Election 2012: Will History repeat itself? Union National splits vote, PQ wins power.

[EagerBeaver]

Gugu,

In my experience as an American tourist in Montreal, I have found that in downtown stores I am typically greeted in French and they quickly switch over to English once I open my mouth and they hear that I am an American.

I do find it a bit odd that when I am wearing a "UConn Basketball" T Shirt and a New York Yankees baseball cap, the greeting still comes in French anyway. If you actually go to a UConn basketball game in Storrs, CT you are very unlikely to find a Francophone in the seats.

 

[Techman]

In the name of money?

In the name of economic survival and growth. We currently live in the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America and we have the most government waste. There is no sign that that will change anytime soon. That is unacceptable. Language laws have aided in keeping our economy down and as a result we lose many of our most talented graduates from our schools when they move to greener pastures in order to earn a better living and have a better life. But I'm sure there are those who will say that it's only a coincidence and has nothing to do with separatism in Quebec. To them I say bullshit. I'm sorry if freedom of education for all citizens of Quebec hurts the French fact in Montreal and points West. But to be blunt about it, too fucking bad. Life is what it is and you cannot artificially maintain a culture or language by force of law. Especially laws that would not be possible in an independant Quebec.

Being greeted with "Bonjour" does not insult anybody but the most narrow minded people in Montréal. It's a french city. It's part of the tourist experience. I don't feel insulted not being greeted in french or english when I travel in South America or Asia.

But being greeted by "Hi" or "Hello" would be an insult in Quebec? That also is only an insult to the most narrow minded of people. But such a greeting is ILLEGAL UNDER LAW in Quebec. Can you imagine it? Words being illegal?

There is so little respect for the English population in Quebec that there is no English or even bilingual debate being presented. Both were offered and all candidates accepted except for one. Guess who? Yes, Madame Marois herself. The English population of this city and this province are of zero consequence to the person who may well become premier of this province. Nice.

 

[Techman]

Gugu,

In my experience as an American tourist in Montreal, I have found that in downtown stores I am typically greeted in French and they quickly switch over to English once I open my mouth and they hear that I am an American.

I do find it a bit odd that when I am wearing a "UConn Basketball" T Shirt and a New York Yankees baseball cap, the greeting still comes in French anyway. If you actually go to a UConn basketball game in Storrs, CT you are very unlikely to find a Francophone in the seats.

That's because it's illegal to great a customer in English first in Quebec even if you hear them speaking English to their friends beforehand. This can lead to complaints to the OQLF by a customer who witnesses it and lead to fines from the language police. And of course, all such complaints may be made anonymously. When it comes to language issues, you have no right to confront your accuser.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

I do find it a bit odd that when I am wearing a "UConn Basketball" T Shirt and a New York Yankees baseball cap, the greeting still comes in French anyway.

How would you greet someone in the U.S. if they were wearing a cap with a national flag of France? Yes, I get it that many in Montreal are bilingual, but still. I often wear my Ellis Island cap with an American flag and I've never thought it was odd to be greeted in French by bilinguals in Montreal.

You should be grateful they speak to you at all with that Yankees cap. I got applause when I walked Ste. Catherine with my bright red 2004 Red Sox Championship Team Jacket. Yes, Montreallers have CLASS!!! :thumb:

The law is not necessary to protect the Quebecois culture because no law is capable of protecting it.

I hate to have to hit you with reality, but Haitians and Arabs and Greeks and Asians and Italians and Americans and whatever other ethnic group you can think of who immigrate to Quebec are not and never will be Pur Laine Quebecois. They may speak the French language but they will never adopt the Quebecois 'culture'.

Who is asking them or trying to make them Pur Laine, which is a concoction of ignorance in the first place. How could learning another language make anyone Pur Laine? The concept is a non-starter.

What's insulting is the idea of immigrants being expected to give up their own culture and mother tongue to adopt ours. I guess that's to be expected of a culture that only goes back a couple of hundred years as opposed to thousands of years when talking about Arab, Asian, Greek, Jewish and other cultures, but thinks theirs is so superiour that it deserves to have laws to protect it when it is not strong enough to survive on it's own merits.

I would like for anyone to show us any provision in any law of Quebec that makes immigrants..."give up their culture".

This whole giving up your own culture view is a misdirection. Name any country in the world where that country does not expect immigrants seeking citizenship to adapt to the local language. Yet, those immigrants often maintain their original basic culture and beliefs while adding local traditions, even when they conflict with their heritage. The inference that having to learn the local language is unusual and unfair is false. In every country immigrants (those seeking citizenship) adapt willingly by necessity regardless of the absence of prescribed laws. It does not mean losing the past, it means growing to prosper more easily among the prevalent society. Sure being forced to learn a new language by law is a cynical coercion. The law should be amended to protect by choice not coerce against preferences.

As for the claim that immigrants will never change and force the local prevailing culture into oblivion, it's Fallacy! The U.S. has had 90 million immigrants up to 1940 from every country in the world in huge numbers, that's 11 times the current total population of Quebec. Between 1900 and 1940 there were 61 million immigrants out of a total population of 135 million, that's 45% immigrants, a much larger segment than that in Quebec, and still they adapted to the local language. Yet ancient traditions continue among the various cultures.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab01.html

Using the language issue as specter that threatens culture is half true at best. For example, one of the smallest population segments in any country where they exist at all is the Jewish people. Despite being spread in many dozens of countries and being threatened to the point of attempted extermination their culture and beliefs survive intact after 3000 years after the worst possible attacks on them. In the U.S they (and other cultures) are very distinct, but still every bit Americans despite the preservation of their ancient cultural identity too.

Techman,

[h=2]The language of Money, the language of Life[/h]Yes, the language of money in the world is English. But that applies all over the world, where the living language of the people is not English.

In the name of money?

The idea that the language of money being English requires any country to give up it's language is another misdirection. Thanks to EB's prompt I read yesterday that the Swiss easily maintain three distinct languages though they mandate learning English as the dominant language in science and academia. There's no need to give up your national or cultural language because "the language of money in the world is English."

OK, sapman, find me one instance where I said I wanted Bill 101 abolished? I don't. I have no problem with requiring French to be on all business signs, even being predominant. Not necessarily twice the size though, but predominant. I also believe that all public signs that deal with public safety or deal with public information and are published by any level of governmen should be bilingual and of equal size here in Montreal. I have no problem with a requirement that employees be required to speak French, although I think a better requirement would be that they be BILINGUAL instead. I believe that anyone in any public position who deals with the public in Montreal should be able to communicate in both English and French as a requirement for employment. That includes anyone working for Hydro Quebec, the Montreal Police department and the Montreal Transport system.

Then I don't understand all the contentiousness in this thread. Everyone seems to agree Law 101 over-reaches and is unfair in it's more narrow coercive elements. Your paragraph here seems to say almost precisely what every else says. Aside from the irrational extremists the above makes it looks like there's nothing to argue about except some finer points.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

Who is asking them or trying to make them Pur Laine, which is a concoction of ignorance in the first place. How could learning another language make anyone Pur Laine? The concept is a non-starter.

And forcing a language on people does nothing to preserve a culture. It just makes them learn and speak the language. The culture will still eventually die out to be replaced with another, homologated culture which is exactly what I have been saying. The language laws will do nothing at all in the end to save the Quebecois culture. At best, they will result in an entirely new cultural identity with only language in common with the original that is supposed to be protected by these restrictive and discriminatory laws.

Using the language issue as specter that threatens culture is half true at best. For example, one of the smallest population segments in any country where they exist at all is the Jewish people. Despite being spread in many dozens of countries and being threatened to the point of attempted extermination their culture and beliefs survive intact after 3000 years after the worst possible attacks on them. In the U.S they (and other cultures) are very distinct, but still every bit Americans despite the preservation of their ancient cultural identity too.

Which supports my argument that the French culture in Quebec is in no danger of vanishing as long as the members of that culture actively support it. If they do not support it themselves, does it deserve to be protected like an endangered species? At least endangered species try to reproduce. But then again, raising and supporting a family is an expensive proposition and difficult to do in a depressed economy. But when it's the artificial support of that culture that is aiding to depress the economy, making it difficult to support the numbers to maintain that culture, then you find yourself in a Catch 22 situation don't you?

Aside from the irrational extremists the above makes it looks like there's nothing to argue about except some finer points.

The problem is that the irrational extremists are the ones who are in power and the ones who make the rules.

 

[sapman99]

On the election topic

In the name of economic survival and growth. We currently live in the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America and we have the most government waste. ...

There is so little respect for the English population in Quebec that there is no English or even bilingual debate being presented. Both were offered and all candidates accepted except for one. Guess who? Yes, Madame Marois herself.

You are waving a magic wand here: you make it sound as if all problems would go away with a change in language policy. Corruption, mismanagement and government bloat are not a product of linguistic policies. Plenty of other jurisdictions are at grips with those. And they need to be addressed on their own terms.

The Liberals are addicted and indebted to some pretty shady cartels. They are attempting to keep the peace with the unions while feeding at the trough and satisfying their donors in many various kinds of ways. If they get power this time the abuses will be record setting until the Charbonneau Commission either derails or points the finger where it belongs, straight at the Liberal machine. Either way, brace yourselves and always keep an eye on your pockets. The Liberals know they are on borrowed time.

A majority PQ government this time would be earth shattering. I trust Pauline Marois even less than I do Jean Charest, which is saying a lot.

But the worst thing about it is how many people it would take to make it happen: the students, people who have called for a referendum, and all the unions and guilds who have patiently been waiting for their turn at the larger dose at the trough. Pauline is in debt big time and the demands will roll in fast if she gets power. Scary.

The CAQ is proposing different models, including not talking separation for 10 years. Legault wants to kick-start Quebec and make it work in the Canadian framework. He seems willing to attack the issues of high taxes and waste which you mentioned, and is putting a premium on debt repayment, work attitude, better health and education, streamlining structures and clamping down on corruption. Sounds a bit too good to be true, but the other two alternatives scare me and even though I am sure CAQ cannot fulfill all that they are still my best bet.

Madame Marois, on refusing an English-language debate : I have to agree with you there, not very classy at all. They crunched the numbers and figured she had more to lose.

But saying "there is so little respect for the English population in Quebec" because "La Marois" and her team made that move is a large exaggeration. She is is no way, shape or form representative of the opinions of a majority of Quebecers on this. She only saved her leadership by caving in to all kinds of interests in and out of the party.

Tonight's debate on Radio-Canada: No surprise, Charest for the most looked the most "Premier" like. He has been at the game a long time and knows how to play the cameras, his opponents and the moderators.

He looked really stupid at one point. He said "hasn't the net income of the average Quebecer risen since the Liberals came to power ?". Legault replied "that was nine years ago. Of course it has risen. But back then we were in 4th place out of 10, now we are 9th, just ahead of Prince-Edward-Island".

Legault was raising some good points but debating for the cameras is clearly not his forte.

Pauline Marois was smug and arrogant. Charest justly said that not all was rose smelling during the PQ mandates. I find her very hard to like. Oddly, she reminds me of Condoleeza Rice...

The big surprise of the evening for me was Françoise David, the co-leader of Québec Solidaire. Her co-leader is Amir Khadir, who is a bit of an agitator to say the least (he was not a participant). She in contrast is a thinker and a very effective, thoughtful debater. There are many views and policies her party presents that I am not happy with including sovereignty and expanding social services instead of looking at government bloat. However, she used her time well and when she called Charest (and the others) to account a few times, I sensed they were taken aback and she was scoring major debating points. Something to be said about having nothing to lose. She would be a good Member of the National Assembly.

 

[gugu]

I do find it a bit odd that when I am wearing a "UConn Basketball" T Shirt and a New York Yankees baseball cap, the greeting still comes in French anyway. If you actually go to a UConn basketball game in Storrs, CT you are very unlikely to find a Francophone in the seats.

According to the last polls, 0.0000000009% of Quebecers, including me, know what UConn Basketball is and 50.1% think that Steinbrenner was the owner of the La Belle Province hot dog chain.

The debate.

Almost everybody in the after debate show said that Françoise David was the winner. I agree. That's good news for everybody against the PQ. She gained her poll in Gouin, in addition to Khadir who will keep Mercier.

Charest needed a kill tonight. He did not get it, not even close to it. He needs to tilt a part of the francophone vote. I see no way he did that.

Contrary to Sap, I trust Marois (even if I vote QS). I think she did well and was able to talk confidently to the population. She probably consolidated an important part of the electorate, women, who more sensible to social issues. She was on a thin line about the perspective of a referendum. But I think most Quebecers do not believe she will hold one, whatever the status of her party says. Anyway, if she gets elected, I think it is good news for Canadians opposed to Harper because he will have to compromise on a couple of social issues, the most important being the cuts in health transfers to provinces.

I do not like Legeault who, I think, wants to scrap social programs, so I can't be objective. Contrary to Charest who has a party to hold him up in his "all for economy, fuck the rest" personal philosophy, Legeault does not. I don't know if people are stupid enough to believe he will scrap the School boards (I agree with him on that specific objective), the health agencies and thousands of jobs at Hydro-Québec within 1 year without creating total chaos, but I think he looked more like a loose canon then a Prime Minister.

 

[sapman99]

That's because it's illegal to great a customer in English first in Quebec even if you hear them speaking English to their friends beforehand. This can lead to complaints to the OQLF by a customer who witnesses it and lead to fines from the language police. And of course, all such complaints may be made anonymously. When it comes to language issues, you have no right to confront your accuser.

I have started a search of the Charter on this but its' a pretty hefty document. Someone give me a hand :eyebrows: ?

 

[Zatara]

WRONG! Immigrants cannot send their children to English public schools. And if Marois has her way, that will be extended to private schools as well as CEGEP.

I know a Quebecois couple that wanted to send their child to English school, but could not. The grandmother ( a separatist all her life ) piped up and said that being Quebecois they surely had the choice. Her daughter had to tell her that they did not. The Grandmother asked how are they Maîtres chez nous if they do not have a choice.

That's because it's illegal to great a customer in English first in Quebec even if you hear them speaking English to their friends beforehand. This can lead to complaints to the OQLF by a customer who witnesses it and lead to fines from the language police. And of course, all such complaints may be made anonymously. When it comes to language issues, you have no right to confront your accuser.

This does not explain the rudeness. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. I can cure their rudeness with a hidden camera and some postings on Youtube.

 

[gugu]

I have started a search of the Charter on this but its' a pretty hefty document. Someone give me a hand :eyebrows: ?

Not sure, but I think there is no specific article on greeting of clients in the law. I think it's article 89 that applies:

"89. Where this Act does not require the use of the official language exclusively, the official language and another language may be used together."

The reason this thing became an issue in the present campaign is the release of 4 studies by the OQLF showing that the use of unilingual english welcoming in commerce has increased quite a lot in the Island of Montreal in the last 2 years.

He does not care being welcomed in whatever language. Fine. But I do, just like many Quebecers. However, as the OQLF said, nothing will change unless the customers make pressure themselves. And unfortunately they don't.

Tech is, as usual very, paranoiac on this issue. Not sure if anyone was ever condemned on the specific issue of greeting language.

 

[gugu]

The Grandmother asked how are they Maîtres chez nous if they do not have a choice.

They are Maîtres chez nous by collectively adopting laws to protect their language contrary to accepting imposed bilingualism by outsiders.

 

[sapman99]

To be verified indeed

That's because it's illegal to great a customer in English first in Quebec even if you hear them speaking English to their friends beforehand. This can lead to complaints to the OQLF by a customer who witnesses it and lead to fines from the language police. And of course, all such complaints may be made anonymously. When it comes to language issues, you have no right to confront your accuser.

This is why I half-jokingly linked a copy of the Charter with my last post. There are actually three issues he takes up with this.

1. The "greeting": As far as I know there is no "greeting" provision in the Charter. I did read that "Consumers of goods and services have a right to be informed and served in French".
2. The "snitching". Apparently there is or was a mechanism where anyone can anonymously alert the OQLF to situations that violate Bill 101. I have heard about this but I cannot find anything on it either through Google, in the Charter itself or on the OQLF site.
3. The right to face your accuser. I am not sure of this, but it stands to reason in a society of law that you ARE able to face your accuser. I think Techman is being a little creative here: more than likely this snitch line is-was collecting general information about violations to Bill 101 which would then have to go through the due diligence of an investigation to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that said violation was taking place. There are many cases in civil and criminal regulations enforcement where the "agencies" rely on tips from the public (sometimes anonymous) before launching investigations. The tips serve to focus the attention of the inspectors where most needed, but in no way, shape or form can be used as proof.

 

[gugu]

I love you tech. And just to show it to you, here's a present you'll like:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebec-is-committing-slow-motion-suicide/article4488827/

 

[sapman99]

Oh, boy

I love you tech. And just to show it to you, here's a present you'll like:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebec-is-committing-slow-motion-suicide/article4488827/

I would think I was reading to Toronto Sun with this "opinion piece". It starts out fine, criticizing Marois' so-called "Secular Charter". He starts derailing when he gets to the demographics.

The guy makes judgment calls as to which region/language group is home to the most desirable immigrants. He points out that many French speaking immigrants come from impoverished regions of the world.

We are "importing" people, not countries, to start with. You could even say that our immigrant targets makes us better humanitarians because we are helping "elevate" people from the countries who need it most. After all, the UK, the US and the rest of Canada will only be too happy to take a look at English speaking would-be immigrants. They too need immigration to bolster their declining birth rates.

Back to the Globe and Mail: I bet there is going to be hell to pay for that statement. Readers will write-in in protest, and I wouldn't be surprised if an editorial "clarified" this. I am also pretty sure this guy is going to have a friendly chat with the editor.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Quebec proves that not all is equal in Canada's equalization payment program

by John Robson

OTTAWA - Canadians have given Quebec a quarter of a trillion dollars in equalization payments since 1957, half of all the money the program has handed out. Over that span of more than 50 years, Quebec has always been the biggest beneficiary, and has never been a net contributor to equalization.

With Pauline Marois and her Parti Quebecois leading in the polls as the province approaches its Sept. 4 election, all that money doesn't seem to have won us friends or influenced people.

Equalization started small, at just $139 million in its first year. But it has grown relentlessly, to more than $15 billion this year, of which Quebec got $7.4 billion. And since Pierre Trudeau jammed it into the constitution in 1982, it would be hard to get rid of.

Supposedly the point of the program is to make sure people in poorer provinces get decent public services. But somehow, no matter how often it's redesigned, Quebec gets about half the money.

At the very beginning, Quebec pocketed only about a third of the cash. But of the $510 billion equalization shelled out since 1957 (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) Quebec has received $253 billion.

So do you think Quebecers are grateful? Or do they say: sure, we get money from Ottawa, but it's only fair because we pay into things like equalization?

You guessed it. And they do pay in. The problem is, they don't pay very much.

The finance department doesn't have straightforward numbers on how much provinces pay into equalization because, unlike programs such as the Canada Pension Plan, equalization doesn't have its own dedicated source of money. It just comes out of the feds' main general revenue account. But we can still work it out, because Statistics Canada has figures on how much each province contributed to general revenue from 1961-2009. (Although the agency says the pre-1981 numbers were calculated on a different and less satisfactory basis.)

When we do the math we find that Quebec has contributed about $107 billion of $510 billion since 1957. Since it has received $253 billion, it comes out $146 billion to the good, which amounts to inhabitants of the province getting back $2.36 for every dollar they've paid in. Some ripoff.

Equalization isn't the only federal transfer program to the provinces, of course. Ottawa hands out about $30 billion a year through the Canada Health Transfer and another $12 billion through the Canada Social Transfer to help provinces with various social programs, plus universities and colleges, plus a program to subsidize the territories and other weird side deals. But equalization is the main source of free money for the provinces to spend any way they like. And Quebec is pocketing the biggest share of it and still snarls.

This year alone, Quebec will take $7.4 billion from equalization while paying in just $2.9 billion. The $4.5 billion it gets free and clear certainly helps the provincial government spend $62.5 billion a year to buy votes with things like subsidized daycare and tuition. Without it, the deficit of debt-ridden Quebec would more than double.

Instead of saying thank you, Quebec politicians and intellectuals turn around and praise the "Quebec model" as more generous and socially minded than the chilly Anglo rest of Canada.

You're welcome.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/1...equal-in-canadas-equalization-payment-program

 

[Gentle]

Quebec proves that not all is equal in Canada's equalization payment program

Qu'ils aillent se coucher avec leur tite propagande de bébés.

Quebec paid for the rest of 'Canada' debt back when the rest of Canada wanted to call themselves a 'country' by creating this so called federation.

If they think Quebec will say thank you for all Quebec's money back then at supporting provinces living on welfare, fish and wheat they clearly are fisting themselves through the nose.

Tarsands brought $$$ to thse loving cow raiser ? then they just have to STFU and pay now ! Bwahahahahaha !
That will teach them at backstabbing Quebec for their bogus constitution.

Guess they didn't see it coming hey ?

Ain't it fun ? Everytime the PQ comes close to power or is elected, those rednecks always do in their pants !
And the worst Quebec can get in debt, the more these same rednecks will have to pay.

There is always one born every minute to think that Nationalism is dead in Quebec ! :lol:
Dire qu'ils se pettaient les bretelles parce qu'on a voté NPD au federal.

Y on rien compris encore ste gaigne de fous !

Anyway ! have fun with these stupid elections, I have an appointement this week-end at the one&only ocean club and will return only on the 7th now.
Nah nah nah nah.. hey hey goodbye !

 

[anon_vlad]

Quebec paid for the rest of 'Canada' debt back when the rest of Canada wanted to call themselves a 'country' by creating this so called federation. !

I'm not sure I understand your comment. When was this? According to the article, certainly before 1957 before most of us were alive and even before the Leafs last won the Stanley Cup.

Are you actually referring to something which happened around the time of Confederation (1867) to justify Quebec getting equalization payments for the last 55 years

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

I'm not sure I understand your comment.

I do not think that even Gentle understands his comment. Just another guy from out east who is jealous of Alberta. Blame your own politicians not the people of Alberta.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

We are "importing" people, not countries, to start with. You could even say that our immigrant targets makes us better humanitarians because we are helping "elevate" people from the countries who need it most.

The only reason you get people from Haiti for an example is because they speak French so do not make Quebec look like humanitarians, many racist people living in Quebec. Does Parizeau ring a bell? Provinces have to bring in immigrants and Quebec wants the French speaking which limits their choices. Your immigration targets are because of the language laws, no other reason. Further in the article it states that only 10% of the 15% ( immigrants that will actually help Quebec as in people with education and needed skills ) stay in Quebec, the rest leave.

 

[gugu]

Quebec proves that not all is equal in Canada's equalization payment program

Hey Doc, do you have any comment on that article? Do you think he presents the situation with objectivity or that it is a tinted editorial view? Is this economics or politics? Do you think we would have a different view if his figures were on a per capita basis? Do you think that the day care program is financed by transfer payments or by higher tax rates in Québec?