand Banks, they will have their boat taken away, fined, and possible put in jail. If a Danish boat fishes in the Grand Bank, Canada under NAFO is not allowed to board her, the boat can go back to Europe, and they get off scott free. This is killing our way of life. It is not the Newfoundlanders overfishing (remember our population is only 553,000 - so we may have roughly 50,000 - 100,000 in the fishery in one form or another), it is the foreigner vessels (the Americans, the Portugese, the Danes, the Spaniards). And Ottawa allows it! If this was Quebec's fishery, or Ontario's, we know that they would move mountains to stop it. But I agree. I shouldn't shift the debate/discussion to something about NL, and try to understand the french point of view. But I feel to understand the french point of view, that the french must be open to seeing that other cultures are unfairly treated as well. I have to disagree with this point. Quebec will never be entirely out of the government unless it chooses to be. For staters, the PM has to be french. And one of the reasons, which will never be said out loud by anyone, is that if the PM is not french then Quebec will seperate. Anglo PM's have been in office for 16 months out of the last 30+ years. Also, there will never be a cabinet that does not have 3 or 4 people from Quebec in it. PEI and Newfoundland are the only provinces that really have to worry about being shut out of the cabinet (because of population and ridings). And I disagree that a government won't be formed without the support of the rest of Canada. All a party needs to do is win Ontario to basically form the government. If everyone west of Ontario voted for Harper they'd have 100 seats. If everyone in Ontario voted Liberal they'd have 101 seats. If everyone in Quebec voted BQ they'd have 75 seats. There is only 32 seats in Atlantic Canada. It would bode all three parties well to run a full slate in Atlantic Canada. To win an election in Canada they only have to win 80% of the Ontario seats and about 20% everywhere else. Remember 64% of the Canadians who voted, voted against Paul Martin. He doesn't have the support of the ROC.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 29, 2004 19:11:21 GMT -5
So now you now what I mean when I say that billingualism comes with strings, and the ROC can't praise bilingualism and then ignore the strings. The fisheries is, to me, still more economics than culture, but for NL the problem is that it's such a huge portion of the economy that it becomes cultural. Kinda like French wine growing, in some regions of France. To them it's no longer a job, it's their lives. But France could live on without the wine, and NL could live on without fisheries- if a replacement source of energy for the economy could be found, of course. Well, Harper could easily have won with just a tad more Ontario support. Well.... Mulroney was born in Quebec but couldn't speak French properly (never could say "é" which is a pretty important sound in French, kinda like an anglo unable to say "th"), Paul Martin is 50/50 at best, Jean Chrétien's French was just as bad as his English..... a truly billingual anglo would be perfectly acceptable to Quebec BTW. But he has to show a level of open-mindedness we usually don't see from out West, but I've heard some Ontario premiers whose French was perfectly OK to win in Quebec. Well, to me it's a shame if any province isn't part of the government, but if a government has no one from PEI but has them from the other Eastern provinces then I think their issues will be kept in mind. If Quebec isn't part of a government, and this has been my main point all along, Quebec's issues will be greatly disadvantaged because Quebec is distinct and has distinct issues with distinct solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 30, 2004 14:12:36 GMT -5
The fisheries is, to me, still more economics than culture, but for NL the problem is that it's such a huge portion of the economy that it becomes cultural. Kinda like French wine growing, in some regions of France. To them it's no longer a job, it's their lives. But France could live on without the wine, and NL could live on without fisheries- if a replacement source of energy for the economy could be found, of course. maybe. The search is on now for other ways to base the economy. But I feel in the long run, there are going to be some provinces ticked off at us for what we have to do to bring this to fruition. We would rather work within the current framework, have our issues examined and solved amicably, then to pull a "sly one" on the rest of Canada. I envision it happening though. And if he got that support, everyone east of Winnepeg would be on pins and needles, not just Quebec. Personally, I would like to believe that the ROC has some of Quebec's interests at heart, and would never allow an extremist to come to power. By extremist I am not talking about Haprer (he said all the right things during the campaign, and I can see how some might not trust him), I am talking about someone with radical ideals that are region specific. I laughed at this. Almost rolled off the chair. I am guessing you have never been to Newfoundland. A great deal of the population not only can't say "é", we can't say "th" either. ;D And alot can't say "er" either. Important in English? Maybe that's why the rest of the world look at us with blank stares when we talk! As an example, take the word "theatre" ...... A newfie would pronounce it "tea-eh-da". Can you ever imagine a bilingual Newfoundland as PM? And if so, do I have your vote in 2008? I still think Quebec does not have to worry about not being part of the government. They have some shrewd politicians, both federally and provincially. Charest is one of the best premiers, and Duceppe is perfect in Ottawa. These guys will ensure that Quebec has representation one way or the other. The eastern provinces have many similar issues. We don't usually stand together though. Recently we have been pretty united polictically. But Newfoundland is not a Maritime province. I do agree that the Maritime provinces do stick together and bring up each other's issues. But when it comes to the Atlantic provinces (which Newfoundland is apart of as well as Quebec to some degree) this isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 30, 2004 18:10:12 GMT -5
Can you ever imagine a bilingual Newfoundland as PM? And if so, do I have your vote in 2008? Sure thing. Well, I have no problem with our current leaders, but constitutions are made for the long run - I want a situation where even a smart, sly yet a prototype of the Western anglo-redneck type PM can't do too much harm to Quebec even if we have a slow, stupid corrupt moron.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2004 9:33:24 GMT -5
Look for my "Vote for the common man" platform. I was thinking of a "You've been screwed bythe Liberals, you've been screwed bythe PCs, my wife will kill me if I screw anybody" platform ...... We all want that. The thing I fear is giving Quebec an "opt -out" clause and it gets used frivously, or worse yet, a "slow corrupt seperatist moron" is in power and find a loop hole to "opt-out" of Canada. But I am sure, nosensible person in Canada could find fault with giving Quebec options on genuine cultural grounds - the problem lies in the equality and definition of those grounds. I am of the opinion that Quebec will get what they are looking for sooner rather than later, and hopefully it never needs to be used and Canada remains "strong and free".
|
|