AngryFrenchGuy

Quebec’s Efforts to become 30% English

with 144 comments

Many people this week were upset at the news that the Québec government was giving lifetime access to government services in English to new immigrants.

According to a report in Le Devoir, as many as 27% of the 48 000 immigrants Québec welcomed in 2009 were designated as Anglos in the State databases, even though only 3,5% of them claimed English as their mother tongue.  According to Québec laws, government services in English are a privilege of Québec’s historic Anglo community, not a right of all citizens, even though any one can decide they are Anglo any time they want.

According to the numbers published by the daily,  many as 30% of these new members of Québec’s historic anglo community don’t even know how to speak English!

In other words, the Québec government was now in the business of teaching English as our common and business language to immigrants.

And why not?

The future of Québec’s English-speaking community is, as everyone knows, in peril.

Québec’s Anglos, live in near isolation, a whole 45 minute drive from the biggest and most powerful English-speaking nation on earth where the fragile English language media is drowning in a sea of French media imperialism that leaves them without HBO.

Québec’s 607 165 English-speaking souls, 8,2% of the population, struggle to keep a community and a network of institutions alive with only 25% of Québec’s entire Health-care budget and a mere 50% of the money ear-marked to build two new University hospitals in Montréal.

In Montréal, where  as many as 20% of the population is English-speaking, they have to make do with only 45% of the povince’s higher education budget and 57% of all university professors in the city.

There comes a time, as Angela Mancini, president of the English Montreal School Board said, when Anglos have to start thinking of themselves…

It’s only a small gesture, but maybe, just maybe, by giving up 30% of it’s immigrants to the English-speaking community, Québec can help save English in North America…

Written by angryfrenchguy

December 13, 2009 at 4:51 pm

144 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “It’s a similar story in Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland, despite efforts to keep Gaelic alive (some Gaelic schooling, radio, a new TV station, cultural activities in Gaelic) Gaelic is still declining. It’s a complete failure of intergenerational transmission – parents aren’t passing the language on to their kids. At the Gaelic medium school in Glascow, a huge number of the kids come from English/allophone households. A study in Edinburgh found the same thing – Gaels aren’t sending their kids to Gaelic schools and often not speaking to them in Gaelic, it’s the English/allophone community that is more behind maintaining the language – which makes language maintenance almost impossible because it doesn’t have a community in which to flourish. Ireland shows somewhat of a similar pattern.
    Notwithstanding centuries of language and social repression, people don’t have any pride in their minority languages or cultures (with some exceptions like Basque). It’s left to outsiders who don’t carry the baggage to try to continue the language. So it seems it’s less a debate about preserving the language as it is about boosting the esteem of an entire people. The former will happen naturally if the latter is addressed.”

    The situation in Quebec with French is not entirely analogous with that of Gaelic in Ireland and Scotland.

    For starters, there is no intergenerational transmission problem as close to 100% of francophones in Quebec pass French on to their children. This is true even of francophones who are in mixed marriages with anglophones and allophones, where a clear majority also pass on French as a mother tongue to the kids.

    Francophones in Quebec also always speak French all the time with other francophones, and will also speak French all the time with allophones perceived to be French-friendly like people of Haitian or Lebanese origin, etc. They will also speak French all the time with people with anglo-sounding names but who are obviously Frenchified like Lawrence Cannon, Steve MacKay, Nicholas Gill, Mike Ribeiro, P.J. Stock, Jim Corcoran, etc.

    Francophones also put their money where their mouth is by buying millions of books, movies, music, theatre, concert and movie tickets for cultural products in French for themselves and for their kids.

    However, it seems that francophones in Quebec have some trouble extending all of this willingness to use French in their everyday lives to imposing it to their interactions with anglos and allophones who have a shaky command of French or are reluctant to use it. That is where the problem lies – especially in these times when both groups I just mentioned seem to be on the rise demographically in southwestern Quebec where the majority of Canada’s francophone population is found.

    Acajack

    December 15, 2009 at 9:12 am

  2. I’m always amazed at the reactions of most nationalists on how to improve the status of French in western Montreal. it always involves some sort of government regulation with constraints and a bureaucracy to deal with the problem. No mention is EVER made of the individual’s role. it seems to me a typical Quebec reaction to any social problem: pass a law, enact appropriate regulations and enforce same with a hugely costly infrastructure.

    For instance, the PQ is now promoting francisization of all companies with less than 50 employees. At last count there were between 150,000 and 200,000 such companies, smoe of which are tiny little mom and pop shops employing 3 family members in say a dry cleaning business. Lets say the average number of productive visits by an inspector in a week is 25. It would require an additional 200 or so inspectors and at best, all they would accomplish is pisssing off a lot of small businesses, most of which probably run in French anyway, at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

    Why not just boycott businesses that don’t give service in French ? or complain to the owners of franchises. It wouldn’t cost a cent and it would target the offenders and not blanket everyone with bureaucratic procedures.

    Oh no, that would be too easy, too simple, too cheap. Lets get the government to do for us what we can’t be bothered doing ourselves.

    Dave

    December 15, 2009 at 9:59 am

  3. Antonio made a thoughtful post on December 14, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    I do have a few points to make in reaction to it.

    First, it is not completely true that francophones are not subject to coercion and can change things as freely as you say. This assertion ignores all of the money spent, threats made and social, political, economic and demographic pressures put on francophones in the past and even today.

    Some of this even comes from others francophones (some of whom, paradoxically, do care deeply about their future as a people), who are so obsessed by defeating the separatist threat that they will stop at nothing to try and convince Quebecers to stay with Canada. Think of stuff that has been said by Jean-Louis Roux, René-Daniel Dubois or Stéphane Dion (Quebec separating from Canada would be a crime against humanity). I personally chuckle at these statements, but for most people when they hear it from notable personalities, and also from people in their entourage (since francophones are very split on the issue)… repeated over and over it starts to undermine francophones’ sense of self-worth almost by osmosis.

    This is only one example. Make no mistake, through hook and by crook, the people who want to keep Canada together are looking out for number one. Sometimes they go about in a positive way by making the country more open to francophones, their language, and accommodations that Quebecers would like to obtain. And sometimes it is not so noble and falls into the trap of trying to convince Quebecers they are not capable of managing their own affairs without the semi-benevolent oversight of the English-Canadian majority.

    Another point is that it is not true that francophones don’t care. Many francophones in fact do care and do act in order to change things. Others care but are too sheepish to take a stand in everyday life. These ones speak English at the dépanneur, are angry about it inside, and then vote PQ. And then there are the francophones who don’t care, some of whom actually may think that the road to eternal salvation lies in Anglicization. These groups have always been present in Quebec. They were present in the 1960s and 70s. It is tough to say exactly but the PQ only got 41% of the vote in its landmark victory in 1976, which suggests that only about half of all the francophones in Quebec voted for them.

    So much for a landslide of social change. In fact, you have never had near-unanimity among Quebec francophones for strong nationalist positions. The closest you got was about 61% who voted Oui in 1995.

    My point here is not that there is no hope for putting the measures in place to ensure French survives. It is in fact the opposite.

    A highly committed group of people can provoke significant social change without being a crushing majority. In fact, this is usually how it has happened around the world. In spite of the electoral numbers, the PQ did just that with Bill 101. And this has been true throughout human history, and if you look at events of the past it seems as though the entire population of the Czech Republic was in the streets during the Velvet Revolution, or that all of Paris was protesting during May 1968.

    In actual fact, it wasn’t like that at all. Only a small proportion of the population generally takes part in these types of mobilizations, in spite of the fact that the end result often affects everybody greatly.

    I remember watching live coverage of the attempted putsch against Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow in 1991 by former Communists. The immediate future of Russia was playing out in dramatic fashion. Tanks and soldiers were on Red Square, shots were fired, a few people were killed, a crowd of thousands was massed on the square. Yet just two blocks away the streets were filled with people going about their regular business, running errands and oblivious to all the turmoil. For millions of Muscovites (the vast majority in fact), it was just another summer day.

    Acajack

    December 15, 2009 at 10:00 am

  4. Hamish: “A question I have is what level of instruction in the other language do kids in Québec schools get, given that from what I’m hearing kids can grow up without speaking French in Québec (I assume the converse is also true, although less likely due to the hegemon of English) – that boggles my mind as a gross failure of the education system.”

    Part of the problem in the english school system is that there doesn’t seem to be any uniformity in terms of quality of french education. Some schools have excellent french immersion programs and others graduate students that can barely carry on a conversation (although we shouldn’t discount the individual’s willingness to try).

    Following the lead of the schools that do it right and adopting some higher standards across all english schools seems to me to be a smarter way to go. As empowering as some may think aboloshing english school would be, practically speaking it would be a recipe for disaster.

    RoryBellows

    December 15, 2009 at 10:45 am

  5. Rory: “As empowering as some may think aboloshing english school would be, practically speaking it would be a recipe for disaster.”

    On a political level perhaps it would be a disaster. On other levels, not necessarily.

    Acajack

    December 15, 2009 at 11:08 am

  6. Perhaps. I just tend to look for the simple solution in things where one exists. A fully bilingual english school system would go a long way toward bringing anglos into the fold without creating the perception of a war on english. I’m of the belief that just as francophones have it within them to assert their language in commercial services or in the workplace, anglos have their own responsibilities on the language front.

    The beauty is, the anglo parent who’s kids receive a high quality french education and the francophone who ensures that French is available in all commercial settings are both acting in their own interests, without taking away from the rights and priveleges of the other.

    Eventually, maybe we’ll decide to have one single school system, but hopefully it’ll only happen when everyone sees it as a good idea.

    RoryBellows

    December 15, 2009 at 11:42 am

  7. Maybe the reason such a thing as fixing and paving roads in Quebec cost 35% more than in the rest of Canada, ( ROC), is that there’s so much translating to be done?

    Michel

    December 15, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  8. AFG writes:

    According to Québec laws, government services in English are a privilege of Québec’s historic Anglo community, not a right of all citizens, even though any one can decide they are Anglo any time they want

    I won’t even attempt to show why this statement is factually, legally, and morally incorrect. It should be obvious to anyone reading it.

    If anyone is interested in knowing why you need to ask and I’ll tell you. Until then I will just shake my head in despair and wonderment that someone of reasonable intelligence could actually write such bullshit.

    Tony Kondaks

    December 15, 2009 at 5:37 pm

  9. “Once again, the Quebec government does a shit job of integrating new arrivals and AFG and his fan club manage to turn it into a “historic anglo” bash. What would you guys do without us anglos to pin the blame on for every little thing that goes wrong.”

    I accept this criticisim. No irony.

    It’s true that there is very little organized demand for more English from the QC goverment. Most of this is Francos, like TDN explained, who insist on speaking English to anyone with the slightest accent.

    I have seen my most pur et dur indépendantist friends do this.

    Call it cultural suicide.

    angryfrenchguy

    December 15, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  10. No mention is EVER made of the individual’s role. it seems to me a typical Quebec reaction to any social problem: pass a law, enact appropriate regulations and enforce same with a hugely costly infrastructure.

    As a French state, Québec doesn’t believe in individual rights or such. We believe in the collective. Unlike the English, who I’m sure would love to have NO government, we French believe (and love) as big a government as possible.

    For instance, the PQ is now promoting francisization of all companies with less than 50 employees

    And what, pray tell, is wrong with this?? As an English, you probably want to run your “business” with the MINIMUM intervention from the state as possible right? Well, not in Québec, my friend. We firmly believe in keeping any and all “business” on the shortest leash possible. It is the state’s role to protect its citizens from filthy greed.

    Why not just boycott businesses that don’t give service in French ?

    Very simply, because that just won’t get the message across.

    or complain to the owners of franchises.

    It must bother you that the MOST thorough adherents to Loi 101 are big American companies. So much for the typical English theory that Loi 101 is baaaaaaaad for bizzzzness!

    Marc

    December 15, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  11. there’s nothing like light reading to brighten up your day.

    johnnyonline

    December 15, 2009 at 11:41 pm

  12. Antonio,

    Your criticism of Quebec nationalism is very objective and valid. Yet…

    Quebec nationalism does seem to pale, for example, in comparison to the recent Catalan “symbolic” vote on sovereignty; or to the resolve of the Basque people in defending their language.
    In comparison, in Quebec, we do look like a people who complain a lot yet who won’t do much anything.

    Yet there are factual facts.

    My own instincts would be to think that a vote for independence should require a lot more resolve than a 50+1 margin. So I would naturally call 1995 a vote “against” sovereignty, at only 49.5%.

    Yet we — the Francophones — voted a clear 60+1 majority in favor of independence for French Quebec: –A clear and very democratic majority.
    …While the Anglophones voted a clear 99.9% against… : –A clear irrational fear vote.

    The Basque and Catalans have a mosaic of cultures surrounding and protecting them.
    We have an anglophone continental cultural monolith against us: One which has seeds on the inside, and which votes at 100% against any form of emancipation for us.

    Can you really compare?
    Can you objectively feel disabused by our resolve?

    Raman

    December 16, 2009 at 2:01 am

  13. “While the Anglophones voted a clear 99.9% against… : –A clear irrational fear vote.”

    I don’t think there is anything irrational about anglos voting massively for the Non. You ask them to trade away a country where they are 75% of the population for one where they would only be 8% and have been historically perceived as the bad guys. A country which has garnered an enviable and prosperous existence for them for the great unknown.

    Yes, it is true that anglos are generally insensitive to francophone concerns and the broad consensus in that community is that every single irritant that fuels the separatist movement and Quebec nationalism in general is pure fabrication.

    So the vast majority of anglophones could be said to be guilty of not giving a fair hearing to the francophone side of things.

    However, let’s not blame them for voting Non massively. Francophones would do the exact same thing in their shoes.

    Acajack

    December 16, 2009 at 9:20 am

  14. @Raman: I think you would get a similar 99+% of Brussels francophones voting against inclusion in a Flemish state.

    Re QC francos using English with anglos: Happens with me, too, of course, when I go to Québec. Not always or even most of the time, but often enough. And I have arrived at the stage where it makes me uncomfortable to speak English in such cases, even though my interlocutor’s English may be better than my French or for that matter my English. I don’t know how it is in all cases, but in mine it is that if an anglo addresses you in French, it means that they hope that you will reply in French and even if necessary be a little patient if we make a faute de grammaire or don’t pick something up the first time you say it, unless you’re trying to tell us that the building we’re standing in is on fire.

    littlerob

    December 16, 2009 at 11:22 am

  15. Acajack : «However, let’s not blame them for voting Non massively. Francophones would do the exact same thing in their shoes.»

    Fair enough.

    Still, all I meant to say was that it is untrue to pretend that les Québécois only complain and do nothing.
    The vote in 1995 was a very clear decision on their part in favour of sovereignty.

    But we do have impressive demographic and geopolitical hurdles stacked against us, which may make it appear as if we’re not all that convinced or determined. Impressive enough to transform any concrete measure we undertake (laws, referendums, individual initiatives) into “pétards mouillés”.

    To forget that not only paints a skewed portrait of the situation, but one that is unfairly disheartening.

    Raman

    December 16, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  16. Raman writes:

    Yet we — the Francophones — voted a clear 60+1 majority in favor of independence for French Quebec: –A clear and very democratic majority.
    …While the Anglophones voted a clear 99.9% against… : –A clear irrational fear vote.

    Raman is quite accurate, although it wasn’t quite 99.9% (it was 99%…but who’s nitpicking?). And it was about 90-95% “non” on the part of allophones.

    This is the handicap with which the PQ will go into any referendum: a 20% “no” block vote that is a disadvantage they must overcome from Day One. This block vote will always stand in the way of a clear “yes” majority.

    And even if the “yes” ever wins a clear “yes” majority on a hard question, there is always the matter of partition.

    That is why the formula I have developed for independence — which I call “The Two Question Referendum” — is the only way for the sovereignists to:

    1) obtain a “yes” majority on a hard question;

    2) neutralize the 20% “no” block vote of the non-francophones; and

    3) eliminate the partition problem.

    Check out my book by clicking on my name which will outline the entire formula.

    Every separatist should be on their knees praying to God Almighty that Tony Kondaks has developed a formula that will enable them to realize their dream.

    Just call me Tony the Liberator of the Quebecois.

    Tony Kondaks

    December 16, 2009 at 2:04 pm

  17. “Every separatist should be on their knees praying to God Almighty that Tony Kondaks has developed a formula that will enable them to realize their dream.”

    Unfortunately or fortunately no. The problem with your theory is that you can’t offer any form of semi-serious garantee that Anglos and Allos will vote “Yes” to a separation question.

    You’re forgetting several important elements in your theory.

    1) Anglos, and especially Allos, feel their loyalty go to Canada first, and Quebec a distant last, even if they might not believe Canada did everything to protect their right within Quebec.

    2) Were I an anglophone federalist, I would still vote no despite the existence of some sort of ghetto called “Quebec West”. Such a constitional status could rather easily be retracted by a constitutionnal amendment made by an independant Quebec.

    3) Your position has not been the subject of a consensus within the English-speaking community.

    4) I’m not sure why 50% of Montreal Islanders would be happy to learn that, despite electing sovereignists for decades, they are now considered English Quebec.

    “Neutralizing” the Anglo vote is not realistically – or democratically – possible.

    I also found your views regarding business as either old-fashioned or frankly bigoted. You’re basically saying that only English-speakers can be good businessmen. I suggest you look at Ubisoft, Alstom, Embraer and other companies before saying (i) the business world only speaks English, (ii) non-anglophones cannot be economically productive.

    FX

    December 16, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  18. FX:

    All of the four points you delineate are valid…and I address most of them in the book:

    1) Of course Anglos’ loyalty lies with Canada. And because of this they would never consider voting “yes” in a referendum. My contention is that this will only happen if, in the days and weeks running up to referendum day, it appears that the “yes” side will win anyway. Voting “yes” would be a hedge against the inevitable and this is why Anglophones will do so in large numbers under the Two Question Referendum format.

    2) A constitutional amendment could most certainly “retract” the guarantees…and that’s why a safeguard — such as what exists in the current Canadian amending formula — would be necessary. For example, if a change to educational matters that just pertain to a province is to be made, Canada’s amending formual requires that province’s consent or else it cannot be done. Something similar can be done with Quebec West and anglo rights.

    3) The beauty of the referendum process that I have developed is that it does not depend upon or require a consensus by the English-speaking community. Indeed, 99% of Quebec’s anglos can and most certainly will oppose Quebec independence right up to the time they enter the voting booth. Then all that will be necessary is that most natural of all human emotions: self-preservation. If independence appears inevitable, the hedge-against-the-inevitable factor will kick in and the only consideration in the mind of the Anglo voter will be: if separation is going to happen anyway, then I must as well get my own province in an independent Quebec in which I will enjoy full individual rights.

    4) I’m not sure if your assumption that 50% of Montrealers voted for sovereignty is correct but I don’t think that any large number of sovereignists would vote “no” solely on the basis that anglophones would be getting full civil rights in their own province in an independent Quebec. Some may not be happy about it but why should you or I care what a bunch of racists and hate-mongers feel?

    As for your suggestion that I am “basically saying that only English-speakers can be good businessmen”: I challenge you to show me where I ever said such a thing. What I said and will continue to say is that to have a more prosperous and successful Quebec we have to encourage unilingual anglophones from the 300 million plus Sea of English surrounding Quebec to come and live, work, and invest in Quebec which they will only do in large numbers if they are able to do that in unilingual English splendour.

    Find me a Quebec francophone who is a successful businessman and I’ll show you a francophone who speaks English and communicates with the rest of the world in English.

    Tony Kondaks

    December 16, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  19. i was too hard on francophones in my last post. I forgot that they did vote 60% in the last referendum. The fact that they accepted the 1995 results without violence is a honour on their part. In a similar referendum anywhere else in the world there would have been violence and ressentment towards the minority who voted massively against the project like the anglo-allophones did in the 1995 referendum. This is what Parizeau called the money and the ethnic vote. He was perfectly right and should not have been shamed for saying it.

    Obviously, the francophone sovereignists are doing a poor job in winning over the allophones to their cause. One of the many ways that has to be done to change this is to require every immigrant to learn French, Quebec history and be sensitive to the fragile culture here. Giving English services to immigrants that do not even speak the language is nonsensical.

    Going after the anglophone vote is wasted for sovereignists. As Acajack pointed out, they voted and will vote NON for the same reason that francophones would and have voted OUI: to be part of the majority that, democractically-speaking, has the power.

    Antonio

    December 16, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  20. What I said and will continue to say is that to have a more prosperous and successful Quebec we have to encourage unilingual anglophones[…]to come and live, work, and invest

    So what you’re saying is, for Québec to become successful, it needs to become English? And last I checked (today), Québec is extremely successful. How anyone can believe that Québec is not successful is beyond me.

    […]which they will only do in large numbers if they are able to do that in unilingual English splendour.

    True, since the English are unable to adapt to any other way of doing things. But it won’t happen. NEVER are we going to allow the English free reign again. We’ve been there and we sure as hell ain’t going back! We are not going to allow French to be pushed to the point of extinction again.

    What people like Tony Kondaks are unable to understand is that French, for us, is much more than a method of communicating.

    Marc

    December 17, 2009 at 12:36 am

  21. “Québec is extremely successful. How anyone can believe that Québec is not successful is beyond me.”

    Really, then why is Quebec a “have not” province relying on the welfare payments from other province?(full 13% of 2008 Quebec provincial revenues were provided through equalization payments). Or are you saying that Quebec does not require equalization due to their successful state, and only extracts this money by false pretenses.

    “True, since the English are unable to adapt to any other way of doing things. But it won’t happen. NEVER are we going to allow the English free reign again. We’ve been there and we sure as hell ain’t going back! We are not going to allow French to be pushed to the point of extinction again.”

    Good for you and your dreams. Now could you please quite criticizing those who provide the welfare payments to your benefit. Charest and company, criticizing Alberta and Saskatchewan for enviromental issues while at the same time receiving huge benefits from those who he choses to criticize.

    A mieux, Prend la porte, s’il vous plait.

    I doubt there is much sympathy for Quebec in the West after this past week and the critcisms made on the world stage.

    C’est a voir.

    The west may beat you to the race.

    ABP

    December 17, 2009 at 1:30 am

  22. Si le Quebec était un si grand désastre, pourquoi les fédéralistes, en complicité avec les milieux d’affaires canadiens ont-ils TOUT FAIT, que ce soit légitime et légal comme illégitime et illégal, pour EMPECHER A TOUT PRIX le Québec de quitter la fédération? Si c’était si dommageable au ROC d’avoir le Québec sous son autorité, pourquoi alors persister ? Pour prendre les impots du deuxieme plus grand payeur de taxes au CANADA ( LE Quebec), les administrer de facon a centraliser les ressources en Ontario : ensuite il ya un débalancement ( milliards pour l’industrie de l’auto par exemple, peanuts pour l’industrie forestiere). Bien sur que l’on investit pas justement, en proportion de l’impot payé, au Québec: mais c’est pas grave, ils n’ont qu’a se debrouiller avec des peanuts et la péréquation..

    midnightjack

    December 17, 2009 at 3:46 am

  23. Le Québec ne recevra plus de péréquation le jour ou l’état fédéral cessera de tout centraliser en Ontario: ce jour la n’arrivera jamais: prochaine attaque de requin, la commission des valeurs mobilieres centralisée non pas a Montréal, Vancouver ou Calgary, mais a Toronto: Suivi la semaine suivante du déménagement de la bourse des produits dérivés vers Toronto. Pour terminer l’épisode, les travailleurs québécois de l’industrie financiere obligés de déménager a Toronto, avec leur expertise. Mais c’est pas grave si Toronto, en complicité avec le gouvernement fédéral, a completement vidé le secteur financier de Montréal, on leur enverra des peanuts et de la péréquation, ca leur apprendra a avoir de bonnes idées..

    midnightjack

    December 17, 2009 at 3:57 am

  24. Gardez vos peanuts, votre péréquation et votre condescendance.

    midnightjack

    December 17, 2009 at 3:59 am

  25. Les benifices colosseaux dont tu fais mention ABP , ont pour effet de faire monter le dollar, ce qui affecte a la baisse la vente de nos produits chez notre principal partenaire commercial, qui est non pas le ROC, mais les Etats-unis. Evidemment, on devine pour qui on détermine les taux de change, certainement pas pour le Québec. Et quand apres avoir pillé la nature il faudra en payer le prix, je suis sur qu’on nous demandera de payer nous aussi, comme si on en avait profité….

    midnightjack

    December 17, 2009 at 4:12 am

  26. C’est d`ailleurs ce que les petits cerveaux conservateurs tentent de nous imposer en niant les efforts consentis par le Québec au niveau de la lutte aux gaz a effet de serre depuis 1990 pendant qu’en Alberta on se dépéchait de toujours plus détruire la nature, et toujours plus vite..

    midnightjack

    December 17, 2009 at 4:16 am

  27. “Gardez vos peanuts, votre péréquation et votre condescendance”

    Pas de probleme pour nous de l’ouest. Quand peut-on attendre du Quebec de remettre la perequatione provenant de ces sables bitumineux mauvais. Je ne vais pas retenir mon souffle. :)

    Hypocrites:

    ABP

    December 17, 2009 at 10:35 am

  28. Antonio writes:

    This is what Parizeau called the money and the ethnic vote. He was perfectly right and should not have been shamed for saying it.

    I totally agree as far as the ethnic part of his statement is concerned. The money part, no, because I have very strong views about finance-spending in election and referendum campaigns. But the money part, of course, is not what Parizeau got in trouble for; it was the “ethnic” part. And I believe he was 100% justified in saying it.

    At the time he said it, you’ll remember that the whole world seemed to come crashing down on his head for saying it. A day or two afterwards, I submitted an opinion piece to The Gazette in defense of Parizeau but they didn’t print it.

    People forget that Parizeau said something similar about two years earlier, in 1993, and he got criticized for that remark as well. He said that independence could be achieved by francophone votes without either anglophone or allophone votes. Again, he was defining voter groups.

    At the time, I submitted an opinion piece to The Gazette in defense of Parizeau and they printed it.

    See:

    http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dg6n6657_173fb5ps2tn

    I will strongly disagree with you, Antonio, about your violence remark. No one gets congratulations for not committing violence; being peaceful and accepting a democratic result is the way people are supposed to act and no one gets brownie points for doing what civilized people are supposed to do.

    It’s like that Chris Rock routine where he comments on a friend of his who used to brag: “I take care of my kids”. Rock’s response: you’re supposed to take care of your kids!”

    Tony Kondaks

    December 17, 2009 at 11:07 am

  29. Marc writes:

    What people like Tony Kondaks are unable to understand is that French, for us, is much more than a method of communicating.

    French can be whatever the fuck you want it to be, Marc, just leave me the fuck alone to live as I want to live. And if that means I live in unilingual English, working for unlingual English-speakers who refuse to speak to you in French, then that is my fucking business. Just give me my English schools and English services from the government as you collect my tax dollars in the unilingual English tax form the Quebec government has always been so eager to provide anglos with and we’ll get along just fine.

    You can live in unilingual French and work in unilingual French and refuse to speak English if that is your pleasure. It won’t bother me one bit. God bless you.

    And if you insist on that silly principle of “respect the majority” you can practise what you preach by learning and speaking Huron.

    Tony Kondaks

    December 17, 2009 at 11:16 am

  30. Marc writes:

    We are not going to allow French to be pushed to the point of extinction again.

    Gosh, when did that happen?

    Population of Quebec:

    1851: 892,061

    1911: 2,005,776

    1961: 5,259,211

    2006: 7,546,131

    [from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec#Population_of_Quebec_since_1851%5D

    Marc, if you want to have a rational discussion with people, you have to put forward rational arguments and present facts from the planet Earth.

    If you want to babble incoherently, go to the Verdun Mental Institution.

    Tony Kondaks

    December 17, 2009 at 11:30 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: