A nasty PQ recipe for non-'citizens'

[Disgruntled70sHab]

pth said:

I've always thought the word "nation" has all kinds of secondary meanings which get in the way....

To me the "nation" motion is equivalent to the "distinct society" in Meech Lake - a symbol that the rest of the country recognizes that Quebec is different, has its own society which is distinct (equal but different) to that across the rest of the country.

However, in the eyes of most Quebecers, the "nation of Quebec" includes all who live on its territory, whichever language they speak. They do however have to respect the law, including bill 101.

Pauline Marois's proposed law is really just a way to try to address the problem of integrating immigrants into the majority community, when the draw of English-speaking North America is so strong.

I agree with her that more needs to be done WRT to integration, I disagree as to the means.

Thanks PTH. I think there's been about as much publicity about Marois' proposal as there was over the Ontario Referendum. People simply haven't been educated enough to understand what the legislation is all about.

From a Quebec nationalist perspective it's entirely possible that the legislation is designed to perserve the French language and culture in Quebec. In fact, Quebec city remains one of my most favourite Canadian cities to visit. There's really nothing wrong with that, if this is indeed the agenda.

However, I'd be remiss as a Canadian nationalist if I didn't offer some concern over this as well. I remember how close the last referendum was but I also remember Parizeau's comments afterwards. I believe he said the reasons they lost the referendum was due to money and the ethnic vote. Now a lot of opportunists jumped on his comments as a tad racist, but IMHO he was right regardless how he said it.

So now my concern stems from a very deliberate process to filter out "undesirables" by insisting they not only speak the local language but speak it to a specified standard. Those who can't aren't even granted the option of language training. And it won't matte what skills you bring to the "nation", it's either you speak it or stay out. (an oversight on my part here for sure) From an immigrant perspective this might be construed as discrimination. This I cannot buy.

So I ask, what better way to prepare for a future referendum than to prevent non-French-speaking persons access to the "nation?" As it is now, many Anglophones have left Quebec because they were made to feel unwelcome (I can name two families in my neighbourhood alone who actually felt this way). So, after years of filtering undesirables, will the separatist/nationalist message will be much easier to distribute and sell? And once the process is well under way I believe it will be too late for the remainder of Canada to prepare for the next referendum.

But, all this may be moot if the real agenda is something different. As stated in the original post,

"... the real threat is to the PQ's popularity among Francophones. The party has been displaced by the action Démocratique du Quebec as the main defender of Quebec's Francophone identity, largel because the ADQ rushed to the barricades to embrase some Xemophobic views in rural Quebec before the provincial election in March ... The third-place PQ is desperate to seize the high ground on Quebec's politics of identity."

So, really, what is the purpose of tabling this legislation? Is it the PQ's attempt to promote the welfare of Quebec and its culture or is it designed to regain some of the Francophone popular vote lost the the ADQ?

Cheers.

[Skilly]

disgruntled70shab said:

So now my concern stems from a very deliberate process to filter out "undesirables" by insisting they not only speak the local language but speak it to a specified standard. Those who can't aren't even granted the option of language training. And it won't matte what skills you bring to the "nation", it's either you speak it or stay out. From an immigrant perspective this might be construed as discrimination. This I cannot buy.

Didn't one poster say the government will pay for Language Classes as long as the person agreed to learn the language?

So I ask, what better way to prepare for a future referendum than to prevent non-French-speaking persons access to the "nation?" As it is now, many Anglophones have left Quebec because they were made to feel unwelcome (I can name two families in my neighbourhood alone who actually felt this way). So, after years of filtering undesirables, will the separatist/nationalist message will be much easier to distribute and sell? And once the process is well under way I believe it will be too late for the remainder of Canada to prepare for the next referendum.

This could be a concern ... but I am not looking at the debate from the point of view of "If this legislation passes". I am looking at it from the point of view of "If Quebec is a nation, is this too much to ask?". The PM of Canada, has called Quebec a Nation. Whether it is inside a unified Canada or not is semantics ... he said the Government will recognize them as a nation. Whether that was a mistake or not, it was a promise he made, and one he voiced in the House of Commons. So, IMO, he must give Quebec the ability to act as a nation in certain regards. Quebec is concerned about losing its culture and as a nation should be allowed to protect it.

Whether I agree with it or not is moot. It is what our PM has said. Now he can either do what he is famous for and backtrack on yet another promise to the citizenry of Canada, or he can work with Quebec to ensure that they don't leave the country.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

So, really, what is the purpose of tabling this legislation? Is it the PQ's attempt to promote the welfare of Quebec and its culture or is it designed to regain some of the Francophone popular vote lost the the ADQ?

Methinks this is the PQ playing to [note I did not suggest "pandering to" ;D] the converted -- a reminder, so to speak, that the PQ is not going away.

Hardcore sovereigntists will vote PQ.

Hardcore federalists will not.

The "soft vote" is what counts . . . hard to say if there will be enough in this to win over the soft sovereigntist vote and to see this sector work on the soft federalists.

Hard also to know if this is circling the wagons (the tribal mentality) leading to a ghetto insulation mentality (NO WWWII analogies intended!). Also hard to know (because I'm not an economist) what would happen to Quebec in the long term. I'm all for Quebecers retaining their culture, but English is the dominant language of commerce right now, so it is a necessary "evil" that even the PQ must acknowledge.

Further, if Quebec is going to use tourism as an industry Quebecers must use English or they will isolate themselves. Rarely has this not happened to me when I visited the province (should be interesting this weekend when I go). I will make a stab at French (can understand much better than speak). The almost universal response to my French is a cringe and a reply in English. An attempt at the language is normally accepted and welcomed; it's them uppity people that won't even offer a "bonjour" that receive poor service. Nothing new here, though -- holiday in any country and refuse to learn a few basis words and you'll pay the price.

One further thought. My Quebecois roots go back to the 1600s (or so I'm told). There was a family division years ago, and it carries over to the issue of sovereignty. The "Montreal" group are federalists and left the province in the 80s. The "Quebec City" group are separatists and gladly remain. And never the twain shall meet -- I haven't heard from those who stayed since the first referendum.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

skilly said:

disgruntled70shab said:

So now my concern stems from a very deliberate process to filter out "undesirables" by insisting they not only speak the local language but speak it to a specified standard. Those who can't aren't even granted the option of language training. And it won't matte what skills you bring to the "nation", it's either you speak it or stay out. From an immigrant perspective this might be construed as discrimination. This I cannot buy.

Didn't one poster say the government will pay for Language Classes as long as the person agreed to learn the language?

I was definitely wrong here Skilly. I went over the thread again and found the reference you're talking about. I've since amended my post accordingly. Thanks.

This could be a concern ... but I am not looking at the debate from the point of view of "If this legislation passes". I am looking at it from the point of view of "If Quebec is a nation, is this too much to ask?". The PM of Canada, has called Quebec a Nation. Whether it is inside a unified Canada or not is semantics ... he said the Government will recognize them as a nation. Whether that was a mistake or not, it was a promise he made, and one he voiced in the House of Commons. So, IMO, he must give Quebec the ability to act as a nation in certain regards. Quebec is concerned about losing its culture and as a nation should be allowed to protect it.

Whether I agree with it or not is moot. It is what our PM has said. Now he can either do what he is famous for and backtrack on yet another promise to the citizenry of Canada, or he can work with Quebec to ensure that they don't leave the country.

Well, herein lies the problem IMHO. As I said earlier in the thread I think the PM made his decision based on a flinch and with no real consideration given to the potential future ramifications of the decision.

And now here we are. Quebec is a nation within a nation based on a political manouvre made solely to dupe another party and not what was in the best interests of the country. If it were, then why was the distinct society clause such an issue?

As always I have to cut this short because of work. Go figure.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

disgruntled70shab said:

then why was the distinct society clause such an issue?



Cheers.

I was against the distinct society clause (as was most of Newfoundland) because it was never explained what it truly meant. All regions of Canada are distinct. The Newfoundland culture/dialect/history is just as distinct as Quebec's. The lack of information as to what it meant was the key.

This "definition of citizenship" probably gives Quebec a de facto distinct society clause ... but at least it is explained.

[Doc Holliday]

franko said:

Hard also to know if this is circling the wagons (the tribal mentality) leading to a ghetto insulation mentality (NO WWWII analogies intended!). Also hard to know (because I'm not an economist) what would happen to Quebec in the long term. I'm all for Quebecers retaining their culture, but English is the dominant language of commerce right now, so it is a necessary "evil" that even the PQ must acknowledge.

Further, if Quebec is going to use tourism as an industry Quebecers must use English or they will isolate themselves. Rarely has this not happened to me when I visited the province (should be interesting this weekend when I go). I will make a stab at French (can understand much better than speak). The almost universal response to my French is a cringe and a reply in English. An attempt at the language is normally accepted and welcomed; it's them uppity people that won't even offer a "bonjour" that receive poor service. Nothing new here, though -- holiday in any country and refuse to learn a few basis words and you'll pay the price.

It is important to outline that Marois's proposal is not about removing English or making speaking English outlawed, it's about making sure people coming in have functional French. I also want to say that for a country that prides itself of being bilingual, the only province where you'll always be 100% sure to receive a service in both languages is the Province of Quebec. Now if a unilingual Anglophone living in Quebec feel unwelcome or threaten in the only true bastion of bilingualism in the country because there are laws and mechanisms to protect the French language here, than indeed, they're probably not where they should be.

[franko]

Let's also remember that New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province.

Sad fact: when I was 9 my family moved from just outside of Montreal to Manitoba -- a place where there are pockets of French communities. We were not on such a community, but my father was in the Armed Forces (at the time, the Air Force -- many hard feelings about that change!), and the base was bilingual. However, I lived in town, about 8 miles (perhaps) away. Very quickly my name was anglicized, and I lost any French that I knew (my mother claims that I was bilingual but I'm pretty sure her memory is hazy on this). However, I did take French classes in the elementary school, only to be taught "proper pronounciation". No wonder I'm a mess!

I need a refresher course but because I'm not a government employee have to pay for it myself/have to take the 6-months-to-a-year on my own. Not going to happen.

At least I recognize the announcement that the Habs have scored (need to hear that a lot more often!).

[Doc Holliday]

skilly said:

The lack of information as to what it meant was the key.

As shown by the failures of Meech and Charlottetown, it cannot be fully explained and defined because it'll never get done. It simply appears that Canadians are fine with Canada the way it is, until the people of Quebec claim they want things done different. Right there, all of sudden, everybody wants what Quebec wants... When Quebec is denied of its demands, than Canadians are back to being fine with Canada the way it is...

The nation concept will be defined on the go as amendments and bills will be added to the constitution...

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

docholliday said:

franko said:

Hard also to know if this is circling the wagons (the tribal mentality) leading to a ghetto insulation mentality (NO WWWII analogies intended!). Also hard to know (because I'm not an economist) what would happen to Quebec in the long term. I'm all for Quebecers retaining their culture, but English is the dominant language of commerce right now, so it is a necessary "evil" that even the PQ must acknowledge.

Further, if Quebec is going to use tourism as an industry Quebecers must use English or they will isolate themselves. Rarely has this not happened to me when I visited the province (should be interesting this weekend when I go). I will make a stab at French (can understand much better than speak). The almost universal response to my French is a cringe and a reply in English. An attempt at the language is normally accepted and welcomed; it's them uppity people that won't even offer a "bonjour" that receive poor service. Nothing new here, though -- holiday in any country and refuse to learn a few basis words and you'll pay the price.

It is important to outline that Marois's proposal is not about removing English or making speaking English outlawed, it's about making sure people coming in have functional French. I also want to say that for a country that prides itself of being bilingual, the only province where you'll always be 100% sure to receive a service in both languages is the Province of Quebec. Now if a unilingual Anglophone living in Quebec feel unwelcome or threaten in the only true bastion of bilingualism in the country because there are laws and mechanisms to protect the French language here, than indeed, they're probably not where they should be.

I was born in Quebec in the 40's when Montreal was bigger and more vibrant than the Toronto that rolled up the sidewalk at 5:00pm.
I lived in Montreal in the 50's when that famous saleslady in Eaton's refused to speak French to that famous customer (neither of who's names can be recalled).
I remember that terrible Mr. Singer who insisted on keeping a sign on the front of his Sherbrooke St. store that threatened the future of the French language.
I left Quebec after Bills 28, 101, and all the referendums to end all referendums finalized nothing.
Plus ca change.............................

[Doc Holliday]

disgruntled70shab said:

pth said:

I've always thought the word "nation" has all kinds of secondary meanings which get in the way....

To me the "nation" motion is equivalent to the "distinct society" in Meech Lake - a symbol that the rest of the country recognizes that Quebec is different, has its own society which is distinct (equal but different) to that across the rest of the country.

However, in the eyes of most Quebecers, the "nation of Quebec" includes all who live on its territory, whichever language they speak. They do however have to respect the law, including bill 101.

Pauline Marois's proposed law is really just a way to try to address the problem of integrating immigrants into the majority community, when the draw of English-speaking North America is so strong.

I agree with her that more needs to be done WRT to integration, I disagree as to the means.

Thanks PTH. I think there's been about as much publicity about Marois' proposal as there was over the Ontario Referendum. People simply haven't been educated enough to understand what the legislation is all about.

From a Quebec nationalist perspective it's entirely possible that the legislation is designed to perserve the French language and culture in Quebec. In fact, Quebec city remains one of my most favourite Canadian cities to visit. There's really nothing wrong with that, if this is indeed the agenda.

However, I'd be remiss as a Canadian nationalist if I didn't offer some concern over this as well. I remember how close the last referendum was but I also remember Parizeau's comments afterwards. I believe he said the reasons they lost the referendum was due to money and the ethnic vote. Now a lot of opportunists jumped on his comments as a tad racist, but IMHO he was right regardless how he said it.

So now my concern stems from a very deliberate process to filter out "undesirables" by insisting they not only speak the local language but speak it to a specified standard. Those who can't aren't even granted the option of language training. And it won't matte what skills you bring to the "nation", it's either you speak it or stay out. (an oversight on my part here for sure) From an immigrant perspective this might be construed as discrimination. This I cannot buy.

So I ask, what better way to prepare for a future referendum than to prevent non-French-speaking persons access to the "nation?" As it is now, many Anglophones have left Quebec because they were made to feel unwelcome (I can name two families in my neighbourhood alone who actually felt this way). So, after years of filtering undesirables, will the separatist/nationalist message will be much easier to distribute and sell? And once the process is well under way I believe it will be too late for the remainder of Canada to prepare for the next referendum.

But, all this may be moot if the real agenda is something different. As stated in the original post,

"... the real threat is to the PQ's popularity among Francophones. The party has been displaced by the action Démocratique du Quebec as the main defender of Quebec's Francophone identity, largel because the ADQ rushed to the barricades to embrase some Xemophobic views in rural Quebec before the provincial election in March ... The third-place PQ is desperate to seize the high ground on Quebec's politics of identity."

So, really, what is the purpose of tabling this legislation? Is it the PQ's attempt to promote the welfare of Quebec and its culture or is it designed to regain some of the Francophone popular vote lost the the ADQ?

Cheers.

Political agendas work on both sides Dis. Is the PQ any more opportunist in wanting for immigrant to learn French than for others to plead they shouldn't...

Why is there such an outcry because new immigrants would have to learn some degree of French? From a pure social angle, isn't it logical for immigrants to be able to communicate and interact with their surrounding in the language spoke by the majority of the people around them? Wouldn't that make them feel more part of their socitey?

There is a political agenda for sure behind this because it has been shown that immigrants who speak french tend to support the idea of being sovereign while those who don't are massively against it. Both sides know this.

franko said:

The "soft vote" is what counts . . .

More and more the immigrants is what counts. The hard federalists understood this way before the hard separatists and in the weeks leading the the last referendum it has been exposed that a record number of new Canadian Citizen had been sworn in... and guess which side they massively supported...

The last referendum was lost in part because the seperatist side had been naive enough to think the federal would play by the rules... As it turns they bent and crossed all the rules to overspend and used Immigration Canada to pump in new voters. Lesson learned. Now the PQ feel we should integrate immigrants by giving them communication tools to operate in a French speaking environment before leting them vote... Watch dog measure? Maybe. They're learning...

...and still, as Skilly outlined straight from Canada Immigration:

You must know English or French -
English and French are the official languages of Canada. You must know enough of one of the two languages to understand other people and for them to understand you. That is, you need to be able to speak English or French well enough to communicate with people.

You must learn about Canada
You must know the rights and responsibilities of Canadians, such as the right and responsibility to vote. You must also know some things about Canada’s history and geography, and its political system. When we receive your application, we will send you an acknowledgment letter and a copy of our free publication, A Look at Canada. You will have to answer questions on the information in this publication when you go for your citizenship test. so you also have to write a test ....so you have to able to speak and read the language of the place in which you want to live[/i]

So the debate is not about whether it's right or wrong to require immigrants to have the proper tools to communicate and understand the society they live in but whether it's right or wrong to apply it to Quebec where the majority speaks French...

[franko]

docholliday said:

franko said:

The "soft vote" is what counts . . .

More and more the immigrants is what counts.

Immigrants are the new soft vote . . . unsure of a new country, unsure of a new culture. Which way to turn?

You must know English or French

So the debate is not about whether it's right or wrong to require immigrants to have the proper tools to communicate and understand the society they live in but whether it's right or wrong to apply it to Quebec where the majority speaks French...

imo (not so h) the problem is one of perception. It could have been put a lot softer and then would have slipped under the radar.

Those who do not meet the standard would be denied the right to run for political office, contribute to political parties or sign a petition to the province's National Assembly is pretty harsh.

We think that people who move to Quebec should learn the language of the majority, just as people who move to the rest of Canada [OK -- Marois would have said people who move to Canada] learn the language of the majority. No kerfuffle, no controversy . . . but that doesn't play well in the media.

[Cranky]

docholliday said:

......laws and mechanisms to protect the French language here, than indeed, they're probably not where they should be.

Should the rest of the country create laws and mecanisms to protect ONLY the English language? People in BC might be threatened by Chinese immigrants and since they only speak English, it would only be fair that they want to protect the English language.

docholliday said:

So the debate is not about whether it's right or wrong to require immigrants to have the proper tools to communicate and understand the society they live in but whether it's right or wrong to apply it to Quebec where the majority speaks French...

Is it right or wrong to apply it to rest of Canada if the majority speak English?

Only one question....

Should seventh generation Quebecers emmigranting be required to pass Ontario Citizinship test solely in English to have the same rights as the rest of Ontarians? Ditto for the rest of Canada?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

docholliday said:

It is important to outline that Marois's proposal is not about removing English or making speaking English outlawed, it's about making sure people coming in have functional French.

I'd buy into this if I wasn't so sure there was an underlying political agenda to it.

I also want to say that for a country that prides itself of being bilingual, the only province where you'll always be 100% sure to receive a service in both languages is the Province of Quebec.

I'll agree that the city of Montreal is probably one of the most bilingual cities in the world. In fact, I can confidently say that the attitude in Montreal is probably the most cordial I've been exposed WRT large cities.

But I can't say that of the entire province Doc. I've been discriminated against in Quebec City where people simply refuse to speak English to me. And judging by the looks in their eyes they almost felt insulted that I would even ask "parlez-vous englais?"

Now that's not to suggest that things aren't changing though.

Now if a unilingual Anglophone living in Quebec feel unwelcome or threaten in the only true bastion of bilingualism in the country because there are laws and mechanisms to protect the French language here, than indeed, they're probably not where they should be.

These people I referred to left because they were made to feel they weren't wanted in the province any longer. One neighbour/friend of mine said he was tired of being singled out for simply being English and he lived in the Montreal area.

However, recently there have been a lot of Quebecers who have moved to Alberta in search of a better life. Many go for the work prospects but there are those who were also tired of the political scene as well and some of them have been Francophones.

They have to do their business in English, granted, but by their own admission, they haven't been ostracized for speaking French out west. Quite the contrary actually. It's not that Francophones are simply tolerated out west either. Far from it.

Check out this article by MacLean's Magazine and see how the attitude out west towards Francophones compared to the attitude towards Anglophones in much of Quebec.

Bienvenue en Alberta

Quebecers, in record numbers, head out to Wild Rose country

MARTIN PATRIQUIN | October 1, 2007

Camille Forest decided to leave his home and family on Christmas Day a year and a half ago. A house framer by trade, he hoped to find work along his tear across Western Canada -- work that was proving more and more scarce in the quaint corner of Quebec's Eastern Townships from whence he hails. Stopping in Edmonton, he found a sizable French community and more work than he can handle. He dearly misses Quebec, but he isn't likely going back any time soon.

"The mentality is different here than in Quebec," says the 41-year-old. "Everyone here is very polite, very respectful. People say hello to you in the morning."

Forest isn't the only Québecois who has decamped for Alberta's greener pastures and bountiful oil sands. Some 9,300 Quebecers moved to the Wild Rose province in 2006 -- more than double the 2005 number -- making it the No. 1 destination for Quebec migrants. And it's not just the recent oil boom: save for a few years in the 1980s, Quebec has seen a net loss of people to Alberta every year since at least 1972.

Quebecers moving to Alberta have access to French schools, government services and support groups, as well as established French communities around the province. Forest's 10-year-old son, who joined his father shortly after he got there, attends a French school with a bevy of anglophone students. Learning French is suddenly the chic thing to do, says Sylvain Tardif of the ACFA, the province's French-Canadian association.

"It's very easy to live your life in French here," Forest says. This is particularly true in the Edmonton area, home to six primary and secondary French-language schools and two of three of the province's officially bilingual municipalities. Forest even found a local restaurant serving decent enough poutine.

And lest anyone think it is solely a brick-and-mortar migration of construction and oil patch workers, consider the case of William Simard -- a pianist and producer by training who found more work in Alberta. "There just aren't enough contracts" in Quebec, he says. "Except for a few who are considered the elites, the competition is intense and salaries are too low."

Employment remains the main reason to come to Alberta. But two prominent Internet sites aimed at Quebecers, as well as French-speakers outside of Canada, suggest another: Quebec, they say, is hobbled by its ongoing political battles, stifling bureaucracy and protectionist job market. "Montreal is becoming decrepit ... and we've lived years and years of inertia, complacency and mediocrity," wrote Richard Comeau, a 54-year-old from Quebec City on the site quitterlequebec.com ("leave Quebec") recently.

Vérifiez le reste ici, man.

I was born in BC, been to Alberta, Manitoba, NWT, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces (never got to NFLD). There's no way you can convince me that Quebec is the most bilingual (less Montreal), or more importantly, tolerant province within Canada. Though it is changing very gradually.

Doc, you know I respect your opinions on this, but there aren't any language laws in Alberta as far as I know. So any person immigrating or moving to Quebec should know the working language is French. What's the problem here? If there are learning institutions that provide the training then why pass legislation on it? A loss of identity maybe? It may have been done with the best of intents, but that's not the way a lot of people will take it.

I honestly don't believe Quebec will ever lose their culture, Doc. But I also believe the attitudes towards English are gradually changing in that province as well. Many are finally getting out and seeing the rest of Canada, which pleases me to no end.

Cheers.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

So, really, what is the purpose of tabling this legislation? Is it the PQ's attempt to promote the welfare of Quebec and its culture or is it designed to regain some of the Francophone popular vote lost the the ADQ?

Cheers.

I had a long conversation with a friend of mine who deeply involved with Quebec politics. We met when we were both card carrying members and canvassers for the Quebec Liberal party. (Me, a card carrying LIBERAL...and now a Conservative! Sheesh..). He knows that I am a hard case Federalist and he is now a ADQ'ist (I would call him a traitor but then again, what am I?)

His take is an interesting one. He says that the PQ party is in shambles and afraid of it's own irrelevance. This proposed legislation is nothing but a ploy to keep the hard line separatist occupied with "THE CAUSE" and to keep the PQ party in the front of peoples minds. According to him, the hard liner separatist are down in the "teen" percentage range and losing ground everywhere. Finally, he says that this legislation is not going anywhere because it's an issue the other two parties don't want to play in. Engaging the issue only helps the PQ maintain their one trick pony platform.

He also said that he is going to pull some strings and put me on the PQ mailing list. Mehh...friends like that......

Anywho.....

It turns out that it's neither about language or rights....but about PQ party survival. I'm going to take his word for it.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

But I can't say that of the entire province Doc. I've been discriminated against in Quebec City where people simply refuse to speak English to me. And judging by the looks in their eyes they almost felt insulted that I would even ask "parlez-vous englais?"

I have never felt any discrimination (probably because of my puppy dog face and increadably good looking body ) but English his NOT a wide option outside Montreal. I use to travel several times a year to Quebec and outside the hotel or restaurant, three quarters of the time I could not get anywhere unless I used my very limited French. Not that they are not trying to help, they are just unilingual.

On the other hand...

Both my parents collect Quebec pension and invariably, we talk to the ministry several times a year. We always get English service and on a RARE occasion, we also get attitude. We deal with it by saying that we are missing some paper work and we will get back to them. Luckily, we never get the same person twice.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

disgruntled70shab said:

But I can't say that of the entire province Doc. I've been discriminated against in Quebec City where people simply refuse to speak English to me. And judging by the looks in their eyes they almost felt insulted that I would even ask "parlez-vous englais?"

I have never felt any discrimination (probably because of my puppy dog face and increadably good looking body ) but English his NOT a wide option outside Montreal. I use to travel several times a year to Quebec and outside the hotel or restaurant, three quarters of the time I could not get anywhere unless I used my very limited French. Not that they are not trying to help, they are just unilingual.

Well, true enough HA. However, in the 70's I had a door slammed in my face in Quebec City. And in '93 I attended a Nordiques/Penguins game in which half the crowd sat down for the Canadian anthem.

But I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that things are getting better. Just some firsthand experience here, but I know that if I try just the slightest to speak French people really appreciate the effort. I've been in Quebec City where people will let me get as far as I can and then let me off the hook once they see I'm struggling a bit too much. But, it was the effort that counted and not the grammar. And after our business was finished I'd end with a "merci beaucoup." That usually gets me a smile too.

I guess I've experienced both sides of that coin though.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

docholliday said:

franko said:

Hard also to know if this is circling the wagons (the tribal mentality) leading to a ghetto insulation mentality (NO WWWII analogies intended!). Also hard to know (because I'm not an economist) what would happen to Quebec in the long term. I'm all for Quebecers retaining their culture, but English is the dominant language of commerce right now, so it is a necessary "evil" that even the PQ must acknowledge.

Further, if Quebec is going to use tourism as an industry Quebecers must use English or they will isolate themselves. Rarely has this not happened to me when I visited the province (should be interesting this weekend when I go). I will make a stab at French (can understand much better than speak). The almost universal response to my French is a cringe and a reply in English. An attempt at the language is normally accepted and welcomed; it's them uppity people that won't even offer a "bonjour" that receive poor service. Nothing new here, though -- holiday in any country and refuse to learn a few basis words and you'll pay the price.

It is important to outline that Marois's proposal is not about removing English or making speaking English outlawed, it's about making sure people coming in have functional French. I also want to say that for a country that prides itself of being bilingual, the only province where you'll always be 100% sure to receive a service in both languages is the Province of Quebec. Now if a unilingual Anglophone living in Quebec feel unwelcome or threaten in the only true bastion of bilingualism in the country because there are laws and mechanisms to protect the French language here, than indeed, they're probably not where they should be.

Actually Doc, this is incorrect. The only bilingual province in Canada is New Brunswick.

EDIT: Read franko's post after I posted.

[Cranky]

docholliday said:

skilly said:

The lack of information as to what it meant was the key.

As shown by the failures of Meech and Charlottetown, it cannot be fully explained and defined because it'll never get done. It simply appears that Canadians are fine with Canada the way it is, until the people of Quebec claim they want things done different. Right there, all of sudden, everybody wants what Quebec wants... When Quebec is denied of its demands, than Canadians are back to being fine with Canada the way it is...

Canada IS fine the way it is by many Canadians.....and it seems an ever growing percentage of Quebecers.

I wonder how popular seperation would be if the one trick pony PQ let things stand as they are? After all, the majority of Quebecers deliverd the "we are not interested in your games" not more then a few months ago. Even hard core seperatist abandon the PQ.

ADQ 41 Mario Dumont
Liberal 48 Jean Charest
PQ 36 Pauline Marois ..9 seat loss.

Popularity....

Liberals 33%
ADQ 31%
PQ 28%...that is a 5% drop in HARD CORE seperatists.

Bottom line.....the great majority of Quebec people have spoken and they want to live their lives in peace and prosperity....not a ever 3rd rank parties narrow dreams. Heck...us Federalist "hooligans" may not be that ugly to the majority of Quebecers after all...

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

Should seventh generation Quebecers emmigranting be required to pass Ontario Citizinship test solely in English to have the same rights as the rest of Ontarians? Ditto for the rest of Canada?

Ontario is not a nation. Quebecers moving to the United States would have to pass an English test. And let's not kid ourselves, if it were not for Quebec and New Brunswick you could eliminate the French criteria from our citizenship laws and all of Quebec would have to pass an English exam to be a citizen residing in Ontario.

[Cranky]

skilly said:

habsaddict said:

Should seventh generation Quebecers emmigranting be required to pass Ontario Citizinship test solely in English to have the same rights as the rest of Ontarians? Ditto for the rest of Canada?

Ontario is not a nation.

And Quebec is NOT an independent nation. It is a nation WITHIN the framework of a country. It has neither negotiated nor declared independence to arbitrarily and unilaterally segregate citizens of the country.

The endless comparisons with the US and Canada mean absolutely nothing. Has Quebec elected to have an independent government? You know the answer.

Until such date that Quebec people have clearly voted for independent government or have negotiated the right, then they have no right to arbitrarily and unilaterally redefine and exclude citizens.

Arbitrary, self appointed, self serving meanderings of a 3rd rank political party who is slowly sinking into irrelevance does not a count. They can follow Jacques Parizeau's dream of segregating and controlling the "ethnics" all they want. The GREAT MAJORITY of people of Quebec have already responded.

[Doc Holliday]

HA, you touch the subject of the ADQ and it is an interesting one because up until Marois's proposed bill, the ADQ had the lead in regards to Quebec identity and definition (the Liberals, as always, act like if they ignore it, it does not exist). The bill was, to Marois's own admittance, aimed at stealing the ball from the ADQ... Politics is politics.

As Franko said a different wording on that bill wouldn't have open the door so wide for the hard federalists to wave the old scarecrows... but then again they would have found something else. Every steps taken towards defining the Quebec nation will be a fight and there are people ready for it on both sides.

As far as polls go, the PQ took a huge dive with André Boisclair but it has been steadily climbing with Pauline Marois (that I personally don't like as she is too "old guard" for my liking). According to a september poll:

Party Popularity:
ADQ: 34
PQ: 30
Liberals: 24

Leader Popularity
Marois: 35%
Dumont: 29%
Charest: 19%

According to that same poll, 41% of the population would vote "YES" in a referendum. Not a majority I admit but a nice number to work with... (as a side note, I'd like to convey that this means your Nazi reference can be perceived as an insult by about 2.4 million separatists...)

I don't know who told you that the PQ was dead and separatists gone with them but I would maybe question your source if I was you...

That being said, I don't mind being the underdog, Chretien tought the separatist movement was dead and burried and that almost cost him the last referendum... So I have no problem with hard federalists going back to sleep and thinking that the Quebec identity question is of minor interest.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

skilly said:

habsaddict said:

Should seventh generation Quebecers emmigranting be required to pass Ontario Citizinship test solely in English to have the same rights as the rest of Ontarians? Ditto for the rest of Canada?

Ontario is not a nation. Quebecers moving to the United States would have to pass an English test. And let's not kid ourselves, if it were not for Quebec and New Brunswick you could eliminate the French criteria from our citizenship laws and all of Quebec would have to pass an English exam to be a citizen residing in Ontario.

I can buy into this argument easily Skilly. Well stated.

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

docholliday said:

The bill was, to Marois's own admittance, aimed at stealing the ball from the ADQ... Politics is politics.

No argument here. More about who represents the Quebec identity than anything else.

That being said, I don't mind being the underdog, Chretien tought the separatist movement was dead and burried and that almost cost him the last referendum... So I have no problem with hard federalists going back to sleep and thinking that the Quebec identity question is of minor interest.

I'm hoping future prime ministers learn from this. Chretien was more concerned about holding off the Martin camp than he was about losing Quebec. And if the "yes" vote had gone through, he would have been remembered as the PM who allowed the country to break up.

And I'm sure Paul Martin will mention that in his biography whenever that gets published. But, he can take some of the blame for that as well.

Cheers.

[Doc Holliday]

disgruntled70shab said:

I'm hoping future prime ministers learn from this. Chretien was more concerned about holding off the Martin camp than he was about losing Quebec. And if the "yes" vote had gone through, he would have been remembered as the PM who allowed the country to break up.

And I'm sure Paul Martin will mention that in his biography whenever that gets published. But, he can take some of the blame for that as well.

Cheers.

Harper stole a lot of thunder from the separatists with his "Nation" motion. While it remains vague and has yet to have a true definition in terms of practical applications, he's gone one step further than any previous Prime Minister, it recognizes Quebec, due to its own language and culture, as a Nation within Canada. That part is done with.

...moving along on this, obviously Quebec will have to have tools and mechanisms to promote and protect it's identity which, as a distinct nation, will obviously be distinct as well from what's happening elsewhere in Canada.

Marois's approach was obviously clumsy but there is no getting around the fact that there will be, at some point, in Quebec, the same kind of immigrant integration procedure as there are in other nations. Now I'm not sure fellow Canadians should be considered immigrants when they move to Quebec though, just like Quebec citizens should not be considered immigrants when they move to other provinces... The free circulation of people, currency, goods and services throughout all the Canadian territory has always been an important part of all sovereignty project.

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

And Quebec is NOT an independent nation. It is a nation WITHIN the framework of a country.

OK .. I am making progress. I finally got you to admit that Quebec is a nation. Now, if you want to compare apples to apples, lets approach this from a different angle.

You stated:

It has neither negotiated nor declared independence to arbitrarily and unilaterally segregate citizens of the country.

..... Has Quebec elected to have an independent government?

Until such date that Quebec people have clearly voted for independent government or have negotiated the right, then they have no right to arbitrarily and unilaterally redefine and exclude citizens.

Let's compare Quebec to the only other example of "a nation within the framework of a country". The First Nations. More specifically, for me since I have resided in a Innu community, the Innu of Labrador.

Do you think for one instant that your rights would be the same as the Innu if you lived in their community? Do you think they would let you live there? They may let you live there, although I am sure you would be tolerated and not welcomed (ie you'd be there in all likelihood for a self-serving reason .. work that they need done). The language of "business" is not English - it is Inuktatuk. Now "citizenship" would be determined by your third generation. (grand parents, you being the first generation) .... but they won't be catering to your English.

If you were living in an Innu community (I'll use the one I lived in for a few months), say Nain, you would be subject to different education (they get free university for the most part), different medical treatments (treatments would be the wrong word here since under the constitution medical treatments are a right of all ... Insurance is the word), a flash of their LIA cards (their proof of citizenship) opens doors for them that would shut for you..... they are allowed to hunt differently, fish differently etc.

The Innu presumably do it to protect their culture, their ancestoral way of life ... Quebec is not even scraping the surface as to what "arbitrarily and unilaterally redefines and excludes citizens" in parts of Canada.

[franko]

The thing is, if yo move to Quebec you should learn the language, just as if you moved to the west coast you should learn dude Spain you should learn Spanish. But at the same time, until China takes over, English is the international language of trade and it is important to know as well.

The days of enforced bilingualism are not yet behind us and there are still some hard feelings that this has been foisted and forced on TROC, but the coming generation sees it as part of life so its no big deal.

For curiosity sake, Doc, what do you think of Preston Manning's thought that of course Quebec society is distinct -- all societies are.

[Doc Holliday]

franko said:

For curiosity sake, Doc, what do you think of Preston Manning's thought that of course Quebec society is distinct -- all societies are.

snif! snif!

...Do I smell a trap?

[franko]

docholliday said:

franko said:

For curiosity sake, Doc, what do you think of Preston Manning's thought that of course Quebec society is distinct -- all societies are.

snif! snif!

...Do I smell a trap?

Not at all -- you smell ongoing discussion and dialogue from someone who is interested in increasing knowledge of someone's viewpoint.

Manning made sense to me on one level, because if Quebec is distinct from Alberta then Alberta is distinct from Quebec. otoh, if everyone is special, no one is.

Distinct: shades of horror once again.

[Doc Holliday]

franko said:

docholliday said:

snif! snif!

...Do I smell a trap?

Not at all -- you smell ongoing discussion and dialogue from someone who is interested in increasing knowledge of someone's viewpoint.

Manning made sense to me on one level, because if Quebec is distinct from Alberta then Alberta is distinct from Quebec. otoh, if everyone is special, no one is.

Distinct: shades of horror once again.

...I personally think that a strong partnership between provinces and or territories, without a strong central government that think it knows what's best for everyone, would be better, but I disgress....

I believe Quebec is distinct as it is the largest french territory in North America, surrounded in a sea of english speaking territories and as such should have mechanisms in place to protect and promote it's unique identity, language and culture. Quebec is, right now, the only province with traditional demands towards Canada in that sense. If other provinces feel they should have certain mechanism in place to protect their unicity, I say it's up to them to fight their own fight...

[duster]

skilly said:

The Innu presumably do it to protect their culture, their ancestoral way of life ... Quebec is not even scraping the surface as to what "arbitrarily and unilaterally redefines and excludes citizens" in parts of Canada.

Perhaps not officially Skilly, but it still does. Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on cultural and ethnic identity, has always been an anathema to Quebec. In fact, Bernard Landry recently denied that Quebec was multicultural. Instead, he calls it "intercultural" with the French language being predominant. I suspect the Innu feel the same way about their own society, but I hope they are, at least, candid enough not to claim its for secular reasons.

What I find unappealing about Marois proposal is that it claims secularism yet it isn't. Quebec may claim it's a secular society but don't you dare propose in the National Assembly that wearing a cross is the same as wearing a yarmuk, veil etc...For example, the Quebec Council on the Status of Women proclaimed recently that in the name of a secular, egalitarian state, all public employees should remove their hijabs, yarmulkes and other religious symbols. The council made an exception, though, for the cross. Now, why is that? In Quebec, it seems secularism often extends only as far as the nearest crucifix.

Jean Charest created a commission last February dealing with immigration and the Quebec identity. There was good cause. If Christianity is the exception to the rule, the target of the rule is more often than not Islam. Consider what happened in Herouxville. To be fair, it's not just in Quebec. However, a recent SES poll by the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy asked the question "Is it is reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities?" A whopping 77% of Quebecers said no as compared to 37% country wide. I wonder what francophone immigrants from North Africa think about that. Is mandatory catholicism next?

Its entirely possible that Marois is not trying to build a better Quebec or protect its culture, but may be simply trying to cater to those 77% who think accommodating immigrants is wrong. No more, no less. If it is, it's pretty cynical and makes me glad I left.