Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Is Quebec's Demand For More Seats is Parliament Jusitified?

Mr. Harper's decision to re-jig the number of House of Commons seats to better reflect the shifting Canadian demographic reality isn't going over very well in Quebec, as one can imagine.

Now that Mr. Harper has his majority in hand, he can fulfill his promise of adding thirty more seats to Parliament, at will. Those seats are destined to go to parts west of the Ottawa river, into urban centers in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver with Quebec left out because it's population is not growing in proportion. Mr. Harper, mindful of the anger that these thirty new non-Quebec seats will unleash has been rumoured to be contemplating adding a seat or two in Quebec to dissipate this anger.

Notwithstanding, whether Quebec gets one, two or no new seats, its position will be weakened and so it is easy to understand that this turn of events has engendered howls of anger by Quebec politicians.

It's somewhat ironic that the defunct Charlottetown Accord, the constitutional reform package that was rejected in a nationwide referendum in 1992, would have provided Quebec a minimum of 25% of the Parliamentary seats. The proposition lost by a 55% to 45% margin with Quebeckers rejecting the accord as well, by a margin of 57% to 43%. Had the Quebec voters voted in favour of the package, by a 63% to 37% margin, the accord would have carried. I dare say that if the package was re-submitted today, given Quebec's deteriorating demographic position, it would likely have the required support in Quebec.

The additional seats that Mr. Harper is now proposing will result in Quebec's share of the Parliamentary seats falling to 23% .

Now in complaining about Mr. Harper's seat proposal, Quebec politicians have offered a lot of rage, but not many convincing arguments supporting its position.
"If the net result of adding one or two members has the effect of lowering the political weight of Quebec below the 24 per cent, it is not acceptable," said Bernard Drainville, Opposition spokesman for intergovernmental affairs. ...
"We cannot accept that Quebec would be more marginalized within Canada," he said. "Maintaining the current political weight is really a bare minimum."- Bernard Drainville, PQ member of the National Assembly

Pierre Moreau, Quebec's intergovernmental minister said that the federal government must look beyond simple mathematical logic.
"We object that our effective representation in federal institutions is reduced. It must not go down."
In 2007, 2009 and 2010, the National Assembly passed three motions to urge Ottawa not to weaken Quebec's representation in the Commons. LINK 

Not very convincing.......

The real issue was best summed up by political scientist Claude Denis of the University of Ottawa.
"It is certain that the demographic weight of Quebec in Canada is shrinking and so it's normal in a perspective of representation, the weight of Quebec in the House of Commons will go down too.....
 The question is: if we don't treat Quebec as a nation, where will it stop?"

And that is the crux of the argument. 
There are those on the Anglo side who will argue that for Quebec, it's tough noogies, the majority should always rule and when it comes to democracy, that's the way it is. These are likely the same people who would argue that 50%+1 is not enough for Quebec to declare sovereignty.
Democracy, like all political issues is always a case of perspective.

I would suggest that if the shoe was on the other foot, with Canada being 75% French, Anglos would demand special constitutional guarantees to protect their historic rights in the face of a dominating large French majority. Again, a question of perspective.

I'm somewhat disappointed by Quebec politicians who have made almost no lucid arguments as to why Quebec's Parliamentary weight should be maintained in the face of shrinking demographics. It is as if they are painfully out of arguments. Too bad.

Let this Anglo make a case for Quebec....

Pretend you play on a baseball team and after each game the team votes on where to go for the traditional post-game meal. There are but three out of the thirteen players on the team who are Francophone, the rest Anglos.
The three Francophones always vote to go to Lafleurs for steamies and poutine, while all the Anglos always vote for MacDonalds. Because the majority rules, each week the team heads out for a Big  Mac.
After a year of going to MacDonalds exclusively, the francophones complain;
"What kind of democracy is this if we never get our choice? After all, we represent 23% of the team, so is it unreasonable to go to Lafleurs at least once every four or five outings?.....We're supposed to be a team, which respects each of its members equally. What kind of respect is this?
And so majority rule is fine, if you're in the majority. Not so fine if you're in the minority.

The Americans have recognized this principle by dividing seats in its House of Representatives by strict demographic apportionment, while dividing the seats in the Senate asymmetrically, giving each State equal status, regardless of sizes.

If we wish to remain a family made up of two founding nations, respectful of each other, we are going to have to find a way to recognize Quebec's minority position and respect its right to meaningful representation.

Most of us accept the wisdom of providing minority investors in public corporation special rights and considerations in the face of large voting blocks.
It is no less fair that we apply the principles of  'minority shareholder rights' to our Parliamentary system.

The most logical reform is to maintain the principle of demographic representation in the House of Commons but reform the Senate in a meaningful way. Senate Seats could be distributed asymmetrically with Quebec given a larger than proportional share, (perhaps 30%?)  Members would be elected and  run under party colours. This would finally address the  problem of an undemocratic upper house. In the event that the Senate vetoes a Bill sent up from the lower House, that veto can be over-ridden by another simple vote in the House.
Not perfect, but better that what we have.

The question remains- Are we as a nation mature enough to make the compromises necessary to insure fair political representation in consideration of the disproportionate weight of our founding nations?

I may be wrong, but I firmly believe that Canadians are mature enough to understand complicated political issues and are not averse to making necessary compromises for the greater good. 

The reason Charlottetown  failed was because Quebec set the negative tone by signaling its disapproval beforehand. Canadians who knew that Quebec would reject the accord in advance were inclined to do the same. 
If Quebeckers were to signal their real desire to compromise and take a political deal that would give them more power, but not all they desired, Canadians would likely climb aboard.

35 comments:

  1. First of two responses:

    To paraphrase a one-time famous football player-turned-actor-turned infamous murderer: "Absolutely 100% NO WAY!"

    Quebec used its leverage to the fullest when they could, with strategies like "Holding a knife to Canada's throat (to get its way)" and "Bill 101 is a great Canadian law". Quotes from two members of the same Francophone family, one a failed federal Liberal leader.

    I fully and heartily adopt the response mentioned above: "TOUGH NOOGIES"! Against my better judgment, Mulroney offered Quebec a generous gift of that 25% guarantee in 1992, and they spit in his face! They did so even more vigorously than the rest of Canada. A 57% vote against the Accord is credible and convincing that Quebec turned it down. Had the vote been 50% + 1 voting "Non", that would have been enough. Hey!...it cuts both ways, but 57% is significantly greater than 50% + 1.

    This born-and-raised ex-Quebecker is now a loyal Ontarian, and I'll fight doggedly for Ontario to at long last start getting a fairer and more proportional share of the weight. Ontario has close to 40% of the population, but only 35% of the representation. At 23%, this is still better for Quebec as they have only 22% of the population. Now that Mr. Harper learned which hand fed him to his majority, I'm sure he has the intelligence to do things right, or face losing to the Liberals next time around. The Liberals, unfortunately, will come back. Four years should be ample time to refuel the fires. Then again, the prior day's page showed how Layton and Mulcair way overextended themselves, so if Harper blows it, there will be only one way to go.

    Heritage Canada pays out almost 70% of its public festival budget to Quebec festivals, leaving only 30% for the remaining 77% of the Canadian population. RETARDED! OUTRAGEOUS! UNFAIR!

    Quebec only takes in about 12% of all Canada's immigrants, yet nets 35% of the budget allocated to immigration. Ontario takes in HALF the immigrants coming to Canada yet only receives 36% of the funding. So Ontario takes in FOUR TIMES the number of immigrants Quebec does, yet receives almost the same amount of funding Quebec does? RETARDED! OUTRAGEOUS! UNFAIR!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Sauga continued and still resoundinglyTuesday, May 31, 2011 at 2:05:00 AM EDT

    Second of two responses:

    Another of Mulroney's bribes to appease an unappeasable Quebec was for every dollar Ontario received in EI benefit programs, Quebec received $4.75, a huge ratio in favour of Quebec! RETARDED! OUTRAGEOUS! UNFAIR!

    Despite everything Trudeau and Mulroney handed to Quebec to maintain their favour, Quebec always retorted they were being short changed, cheated and ripped off. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

    Quebec is STILL OVERREPRESENTED in the Supreme Kangaroo Court of Canada (kangaroos for their Bill 104 debacle and just about every other case regarding inflicting French on the rest of Canada while Quebec thumbs its collective nose at the rest of Canada), let's see how they feel about having the three of nine judges (33% representation with 22% of the population) reduced to two, a fair and true proportional representation.

    Editor, Canada has been very mature as a nation, but there is one spoiled child who for too long was the squeaky wheel getting all the grease it demanded. Any smart parent will let the child stamp its feet, scream, cry and protest until exhausted at which point the parent will take the child away and give it nothing for such a performance. Hopefully once the child behaves that way enough times, it will learn that all that ranting and raving leads to exhaustion with no payoff. Canada has been the stupid parent for too long. It's time to wise up!

    More importantly, as I have written recently and several times before, Quebec has lost its leverage. Its separatist population is now dwindling, and even should it resurrect as strongly as before, I have grown indifferent to Quebec's separation aspirations.

    Should they choose to separate, it's a win-lose situation, with Canada winning and Quebec losing. How will they make up the $8 billion lost in equalization payments they get now (hopefully to be butchered in the name of deficit reduction by Harper in 2014, the next year equalization is reviewed). They won't have other Mulroney and Chrétien goodies of the past like those mentioned above amongst others, and they shouldn't become NAFTA partners unless and until they absorb their fair share of the federal deficit they benefitted from.

    In a Quebec-free Canada, we can focus on the importance of Spanish and Mandarin as an inevitable Americas trading bloc and serving 1.3 billion increasingly affluent Chinese will take over the priority of Quebec crybabies. Quebec and even communities outside Quebec will be able to maintain their French community centres and schools, but even they will have to recognize the increasing importance of Spanish, Mandarin, and even Portugese as 185 million Brazilians speak Portuguese versus about 8-10 million French speakers in the Americas. It's really a no-brainer, but there are enough contributors on this blog who are no-brainers, so I'm sure there will be a brainless rebuttal to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmmm, baseball team the editor talks about.

    How would you like to be two anglos who always have to pay the bill at the end of the meal no matter if it is at McDonalds or LaFleur. For many years, in the West, one had only to wait for the Quebec,Ontario votes and then you could turn off the TV as the decision had been made. Was especially troubling during the Liberal days when Ontario and Quebec were somewhat aligned with the Grits.

    The last election was a bit more refreshing to watch as the votes in the West did actually count for something.

    No, editor, you are wrong about a special deal or weighting for Quebec. Quebec is a province within Canada and should not have any special provisions or weighting with regards to political weight. Proportional representation is the most democratic approach. If Quebec's weight and influence is diluted then so be it, as it is pure demographics.

    As MG points out, the supreme court has three judges from Quebec by accord. This is 33% of the nine, and quebec is only 23% of the population of Canada. Actually, it could be argued that this should be changed to allow for only two judges which would more relfect reality.

    For too long, Quebec has blackmailed the rest of the country with separatist threats and their continued whining. The pendulum is swinging the other way with less political influence coming from Quebec and thus less positioning for special benefits. Why should Quebec receive special treatments (more than they enjoy now)?

    There really is no reason for any special treatment, as Mr. Layton is going to find out shortly when he falls off the fence between the interests in his own party inside and outside of Quebec. Going to be rather hilarious, when he finds out that his support outside of Quebec will be furious with his actions regarding his new found power base (and shot lived I believe)

    The future of Quebec is very nebulous at best. Huge (and mounting debt), loss of political power, crumbling infrastructure, organized crime and incredibily corrupt politicians. I dare say that with power shifting West that Quebec will face further challenges. Separation, an option?? Doubtful with the huge debt. I don't think for a minute that Quebec would separate as it would signal the end of the Gravy Train. The combined provincial and share of the federal debt would reduce the province to a third world status in a short time. (Look at the level of welfare recipients at this time)

    The days of the tail wagging the dogs head may be over (as it should be by my way of thinking).

    Interesting that Harper has been to Manitoba to view the floods as well as the fire in Slave Lake but has not set a foot in Quebec to witness the flooding on the south shore. Could this be a message to Quebec??? Maybe he has just been too busy.

    The language issue is going to become less of an issue outside of Canada as the French language is further eroded. (Check stats Canada in the last two census periods) Language and cultural interests will yield to economic interests of the people in Quebec.

    Will be interesting as to what the Cons will do about equalization in 2014. They will be about three years into their mandate and I doubt they will want to risk losing any seats outside of Quebec so in may be again a case of "tough noogies" for Quebec as you say. Keep in mind that Quebec has given Harper and his gang no reason to provide any special attention to Quebec. As a matter of fact, Quebec has behaved similar to Danny Williams with an "anything but Harper" mind set, in the last two elections.

    C'est la vie.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like your articles a lot, editor, but you have been making a huge mistake: Québec est une province, donc il aurait fallu que vous écriviez "Assemble Provinciale". Canada is a Nation and Québec is (unfortunately) one of its (ungovernable) Provinces which keeps demanding seats and money (a lot of money, one of the Canadian provinces receiving the highest amount of money). Close the tap, please.

    WESTALLOPHONE++

    ReplyDelete
  5. Editor said:
    "Let this Anglo make a case for Quebec"
    Because it is so respectfull of you?

    "And so majority rule is fine, if you're in the majority. Not so fine if you're in the minority."
    Every Canadian in Quebec sympathizes, we really do.

    "If we wish to remain a family made up of two founding nations, respectful of each other"
    We passed bilingualism (respect), they banned our language in response. Respect my arse!

    "If Quebeckers were to signal their real desire to compromise"
    How about not electing facists (and other assorted bigots and weasels) and loosing the
    racist laws fo a start? Loosing that Quebecois penchant for renaming everything (revisionist history 101) would be a plus also.

    Respect is a two way street.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If Quebeckers were to signal their real desire to compromise"
    How about not electing facists (and other assorted bigots and weasels) and loosing the
    racist laws fo a start? Loosing that Quebecois penchant for renaming everything (revisionist history 101) would be a plus also.

    Respect is a two way street."

    I agree 100%.

    Kebec is overrepresented in every respect in Ottawa and had been for decades now. Enough is enough PM Harper, get to work, no more pandering to this racist, bigoted (bills 22, 178, 101…) province of Kebec.

    Ignore the province period, we outside Kebec gave you a majority, not kebec, now get to work.

    Majority rules ??? I guess we will see. Here is my wish list to fixing this country. Now let’s get to work repealing decades of bad expensive laws forced upon the country by tax and spend, scum bag, socialist, anti-English language, anti-BNA, bigoted, Quebecers. Repeal the charter, end forced phony expensive metis/french bilingualism, multiculturalism, lower/change immigration, eliminate equalization, ad the 30 new seats in Parliament (Ontario, Alberta, BC), reduce Kebecs seats, elected senate/or abolish – fixed terms (8 years max), fixed terms for MPs as well (8 year max), lower/reduce gold plated MP pensions, end subsidies to parties, lower all taxes, eliminate (not reduce) debt, reduce the size of government/RCMP…eliminate departments, public servant salary cap… Tell unions to rot in hell or Kebec. This would be nice start.

    Get to work Harper; you have a majority, do something with it or else…you will lose money, and our votes, I guarantee it.

    Remember one thing, the internet was not around when Mulroney and his scum bags from Quebec put Canada heavily into debt, pandered to Kebec…destroyed the party and reduced it to 2 seats. Don’t think Harper we can’t do the same thing to your party!!! News travels a lot faster then it used to.

    Think of the debt you are leaving your children, your grandchildren…wake up man!!!

    GET to work. WE ARE watching.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Editor: “Quebec politicians have offered a lot of rage, but not many convincing arguments supporting its position.”

    It almost feels as if you’re describing Press 9’s contribution to this forum.

    About the extra seats….If Harper wants to add 30 seats just to stick it to Quebec, then that would be unwise and unnecessary. But if he wants to do it to reflect the new democratic reality, then it’s his duty to do so, regardless of what Quebeckers feel. Editor, I think you got it wrong in the second half of your post in suggesting restraint on THIS particular issue. Canada has already shown too much restraint and complacency over the years for Quebec which always insisted that it does not want to be in this country, but twice opted to stay in it and chose to remain very “involved” at the federal level while denying the feds any involvement in its own affairs. Talk about having a cake and eating it too.

    According to the rules, Quebec could later bring its federal representation back up by increasing its population size vis-a-vis the rest of the country. That would involve increasing reproduction rates amongst the pure laines, and/or being more welcoming to the immigrants (who choose other provinces over Quebec, and those who end up in Quebec hit the 401 sooner or later). The problem with Quebec that the pure laines do not reproduce and immigrants are “welcome” only as long as they accept the conditions of their new “maitres” (which naturally they are not too keen on since most immigrate for reasons OTHER than stroking bruised egos of the "hosts"). So the obvious consequence of this SHOULD be a lowering of Quebec’s parliamentary representation. Actions SHOULD have consequences, and the price has to FINALLY be paid for the folly of this province's policies in the past 50 years.

    I hope Harper won’t back down.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Editor, your McDonalds/LaFleurs analogy is off, because we're not talking about a group of LaFleurs fans that is always outvoted and ends up eating in McDonald's. We're talking about a situation where the majority that wants to eat at McDonald's always ends up eating at LaFleurs, because the minority that like LaFleurs has learned of some weak spot of the McDonald's-preferring majority, and has milked that weak spot to its advantage.

    I suggest the majority finally says "f**k it, do what you want with your little secret, we don't care anymore. We're going to McD's, and you do whatever you want".

    ReplyDelete
  9. One man one vote, parliament is and should be as such, the 25% mark is out of bounds. If they want a counter by region or nation they should look at doing this in the senate. The founding fathers saw most of the power to the provinces, and it seems never saw the need to counter on the federal level by provinces. And one man one vote is democracy, countering that are rights that would need to be granted, by changing representation in the senate. Not parliament IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Adski the problem is that this province is socialist and stagnates, and for a double wammy they make any global enterprise unlikely to put a head office in this province with language regulation making impossible to communicate, or attract talent from north america/world. yes come work for us, and deal with our US north east while only working in french, and btw your kids will not be able to go to english public school, oh and we will tax you like no other place, and if you disagree you are a radical capitalist pig.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bernard Drainville: “Maintaining the current political weight is really a bare minimum.”

    I’d like him to define the “bare minimum”. A minimum for what? As far as I know, Drainville’s party is separatist. And since it’s separatist, doesn’t it mean that the status quo (the “bare minimum”) is not enough, meaning that things are BELOW minimum (i.e. Quebec is not "barely satisfied", it is UNsatisfied)? Which in turn means that adding 30 seats will not change a thing. They’re not content now, so what’s the worse that can happen – them being LESS content? (out of curiosity, I wonder if adding 30 seats for Quebec ONLY would satisfy Drainville’s party. Would that bring the “bare” minimum to the level of “just a minimum”, or will Quebec always operate at the level of the “bare” minimum no matter what?)

    The problem with the pequiste oafs that emerged on the scene in the 1960’s/1970’s is that they might have overplayed their hand. If they played it smart, they would have occasionally expressed appreciation for the accommodations that Canada made for Quebec. By being constantly dissatisfied, however, they pushed Canadians to a realization that Quebec will never be satisfied, and what follows from that is an obvious conclusion – whether we add 30, 50, 100, or 0 seats, Quebec’s stance won’t change, SO WE MIGHT AS WELL GO AHEAD WITH THE PLAN. The worst that can happen is that the perpetual malcontents will be MORE mal-content. Big deal.

    Another question I’d like to ask Drainville is that if he and his party are seeking sovereignty, what do they care what happens at the federal level, or in the RoC in general? Shouldn’t their focus be Quebec and Quebec only? In other words, either you are a “souverenist”, or you are a federalist. You can’t be both.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I suggest the majority finally says "f**k it, do what you want with your little secret, we don't care anymore. We're going to McD's, and you do whatever you want"."

    Excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Sauga, checking the early afternoon score,Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at 1:08:00 PM EDT

    Well well well!

    It's only 1:00PM and already the score is:

    Agin Quebec 5
    FOR Quebec 0

    Quebec is fast losing its leverage. Quebec already has buyer's remorse and we're not even out of election month. Quebec is already ranting and raving for a bigger piece of the pie and they just became the big losers at the polls.

    I share the anonymous responses above, esp where Ontario is concerned. Ontario giveth Harper his majority, Ontario can taketh away. As a voter here in Ontario, I too am holding Harper to doing what's right for Ontario over what is good for Quebec. I don't think Harper is so heartless as to not come to Quebec and its flooding problems out of spite, I believe it is because there is very important international affairs to be taken care of right now. Then again, I COULD be wrong and Harper may be spiteful, but I don't think for a natural disaster he would be THAT heartless. If so, Quebeckers have nobody but NOOOOOOOOOOOOBODY to blame but themselves. Looks damn good on them, too!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Another question I’d like to ask Drainville is that if he and his party are seeking sovereignty, what do they care what happens at the federal level, or in the RoC in general? Shouldn’t their focus be Quebec and Quebec only? In other words, either you are a “souverenist”, or you are a federalist. You can’t be both."

    A good comment and something that many in the ROC have been wondering about for the last 20 years. Good old Gilles, in Ottawa to disturb shit and make trouble for the government of the day. At the last election there were a lot of smiling people in the ROC knowing that the BQ and Duceppe would not be returning. Of course we now have Wacko Jacko and his band of dippers with a "distinct" Quebec flavor. Of course, this is not a problem now that Quebec has neutralized itself and given Harper a strong mandate (majority). Good on ya Quebec and good luck with Jacko.....I suspect that perhaps he likes his birthplace with so many massage parlours at his disposal. Hopefully Harper will add the seats, cut the toonie funding of political parties and end equalization in 2014. One can only hope. Smiling Jack will be replaced by frowning and frenzied Jack after the Quebecois realize they are up sh*t creek and Jack has no paddle (other than that one used on his derriere by the local maitresse) LOL, this is going to get good.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Editor said "If Quebeckers were to signal their real desire to compromise and take a political deal that would give them more power, but not all they desired, Canadians would likely climb aboard." More power? Forget it. I agree with Adski: they have never shown any gratitude for the good deal they're getting already. The relentless whining by the Block/PQ about nearly everything has led many of us to reach the conclusion that since giving them what they ask for has inspired them to keep asking for more, maybe giving them less will shut them up for fear of losing even more. We're all in the same boat. Take up an oar and pull together with the rest of us or get get out of the boat. No more lounging in the stern complaining that the champagne we've provided is too warm and in short supply.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...to Diogenes: No pal, it's no longer just "take up an oar...or get out of the boat"; make that "pick up the damn oar PDQ or we'll shoot you and throw your sorry remains off the boat (to drown)!"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Les anglophones du Québec doivent également reconnaître leur caractère minoritaire... Les francophones hors Québec connaissent bien ce sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Les anglophones du Québec doivent également reconnaître leur caractère minoritaire... Les francophones hors Québec connaissent bien ce sentiment."

    There are no language laws restricting language of signs and workplace outside of Quebec. Pretty much sums up your weak argument.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "There are no language laws restricting language of signs and workplace outside of Quebec."

    Et pour quelles raisons y en aurait-il...Einstein?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Et pour quelles raisons y en aurait-il...Einstein? "

    Likely because we believe in freedom of expression and are not bigotted in Canada, a la hors du Quebec. Idiot!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "...we believe in freedom of expression..."

    Hahahahahahaha!...Good one!!!....hahahahahah!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Haïti chérie: A l'anonyme du 2 juin 12:16 am: Je ne sais pas si vous vous souvenez de votre histoire mais j'ai appris qu'il y jusqu'à tout récemment une interdiction d'enseigner en français dans certaines provinces canadiennes ? Voir Règlement 17 en Ontario et autres législations démontrant la liberté d'expression...

    ReplyDelete
  23. "...we believe in freedom of expression..."

    Liberté d'expression mon cul,pourvu que se soit en globish,oui.Ils nous prennent vraiment pour des idiots ces canayens.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Haiti cherie:

    There may have been problems with French schools in a few other provinces a long time ago, but Francophones have access to schooling in their language across Canada now. The only place in Canada where freedom of expression is restricted NOW is in Quebec.

    If you look far enough back in time, everyone's ancestors behaved badly in some way.

    I suppose you're still pissed off at France, because in the distant past they shipped your ancestors to Haiti from Africa and forced them into slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Haïti chérie dit: Anglo Bashers, pour moi, ce qui remonte à moins d'un siècle n'est pas ''a distant past''. La Deuxième Guerre mondiale date de 1939-1945, ce n'est pas une raison pour faire ''tabula rasa'' de ce qui forme le monde actuel. Deuxièmement, la liberté d'expression n'est pas restreinte au Québec, c'est la liberté d'assimiler un peuple à son insu en le faisant payer pour sa propre assimilation (Voir tous les Québécois qui ont choisis la langue française comme langue commune et qui payent pour le réseau public d'instruction). Payez-vous des écoles privées, ça ne dérange personne ! En passant, j'ai été très bien accueilli au Québec !

    ReplyDelete
  26. Quebec stinks... end of story.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes it's stinks but the asshole is far from Québec maybe West and the work of a great conservative wind ?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Si dieu était de donner au Canada un lavement il brancher le tuyau dans le centre du Québec. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  29. To Haiti cherie:

    Of course freedom of expression is restricted (or banned) in Quebec. To state otherwise means you are misinformed, or lying. Bill 101 banned all languages except French from all public signs, until it was watered down by the Supreme Court. The late Premier Robert Bourassa, who was responsible for Bill 22, said that "fundamental liberties in Quebec have been suspended."

    Anglos in Quebec pay the taxes to support their own public school system. They pay more taxes on a per capita basis than the Quebecois do. If you think that Anglos in Quebec shouldn't have public English schools and should have to pay for private English schooling, then I suppose you think that Francophones in other provinces shouldn't have public French schools either.

    You may believe you have been well received in Quebec, but you probably haven't heard what the pur lainers are saying about Haitians behind your back. After the recent earthquake in Haiti, a large number of Quebecois were quite opposed to any influx of refugees from that country.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Yes it's stinks but the asshole is far from Québec maybe West and the work of a great conservative wind ?"

    The Quebecois love that flatulent smell from out west and they breath it in deeply because it is the smell of money.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Haïti chérie dit: À AngloBashers: ''Anglos in Quebec pay the taxes to support their own public school system. They pay more taxes on a per capita basis than the Quebecois do'' Je ne crois pas, je travaille à Revenu Canada et le taux d'imposition est le même pour les anglophones et les francophones.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To Haiti cherie:

    In one post you complain about the past opposition to French public schools in other provinces and in the very next post you say there should be no English public schools in Quebec. What a hypocrite!

    Many Anglophone families have lived in Quebec for generations and they have contributed more than their fair share to the building of the province. I find it outrageous that an immigrant/refugee such as yourself from one of the worst countries in the world is saying that Anglos in Quebec do not have the right to their own public schools! How much have you contributed to Quebec or to Canada?

    Anglos may be taxed at the same rate as Francophones, but more of them pay taxes. Most Anglos live on the island of Montreal, which generates most of the wealth in Quebec. And don't even get me started on the Anglos in other provinces, who pour billions of dollars of their hard-earned money into the bottomless pit of Quebec every year.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Haïti chérie dit: Non, Anglos Bashers, je n'ai jamais dit que les anglophones n'ont pas droit à un réseau scolaire qui est le leur. J'ai dis que celui-ci devrait être exclusivement pour les 10 % d'anglophones et non pour les francophones et les nouveaux arrivants allophones. Très grande nuance ici. Et puis quoi, comme je viens d'Haïti, je ne peux pas donner mon opinion qui concerne l'endroit ou j'habites ?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Je ne crois pas, je travaille à Revenu Canada et le taux d'imposition est le même pour les anglophones et les francophones."

    Hahahahahahaha!

    Bravo mon frère!Y'a des anglos qui ont un QI très faible pour ne pas dire inexistant.Taux d'imposition plus élevé chez les anglophones...Hahahahahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  35. "How much have you contributed to Quebec or to Canada?"

    Hey basher,nous devrions peut-être lui retirer son droit de vote.Pas croyable,nous sommes au canada en 2011.Va te raser la moustache basher,tu commences a ressembler a un certain Adolf.

    ReplyDelete