Canada Rocks!
The one recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation that was not met with total indifference was the idea that we should revive the use of the term “French-Canadian” to designate the white, catholic descendents of the French settlers that are otherwise designated as “Pur Laine” or “Old Stock” Québécois.
The idea was universally ridiculed. Sovereignists objected that they were not Canadians. Federalists took offence that they should wear an hyphenated label in their own country. Third generation French-speaking federalist descendents of Portuguese immigrants wondered if the label applied to them or not.
The two wise men did have a point. If Québécois is to designate all the people of Québec, we need some sort of word to designate the white French-speaking majority, if only because without it the Canadian media will have to project all of it’s self-righteous fear of Others on the Americans, and that’s bad for business.
But on this Canada Day I want to bring to your attention the fact that there is second very important word missing from both the French and English languages. How do you call English-speaking Canadians?
Belgium is the name of the country shared two people, the Dutch-speaking Flemish and the French-speaking Wallons. Britain is the country shared by the English, Welsh and Scots. All these people can call themselves British without fear of losing their own national identity. European is a label increasingly popular with a younger generation that can use it without feeling like they are abandoning their French, Spanish or Greek identity.
Canada is the union of the Québécois and the, well, eh… Canadians….
If Canada is to remain united (for many reasons the AGF is not a supporter of a united Canada, but for argument’s sake, let’s suppose he is) it needs an umbrella identity that can be used as a label for all the people living in the federation without implying that their more specific identity is not valid anymore.
That label is probably… Canada and Canadian.
Canadian was until the 20th century the label used to describe exclusively the French-speaking North Americans. Since the second world war, the label has been embraced by English-speaking Canadians while it was rejected by a growing number of French-speakers. On early maps and journals by the settlers, Canadian was a word used to describe natives.
As a label that was once used to describe all three of Canada’s founding peoples, Canadian is the obvious choice for a general name for all inhabitants of the federation the way British is used for the English, Scots and Welsh.
So now the problem is: We need a name for those darn English-speakers!
Although it is sometimes resented for a variety of reasons, I say we should baptize English-Canada The ROC. I mean officially.
Beyond it’s etymological root of Rest Of Canada that some find reductive, ROC is the only name for English-Canada as a whole that has any sort of real use in current language.
ROC has some geographical grounding, evoking the Canadian Shield, the Rocky mountains and The Rock, Newfoundland. ROC also evokes English-Canada’s extremely successful music scene and the rugged rock and roll sport of hockey.
Not to be underestimated, ROC sounds cool. There are worst things that could happen to English-Canadians than to become known as Rockers!
If it was up to me, here’s what I’d give you for your birthday, Canada: I’d get the House of Commons to officially recognize the ROC Nation!
Happy Canada Day
AngryFrenchGuy 
AFG is a cheap French provocateur.
ethnic
June 29, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I`ve always hated ROC. It is the english Canadian equivalent to french-speaking Quebecer. As though the majority needs a term that differentiates it from a minority. Worse than that, rest of implies a secondary status. You have Canada, then you have the remnants, once Quebec is excluded.
If you must, I`d go with english or french Canadian. The francophones seem to have more of a problem with this than anglophones, at least those in Quebec, but I think it correctly describes a sub-group of the country without designating one as superior.
RoryBellows
June 30, 2008 at 12:39 am
Canada is not the partnership of the Québécois and ROC, because there are lots of non-Quebec francophones.
The arrogance of deliberately overlooking them year after year, scorning them, insulting them — just like the French do with Quebec! Or the Americans with us.
AFG, you’re a pitiful coward. You took down your previous post, embracing anti-Latino xenophobia, in a hurry. What’s the matter, it’s OK to want to assimilate anglos but not your fellow Catholics?
le Marquis de Retour
June 30, 2008 at 1:00 am
Quebecois + ROC excludes more than just non-Quebec francophones, but you can`t grant everyone nation status, Acadians and first nations notwithstanding.
They are simply a national minority, like anglo-Quebecers and other minorities who have chosen not to assimilate. Nothing wrong with that, but in a post Quebec independance situation, I wouldn`t expect english Canadians or french Quebecers to be refered to as anything other than Canadians or Quebecois.
RoryBellows
June 30, 2008 at 1:27 am
Of course, Quebec is a nation according to the Prime Minister. Doesn’t that make all the difference?
Neil McKenty
June 30, 2008 at 8:32 am
Almost all the people I know in the ROC hate the term “English Canadian” and generally feel it is something that has been illegitimately foisted upon them by Quebec (where use of the French equivalent “Canada anglais” is totally pervasive). My experience is that even those who are descendants of United Empire Loyalists reject the English Canadian appellation. People have really bought into the whole multiculturalism dogma, so much so that they often tend to overestimate how Japanese someone like David Suzuki is, as opposed to how English Canadian he is. The fact is that someone like David Suzuki probably has much more in common with Pierre Berton than he does with Akira Kurosawa.
Another point is that people are far too obsessed with inclusiveness, which fundamentally is actually a good thing. But the problem is that every time someone says that the ROC is mainly English-speaking, someone shouts out: yes, but what about the X number of speakers of such and such. The same thing with Quebec: we can’t say that it’s predominantly French-speaking just because a certain percentage speaks English, Urdu, Inuktitut, Italian, etc.?
I think it is safe to say we have passed the dark era where saying that such and such a place is French, English or German (hey! Germany has lots of Poles and Turks, so we can’t say Germany is German, right?) means that somehow we are going to go out and kill everyone who doesn’t fit the description.
With a handful of exceptions, Canada outside Quebec is an English-speaking territory. This is patently obvious even to a preschooler. The same goes for Quebec, which is a French-speaking place. If you have any doubts, travel in both places with any preschooler and they will tell you how things are!
Acajack
June 30, 2008 at 9:24 am
I forgot to make one point:
I guess the true determinant of how people should be called is how they themselves self-identify. I the case of people living Canada outside Quebec who speak English (or have adopted English), they are unanimously “Canadians”.
Sometimes, in terms of geography and Olympic medallists and national hockey team players, this moniker includes the entire population of the province of Quebec. In other cases, such as “the greatest Canadian movies of all time”, “Canada’s all-time top-rated TV shows” or “all-Canadian Canada Day music sets” like you will hear tomorrow on radio stations, this only includes material produced in the English language, which effectively excludes the vast majority of the culture of Quebec.
Acajack
June 30, 2008 at 9:56 am
“In other cases, such as “the greatest Canadian movies of all time”, “Canada’s all-time top-rated TV shows” or “all-Canadian Canada Day music sets” like you will hear tomorrow on radio stations, this only includes material produced in the English language, which effectively excludes the vast majority of the culture of Quebec.”
Well, I suppose that could be the truth but then again in Quebec they have the ‘fete national” and I dont think there is a lot of anglo culture included in that venue – maybe I am wrong.
The Leonard Cohen tribute at the MTL Jazz festival was very good last week. Interesting, a lot of people there and they all seemed to get along fine whether franco or anglo. Schwartz’s is still the best.
ABP
ABP
June 30, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“Well, I suppose that could be the truth but then again in Quebec they have the ‘fete national” and I dont think there is a lot of anglo culture included in that venue – maybe I am wrong.”
There is indeed very little anglo culture represented at the June 24 shows in Quebec. I guess the main difference I see between the two is that the “Canadian patriots” who will be playing wall-to-wall Rush, Blue Rodeo and Colin James tomorrow pretend this is somehow representative of all of Canada. People may not agree with the St-Jean-Baptiste celebrations’ angle, but at least it comes clean. Canada Day professes to be a celebration of all of Canada, and a big part of Canada is still Quebec and francophones. The federally-sponsored Canada Day festivities actually do an excellent job on this. It’s when your local classic rock station gets involved where the French element disappears. A cynic would say that that’s actually much more representative of average people’s real vision of their country than the government-sanction bilingual fest.
Quebec nationalists on the other hand don’t pull any punches about what they’re celebrating: a French-speaking Quebec where English is certainly present, but it’s just one minority group among others. The notion of a bilingual Quebec (like many Quebec anglos still dream of) is totally absent, and even abhorred by these people.
Acajack
June 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“There is indeed very little anglo culture represented at the June 24 shows in Quebec. ”
Yes, I watched some of the celebration on the peoples french channel..(was a day late for the fete nationale in Montreal) .Nothing anglo I agree. But then it is a Quebec french holiday so why would there be anything else. Logically what one would expect. Nothing wrong with that.
“A cynic would say that that’s actually much more representative of average people’s real vision of their country than the government-sanction bilingual fest.”
Perhaps your cynics view is correct with regards to the average people both in and outside of Quebec.
“Canada Day professes to be a celebration of all of Canada, and a big part of Canada is still Quebec and francophones.”
No doubt, but many of the Quebecois would rather “move” on that date than celebrate the national holiday…This is of course their choice. They elect to celebrate their own holiday on June 24th….Of which the rest of the country largely does not particpate but neither condems the celebration. There are a few Canada day celebrations in Quebec but I do note many francophones celebrating the holiday with gusto in New Brunswick as well as other provinces.
“It’s when your local classic rock station gets involved where the French element disappears”
Radio stations are motivated by demographics and advertising revenue….if they play a lot of anglo music on Canada day there must be a lot of franco listeners or they wouldn’t bother. I am thinking a lot of young francos listen to anglo rock… Good anglo musicians in this country and very good franco musicians as well.
“Quebec nationalists on the other hand don’t pull any punches about what they’re celebrating”
No they certainly have not pulled any punches….but then they are on the demise in Quebec. Recent polls indicate 30% or less.
“The notion of a bilingual Quebec (like many Quebec anglos still dream of) is totally absent, and even abhorred by these people.”
Odd, the anglos in english canada have spent billions on tax dollars on bilingualism (quite a failed program I must admit) and the Quebecors you illustrate (nationalists) are against bilingual anglo/franco programs. There seems to be something wrong here, as I would think furthering the franco programs in english canada would reinforce the french language in canada and therefore in NA and Quebec itself. Or, is there another agenda whereby the Quebec nationalists don’t wish the culture and language to be known by a majority as they would lose their unique identity.??
You have a good Canada day Acajack.
ABP
ABP
July 1, 2008 at 12:05 am
Happy Canada Day to you too ABP.
“Radio stations are motivated by demographics and advertising revenue….if they play a lot of anglo music on Canada day there must be a lot of franco listeners or they wouldn’t bother. I am thinking a lot of young francos listen to anglo rock…”
I was actually talking about radio stations in the ROC. Living close to the border with Ontario, I can actually listen to several of them here from Ontario in Western Quebec. A lot of them have Canada Day all-day all-Canadian special programming today, all of which is completely devoid of anything in French.
Quebec radio stations generally don’t program anything special for Canada Day (although almost all of them do for St-Jean-Baptiste, which is usually 100% francophone programming). On Canada Day, Quebec pop radio stations will play what they usually do any other day of the year, a mix of songs in French, in English and the odd one in Spanish perhaps. Sure, young francophones listen to popular music in English, but there’s not really anything patriotically Canadian to this. Kids in Quebec listen to English-language music for the same reason kids in Sweden and Poland listen to English-language music.
“No they certainly have not pulled any punches….but then they are on the demise in Quebec. Recent polls indicate 30% or less.“
Support for independence has certainly declined a little in recent years, but I wouldn`t say there has been a decline in broader Quebec nationalism (a different creature that brings together both separatists and a larger group that doesn`t necessarily want to separate but wants its identity secure). A clear majority of people in Quebec still identify as Québécois first, Canadians second, and many of these people would not vote for independence.
Though it may appear contradictory to many flag-waving patriotic Canadians in the ROC, for lots of people in Quebec, being a Québécois nationalist, attending a St-Jean-Baptiste show with a Quebec flag in your hand, yet wanting to remain Canadian is not mutually exclusive.
Acajack
July 1, 2008 at 6:05 am
“Though it may appear contradictory to many flag-waving patriotic Canadians in the ROC, for lots of people in Quebec, being a Québécois nationalist, attending a St-Jean-Baptiste show with a Quebec flag in your hand, yet wanting to remain Canadian is not mutually exclusive.”
Why? It doesnt appear contradictory…it is contradictory….
ABP
ABP
July 1, 2008 at 4:18 pm
ABP. Explain how it is contradictory, please.
angryfrenchguy
July 1, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“Why? It doesnt appear contradictory…it is contradictory….”
Not really. There is more than one way to be a Québécois, and one does not necessarily have to be for independence to be proud of Quebec. The two identities are not mutually exclusive, as evidenced by the cars I saw here over the past week flying both Quebec and Canadian flags.
As Jean Chrétien himself once said: “Quebec is my home, and Canada is my country.” (OK, I wasn’t his biggest fan, but there is no inherent contradiction in what he said.)
Acajack
July 2, 2008 at 8:15 am
“There are a few Canada day celebrations in Quebec…”
Interestingly enough, aside from the big bash in Ottawa, the lion’s share of the federal government’s Canada Day festivities budget is spent in Quebec. The justification for this, according to the federal government, is that most municipalities in Quebec do not organize Canada Day celebrations (whereas most municipalities outside Quebec do), and so not doing anything would leave most places in Quebec totally devoid of festivities on July 1.
So, stuff does take place on July 1 in Quebec, although more subdued that the St-Jean-Baptiste festivities (which most Quebec municipalities do take part in) taking place exactly one week earlier. Also, Quebec’s francophone media no longer snub Canada Day, which they had sometimes been known to do in the past.
“…but I do note many francophones celebrating the holiday with gusto in New Brunswick as well as other provinces.”
My personal experience has been that Canada Day is a very big day for Franco-Ontarians. Actually, it’s a huge deal and by far the biggest day of the year for Franco-Ontarians. Although it is making a very modest comeback, very few Franco-Ontarians celebrate St-Jean-Baptiste Day, which is technically their celebration as well, since he is the patron saint of all French Canadians.
Canada Day is also marked by francophones in New Brunswick as you mentioned, although the Acadians do have their own “fête nationale” (distinct from both Canada Day and St-Jean-Baptiste) which is a much bigger deal for most of them, as anyone who has ever been in the Acadian Peninsula on August 15 can attest.
Acajack
July 2, 2008 at 8:51 am
“Canada Day is also marked by francophones in New Brunswick as you mentioned, although the Acadians do have their own “fête nationale” (distinct from both Canada Day and St-Jean-Baptiste) which is a much bigger deal for most of them, as anyone who has ever been in the Acadian Peninsula on August 15 can attest.”
I was not aware of this….interesting. Also, interesting point about the federal funding of Canada Day in Quebec.
I suppose one can be a Canadian and a Quebecois at the same time as I believe most in Quebec view themselves. The car with the Canadian flag and the Quebec flag was a nice touch.
a plus tard
ABP
ABP
July 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm
ABP,
Acajack nails it with that quote from Jean Chrétien. Similarly, I sometimes remember my grandfather who illustrated perfectly what you perceive as a contradiction.
-Though the man was a hardcore federalist, though he was firmly convinced that Quebec could not survive outside of Canada (and though he especially feared that he would lose his pension after independence…), he would always talk about his travels to other provinces as his “trips to Canada”. («Quand j’ai été au Canada l’été passé…».)
Was it a slip of the tongue on his part ? Not at all. He was expressing the reality of this country from a Quebec perspective.
Politically, Canada is a federation : A political association/partnership between 10 states/provinces. But nationally, it is a different matter.
When “nation” is taken to mean spontaneous adherence to a history, a culture and a language, Canada is really 2 nations : 1 English and 1 French, with some mixed zones.
(I’m leaving Native nations out for simplicity’s sake here.)
In the mind of a Quebecker going West or East in the country, “family” stops when people don’t speaking French anymore and when they don’t share their cultural references.
In the same way, Quebeckers may recognize Burton Cummings and Neil Young as great Canadian artists, but they will never feel the same proximity with them as they do with Jean-Pierre Ferland or Robert Charlebois, for example. -The latter are family; the former are neighbors: Maybe more familiar than Americans, but neighbors nonetheless.
Only Anglo-Canadians (or “Rockers”) can avoid seeing their country this way. And when they do so, it is by completely overlooking the distinct culture and history that exists in the basin formed by French-speaking Quebec, Ontario and New-Brunswick. And especially by overlooking the attachment that Francophones feel towards that distinct culture and that history.
Contrast the anecdote about my granddad with this one :
During my second year working in Alberta, I was having a conversation with work colleagues. I remember sending one of them into a fury by making a comment. I don’t remember what we were talking about nor even the comment I made exactly, but I’d started my sentence with : « You Canadians… ».
-The guy went mad : « What do you mean “You Canadians” ? Like you aren’t a Canadian !? ».
For him, it was as if I had de facto proclaimed the independence of Quebec…
Yet I wasn’t even a sovereignist at the time. For me, it was the expression of a spontaneous feeling : I wasn’t at home in my culture over there. I was in Canadian culture, which was apparently shared by people from B-C to Newfoundland, but which only superficially intersected with my own.
…
There are no contradiction, ABP. Whether a Quebecker wants the province to remain in Canada or wants it to regain its sovereignty, whether they are attached to the federation or not, they rarely perceive Canada as their own nation : They perceive it as an allied neighbour.
The only difference is whether they want to continue linking their destiny with that neighbour, and on what terms, or not.
…
http://pages.infinit.net/mseymour/apage/cambridge.html
Raman
July 2, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I believe AFG is on the right track, if we assume the hypothesis that Canada can be reformed, which no rational person can seriously hope for in the present context. Indeed, there is a problem with the word “Canada” and how different groups relate and have related to this word over time.
However, I do not think we should rename Canada’s second nation of European origin, nor the first one, but the greater ensemble itself. Peoples don’t let themselves be renamed easily.
Here is one possibility that would be respectful of the identities of our present generations:
– Rest of Canadians remain simply “Canadians”.
– Quebecers remain “Quebecers”.
– Canada is renamed “Borealia”, “Septentrionalis”, or “Nordica”. Let’s say the first is chosen.
Borealia, a coast-to-coast federation is made out of two constituent countries: Canada, subdivided in 9 provinces and Quebec, subdivided into 17 regions.
Canadians, who are a loving people and despite their numerical superiority recognize the equality of Quebecers within an equal union of the peoples of Borealia. Remapping, so as to give countries to the most populous Aboriginal nations, should be done gradually.
The members of the Quebec(ian) diaspora, scattered across North America, mostly in the USA, are invited to return to the country of their ancestors in a great Zionist Master Plan or else accept that they will have no special linguistic rights other minorities don’t have as well.
Likewise, the Canadian colony of Quebec is permanently dismantled, that is to say the institutions dependent upon Ottawa within our national territory are removed, and Canado-Quebecers accept that if they live in Quebec, they are still in Borealia but not in Canada, and therefore have no special linguistic rights other minorities don’t have.
Borealia would then be comparable to Switzerland, Belgium, India, or South Africa, where the coexistence of multiple national groups within a common State is already a reality because no single linguistic group over there denies the collective rights of others.
Mathieu Gauthier-Pilote
July 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm
ABP,
Acajack nails it with that quote from Jean Chrétien. Similarly, I sometimes remember my grandfather who illustrated perfectly what you perceive as a contradiction.
-Though the man was a hardcore federalist, though he was firmly convinced that Quebec could not survive outside of Canada (and though he especially feared that he would lose his pension after independence…), he would always talk about his travels to other provinces as his “trips to Canada”. («Quand j’ai été au Canada l’été passé…».)
Was it a slip of the tongue on his part ? Not at all. He was expressing the reality of this country from a Quebec perspective.
Politically, Canada is a federation : A political association/partnership between 10 states/provinces. But nationally, it is a different matter.
When “nation” is taken to mean spontaneous adherence to a history, a culture and a language, Canada is really 2 nations : 1 English and 1 French, with some mixed zones.
(I’m leaving Native nations out for simplicity’s sake here.)
In the mind of a Quebecker going West or East in the country, “family” stops when people don’t speaking French anymore and when they don’t share their cultural references.
In the same way, Quebeckers may recognize Burton Cummings and Neil Young as great Canadian artists, but they will never feel the same proximity with them as they do with Jean-Pierre Ferland or Robert Charlebois, for example. -The latter are family; the former are neighbors: Maybe more familiar than Americans, but neighbors nonetheless.
Only Anglo-Canadians (or “Rockers”) can avoid seeing their country this way. And when they do so, it is by completely overlooking the distinct culture and history that exists in the basin formed by French-speaking Quebec, Ontario and New-Brunswick. And especially by overlooking the attachment that Francophones feel towards that distinct culture and that history.
Contrast the anecdote about my granddad with this one :
During my second year working in Alberta, I was having a conversation with work colleagues. I remember sending one of them into a fury by making a comment. I don’t remember what we were talking about nor even the comment I made exactly, but I’d started my sentence with : « You Canadians… ».
-The guy went mad : « What do you mean “You Canadians” ? Like you aren’t a Canadian !? ».
For him, it was as if I had de facto proclaimed the independence of Quebec…
Yet I wasn’t even a sovereignist at the time. For me, it was the expression of a spontaneous feeling : I wasn’t at home in my culture over there. I was in Canadian culture, which was apparently shared by people from B-C to Newfoundland, but which only superficially intersected with my own.
…
There are no contradiction, ABP. Whether a Quebecker wants the province to remain in Canada or wants it to regain its sovereignty, whether they are attached to the federation or not, they rarely perceive Canada as their own nation : They perceive it as an allied neighbour.
The only difference is whether they want to continue linking their destiny with that neighbour, and on what terms, or not.
…
PS- I tried to post this comment earlier, but it never appeared… Maybe because I’d posted a link at the end. So sorry if it re-shows up later.
Raman
July 2, 2008 at 3:29 pm
« Borealia, a coast-to-coast federation is made out of two constituent countries: Canada, subdivided in 9 provinces and Quebec, subdivided into 17 regions. »
Mathieu,
What you describe is nearly the essence of the federative deal that French-Canadians thought they were getting themselves into originally, in 1867. Indeed, it is the bi-national federation that Georges-Étienne Cartier fought for, against the more centralizing views of McDonald.
Many a sovereignist feels that English-Canada only paid lip service to that deal, while pursuing (still to this day) McDonald’s vision.
Raman
July 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Interesting anecdote from yesterday evening…
While washing the dishes, I was listening to Radio-Canada’s daily business show, called L’Heure des Comptes. There was a report on a possible lucrative contract for Quebec corporation Bombardier with the Toronto Transit Commission. The equipment is to be built at Bombardier’s Thunder Bay plant.
I think I heard the entire report, which featured comments from Toronto city councillor Doug Holliday, a European expert with an Asian-sounding name and a Bombardier spokesperson. All of these people except one spoke French in their interventions. Guess which one?
The Bombardier representative!
I found it odd, but said to myself, well, maybe he’s the manager of the Thunder Bay plant or something, so that would explain why he doesn’t speak French.
But I was still curious, so I snooped around and found out that the dude’s name is David Slack, and he’s not just some plant manager from northwestern Ontario, he’s the Director of Communications for all of Bombardier. And he works out of the head office in St-Bruno, in the Montérégie region east of Montreal.
Maybe Slack does speak French, who knows. But if he did, wouldn’t he have spoken it with a reporter from Radio-Canada’s national radio network? I know that most federal departments and many national companies are loathe to have someone on the French-language news representing them speaking only in English, if only for issues of “optics”, and I would tend to think that if Mr. Slack could have, he would have.
Acajack
July 3, 2008 at 10:00 am
i like your writings. i really vibrated to your article on the need for a representative english language media for the Quebec french to communicate with english-speakers. i’m irish, living in bucharest. i have a story, a news story of sorts, relevant in quebec city from 2-10 july, related to UNESCO World Heritage Congress. And i need some help to understand who to make contact with in media there to highlight the problem. thank you very much.
peter hurley
July 3, 2008 at 12:01 pm
kiss an AMERICAN ass , if you don’t like AMERICA Stay out , Most of us don’t really give a shit what the french think or like . I visited your frenchy land pairass, wasted five days of my life there , just had to see for my self why the french are so gelious of AMERICA , Now I Know , you people don’t bathe , and find it ok to you the sub ways for waste facilities ! You win frenchy , I will stay here and you stay there , and that way we can just try and work on our own local problems , I think AMERICA has a lot less to work on than does France ! If you Love France , thats Good You defend her ! Thank You ! Mike .
mike chapman
July 3, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Acajack,
The head office of Bombardier Transport is in Berlin. (ie as in Deutschland that is) The St-Bruno office is HQ for North America Transport division.
The corporate HQ is in downtown Montreal while the HQ of the aviation division is in Dorval.
Dave
July 3, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t odd that a company founded in Quebec that is supposed to be the pride of joy of this province has a spokesperson for North America (which includes Quebec at last check) that can’t even give a 20-second quote in French to Radio-Canada.
Perhaps Mr. Slack is really good in German…
Acajack
July 4, 2008 at 8:09 am
Acajack,
Given the nature of Bombardier’s transportation business (global and dependent on large government contracts), while it does play up it’s Quebec/Canada roots in this country, rest assured it does not highlight it elsewhere. You think that when it’s bidding for a $100 million contract to build trains for SNCF, it is telling French politicians what a nice Quebec-based company it is. No, it’s telling them about the number of people it employs in France and how many indirect jobs the project will create.
The point is, Bombardier does whatever it needs to win business. If that means having most of its transportation business employees in countries that hand out a lot of business, that is what it will do. And that is exactly what it should be doing.
Anonymous
July 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“Why? It doesnt appear contradictory…it is contradictory….”
BQ and PQ for a start.
Do they have the best interests of the union in mind or the best interests of Quebec…including separatiste…or indepetiste as you wish to identified by…. what is it , in or out or just a grey area…to be capitlized on.
ABP
ABP
July 5, 2008 at 1:28 am
Yeah that Chrétien quote ROCKS. It reminds me of the Expo 86 theme song, “BC my home, proud to be Canadian”. BC has a little healthy rivalry with the ROC, according to them, anything east of the rockies.
It is true that BC has more in common culturally with Seattle, Portland or San Fransisco or even Hong Kong than Calgary or the strange lands 5000 km east of that. That being said, Canada’s strength is its diversity and most british columbians enjoy being part of a union that respects, even fosters that diversity.
BC is a strange place, Canada allows us to remain so. It is a tough world out there. To quote another liberal, Hedy Fry from Vancouver Center, Canadian diversity is our strength. it is our “weapon of mass inclusion”!
Randy Weinstein
September 1, 2008 at 10:29 am