Monday, July 9, 2012

Should English Canada Subsidize Separatist Radio Canada?

The latest story involving a Radio-Canada journalist quitting his job to join the separatist Parti Quebecois as a featured candidate in the next provincial election, should give rise to a debate relating to the number of separatists populating the national broadcaster.

The storm surrounding Pierre Duchesne centers on the fact that he was Radio-Canada's point man covering the National Assembly and is accused of covering the political beat while negotiating his potential candidacy with the Parti Quebec, a clear conflict of interest.

His story that he left Radio-Canada in June of his own volition, never having discussed the issue of his candidacy with the PQ while on the a job, had analysts laughing at the absurdity.
“MONTREAL—Less than a month ago, Radio-Canada journalist Pierre Duchesne was on television rating the performance of Quebec’s provincial leaders on the heels of an uncommonly hot pre-election season.
On Friday, he confirmed that he plans to run in a plum Parti Québécois riding in that election.
In between, Duchesne resigned his position as bureau chief for Radio-Canada at the National Assembly. At the time, he dismissed the already rampant rumours of an impending jump to partisan politics.
In hindsight, it seems he was the last person to find out about the PQ’s designs on his own future.
According to La Presse, Carole Lavallée — a former Bloc Québécois MP with solid connections to the PQ network — was told three months ago that she should not set her sights on the vacant riding of Borduas as it was set aside for “a star candidate from Radio-Canada.”
"....Still, a fair-minded person could question whether Duchesne lived up to the exacting ethical standards that he imposed on the ministers he so recently assessed. On that score, one can only wonder how he — as a journalist — would have commented on the optics of his own actions. " Chantal Hebert, Toronto Sun

Apparently, the PQ has shown itself to be as deceitful as the Liberals.
In the news conference held by Mr. Duchesne, he was hardly convincing denying that he spoke to the PQ while on the political beat at Radio-Canada.
Mr. Duchesne was a bit nasty and indignant, making himself appear guiltier and guiltier.
"Methinks the journalist doth protest too much"

And so the Liberals have made a complaint to the Quebec Press Council, headed by none other than the infamous John Gomery, the judge who headed the Sponsorhip Scandal Inquiry.
If the complaint goes forward, it'll be interesting to see whether those involved stick to the ludicrous story that they are pedaling today.
By the way, on Mario Dumont's political show the host recalled that when he was leader of the ADQ, he considered Duchesne hostile, a reporter who tried to sabotage the ADQ campaign every which way.

All that being said, the attack by the Liberals is just another political ploy to discredit an opponent. Even if everything they say proves true, it is no biggie.
Journalists joining political parties isn't such a big deal, I don't recall any national stink when Mike Duffy, who covered Canada's Parliament, left his job to be appointed to Canada's Senate, representing the Conservative party.

Don't tell me Duffy didn't have discussions about the appointment while serving as host for a CTV's afternoon political interview show, 'Mike Duffy Live' and as a journalist, he was every bit as partisan as Mr. Duschene and was even reprimanded by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for undue partisanship.

Then the case of Peter Kent, now in the federal cabinet, another journo turned Conservative.

At any rate, this isn't the gist of today's blog piece, just a bit of background concerning the steady stream of separatists having careers at Radio-Canada, which includes the likes of Bernard Drainville and Jean-François Lisée and yes, even René Levesque.

That separatist journalists leave Radio-Canada to become PQ militants doesn't bother me at all, but the fact that so many militant separatists are working in Radio-Canada certainly does!

Let us remember that the Radio Canada, the CBC, the National Film Board (Office National du Film) are all subsidized organizations created by Ottawa to foster a national identity and to promote national unity.

It seems a bit disingenuous to employ separatists when the mission of the organization is to promote Canada.

I know you can't exactly vet people over political preferences, but let's be honest, Radio-Canada employs a heckova lot more separatists than federalists, something that should be unacceptable to those who pay the bills.

My separatist friends will argue that they too are taxpayers and as such, deserve representation where their tax dollars help pay the freight.
Now I don't particularly agree with this point of view, that Ottawa should spend federal tax dollars to promote sovereignty,  but even if we accept the separatist argument of equal representation, it still doesn't make any sense.

Radio-Canada doesn't just have proportional number of separatists, they make up the vast majority of the on-air news staff and back room reporters!

Quebec's most watched political/entertainment talk-show, Tout le Monde en Parle is hosted by an openly militant sovereigntist, bringing us that certain anti-Canada slant to the issues at hand, each Sunday.

Could you imagine a universe where any Quebec government, either separatist or federalist, would underwrite a prime-time talk-show hosted by Howard Galganov?

I'm not putting forth anything new in stating that Radio-Canada is a hotbed of separatists, it's common knowledge, a fact repeated by bigger and better journalists and bloggers than I.

The most recent manifestation of this love affair with separatists was the decision to hire Gilles Duceppe as a political commentator, immediately after his defeat as Bloc Quebecois leader.
Only a firestorm of criticism had the head honchos at RadCan ducking for cover and ultimately backing down, but the temerity to hire a radical separatist on the Canadian dime, showed how comfortable the powers to be at RadCan are with promoting sovereignty.

Radio-Canada's love affiar with sovereignty goes back all the way to the beginning of the Quebec independence movement itself, Aislin, the Montreal Gazette's award winning political cartoonist took a shot at the issue way back in 1977.

"Me a separatist at Radio-Canada? It's not true, otherwise they'd have given me the job they promised in October!
And as for separatist tax dollars, let me tell you who really pays for Radio-Canada.
Here's a chart showing the expenditure for both the CBC and its French equivalent Radio-Canada.

For the 22% of the French population across Canada, Radio Canada's budget for radio and television is $566 million dollars or 38% of the combined CBC/Radio Canada English and French budget.
That represents a 55% premium over what demographics dictate.
It means that over $200 million dollars is taken out of the English CBC to subsidize Radio Canada and out of that $200 million dollars, about $130 million is paid for by Canadian federalists, with about $16 million paid for by separatist taxpayers and about $54 million by advertisers.
So much for fair representation of separatist tax dollars, how about fair representation for federalist tax dollars?

That's right, Jane from Orillia, Robert from Saskatoon, Eric from Smith Falls and the other 32 million federalists in Canada, give a financial premium to Radio-Canada, all so that it can promote sovereignty!

In Canada, its hard to get people politically motivated and so the separatist shenanigans over at Radio Canada are not only tolerated by federalists, but also subsidized!

Here's an example of Radio-Canada promoting sovereignty. On Friday last, viewers of Radio-Canada's news channel, RDI, were treated to a whole hour of Louise Beaudoin shilling for sovereignty.
This wasn't a news story, it was nothing less than an hour long infomercial for sovereignty.

Here's a brief clip, where Beaudoin makes her sovereigntist pitch, after being lobbed a softball by the moderator.

Not to nitpick, but Beaudoin actually misspeaks twice in that short clip.

First she tells viewers that the number of Francophones in Canada is diminishing from census to census, which of course is not true. It is the percentage of francophones which is diminishing.

Second, she states that the number of anglophones outside Quebec who are bilingual is 6%. Again not true.
What she should have said, is the number of Anglophones who speak French is 6%.

At any rate, this is what Radio-Canada has become, an organization chock full of separatists, using  Canadian tax money to provide separatists with hundreds and hundreds of hours of air time a year, all to promote the destruction of Canada.

If this is what Radio-Canada's has become, it is time to change things or get rid of the broadcaster altogether.

If separatists want to promote sovereignty over the airways, let them start their own network or buy time on commercial networks.

The recent budget cuts at CBC and Radio-Canada are a fine start, both networks are a waste of taxpayer dollars, but in Radio-Canada's case, we have created an ugly separatist monster and like Frankenstein, it is running amok.


  1. Editor, I'm disapointed in you this time. In your rant against "Seperatist French CBC" you conveniently forget that Radio-Canada broadcasts coast-to-coast, that it is one of the only francophone news stations one has access to outside of Quebec and New-Brunswick, and that much of its expenses come from this.

    I myself wake up to Radio-Canada based in Edmonton, and I grew up watching le Téléjournal with Abbé Lanteigne based in Moncton, N-B.

    So in the future, when you do some more number wrangling, don't forget to try and find out where that money is spent. Chances are there's quite a lot spent outside Quebec for us poor ROC wretches. But we probably don't deserve a national broadcaster anymore than the seperatists do, I reckon.

    1. Oh please Yannick spare us the victim bullshit. Everytime someone speaks against the separatists you act like it is an attack on ALL french Canadians. Editor merely wants to 86 radio canada because it has been taken over by the separatists. He even mentions the same fate for its english counterpart.
      I‘m not surprised you were raised on this though. In 1995 RDI was nicknamed RDOUi. French media is so leftist and pro separatist now even Mario Dumont comes off as a breath of fresh air.

    2. Lets star here where we left off in the last post..


      A while back I saw a comment about Michel Patrice that went something like this:

      Michel Patrice speaking in English, acts open minded and cultured calling himself an independiste like its some kind of a romantic thing while in French, he teams up with racists like Seppie and OQLF.
      What crap!!? He probably thinks he's a cool guy like JF Lisee.

      To that, I added the following:

      M. Patrice

      At the end of Inglorious Bastards, educated and slick Landa gets a swastika so that he not hide from the trader to humanity that he was. In a “Nazi Raté” sort of way, you remind me of him.

      Well Yanick, you defender of Nazis, you’ve found your sock puppet pal, your copy-paste!

      You can rationalize it all you want; what you two are doing is still treason!

    3. @James John

      I happen to support CBC, both it's English and French counterparts. You'd also do well to remember that the French CBC outside Quebec is, well, not anymore seperatist than the locals are. It'd be a shame if either of them went and we were stuck with the crass sensationalism that is private news nowadays.


      Seriously, you can stop your copy-paste spamming now.

      That said tell me

      1. How is arguing in favour of Canadian Federalism treason? Is this one of those "if you're not 100% with us, you're against us" things? Please, do yourself a favour and listen to what you're saying. You're using the same kind of rationale as Bush when he was spurning the world for not supporting is Iraqian adventure.

      2. If you haven't noticed, me and Patrice are on opposing sides. He, unlike you, happens to treat his opponents with respect. Something that wouldn't hurt you to try, btw. I have no idea why you're so vehemently opposed to rational, respectful discourse up to the point where you tell me that it'd be better if I was a vociferous racist. It's beyond belief.

    4. Sorry, when my opponents are ethnocentric racists who openly muse about taking away the voting rights of certain groups they don‘t deserve my respect or anyone else‘s. They‘ve been treated too softly and have been given way too much legitimacy by supposed “federalists“ like you and Uncle Thom.
      And the argument isn‘t about whether or not you support the CBC. I grew up in a rural area and for years our only channel was the CBC and I was exposed to a lot of memorable programming. My issue was with you playing victim to Editor‘s suggestion of getting rid of the CBC.
      And yes, Michel Patrice is very well mannered and eloquent and pretends to treat his opponents with respect, hes just an educated racist and that makes him worse.

    5. ­"Sorry, when my opponents are ethnocentric racists who openly muse about taking away the voting rights of certain groups they don‘t deserve my respect or anyone else‘s."

      I don't respect anyone who's mused about that. It's a terrible thing, harkening back to Jim Crow segregation in the 50's. I don't think you'll find anyone on this blog who supports it.

      You have to remember, however, that the seperatist camp is full of looneys that don't necessarily taint the whole group. Seperatists who have not expressed the desire to disinfrenchise voters don't deserve disrespect. That would be like treating Ontario conservatives bad because of some homophobes shouting off the soapbox in Alberta.

      As for the CBC - I'm sorry if it offended you - my qualm with the editor is that he only considered Quebecers in his rant against CBC.

      As for Patrice - I'll take the very well mannered, eloquent, respectful, educated "racist" (according to you and others, not according to anything he's done that I've seen) over the guy who's angry and disrespects me, everyday.

      Of course, were there more very well mannered, eloquent, respectful, educated people (either federalist or seperatist), I'm sure we could all be having more intelligent discussions. Why would that be so bad?

    6. The Parti Quebecois, Quebec Solidaire, Option Nationale and all the renegade independant separatist MNAs stood behind Pierre Curzi when he introduced his vile Bill 593. To put it off as a few loonies is incredibly naive and once again shows your separatist slanted bias.
      And your obsession with manners is amazing. Racists are ok with you so long as they have manners and say please and thank you.
      Did you ever think that maybe french schools are failing to produce a good amount of separatists because french Canadians aren‘t by nature racists? I think its to their credit that the PQ can‘t get over 35% against a tired government and they‘ll NEVER vote yes to a clear and direct question.

    7. "once again shows your separatist slanted bias." Can't it just show that I'm not familiar with bill 593? Why does everything have to be some seperatist slanted bias?

      "Racists are ok with you so long as they have manners and say please and thank you." Alleged racists. According to one James John. Broad generalizations are lazy.

    8. "How is arguing in favour of Canadian Federalism treason?"

      I won't use the big word "treason". I will say this: there is a way of arguing for "Canadian federalism" that is detrimental for Canada. Just because someone argues for federalism doesn't mean he's excused. Federalism, just like democracy, can be just a catchphrase.

      Quebec federalists-nationalists are actually not doing Canada a favor, even though they can haughtily claim that they are assuring the integrity of the country. Yes, they are assuring it, but at what cost to the rest of the country? In fact, separatists are less detrimental to the RoC than federalists-nationalists. At least the separatist "solution" would provide some sort of closure, while the federalist-nationalist way is a way of endless concessions. Its main hallmark is unpredictability and more importantly, un-resolvability.

    9. Adski, what is the "correct" way to argue for Canadian federalism then? Does it involve demonizing seperatism and discounting it as a legitimate political goal?

    10. Your question misses a point. You’re asking someone who can live with federalism of the RoC with or without Quebec how to fight for federalism of the RoC with Quebec. It’s like a baseball fan asking a soccer fan: how do you want me to defend baseball, can you help me with it, and please engage in a discussion with me because I have the right to my affinity for baseball and I have the right to challenge your indifference to baseball. I have the right not to care about baseball and not to have an opinion about baseball. In other words, not every opinion has to be discussed, pondered, negotiated. Life is too short to hear everyone geezer out.

      The “fight for federalism with QC in the RoC” is your fight, not mine. You come up with your ways of bringing QC and Canada together, and I, along with other Canadians, will judge at our own time, without necessarily negotiating with you, your proposals (so far you haven’t been doing so well btw). Then you do what you want with our rejection/acceptance of your proposals. If you become a separatist as a result of it, then so be it. Who cares.

    11. * every geezer out / everyone out.

    12. I'm confused, adski. Isn't this a blog about Anglo rights in Quebec, and isn't seperatism important to that debate? Why are you here if you're completely indifferent?

    13. “isn't seperatism important to that debate?“

      No it isn't. Anglo/Allo rights and QC separatism, federalism or the future of Canada are two different things. One is crucial, the other is irrelevant. The fact that you want to merge these two in order to distract from or dilute the issue of rights is another thing.

      Anglo rights have little to do with separatism since Ottawa is totally blind to this issue. Whether Ottawa is the capital of this country or a foreign country is not that important.

      Bill 101, the OLA, the OQLF, the Russel County ruling, etc... - important and dangerous.
      Quebec separation from Canada - irrelevant and inconsequential for Anglos, Allos, or rights.

    14. Actually I think they are tied together and related. I think anglo and allo rights would be completely destroyed in a separate Quebec. Separation is based on revenge and hatred, much like all the laws you mentioned above.
      Also do not forget Bill 593, the Marois Identity Act and all the other openly racist musings of PQ members past and present. I believe Marois and her neanderthals will try to pass these laws all in the name of the threatened place of Quebec in North America to either trigger another exodus or a fight with Ottawa.

  2. While Mike Duffy‘s sabotaging of the Liberal campaign in 2008 was disgusting, and while you could argue Trudeau‘s “pos“ comment at Peter Kent was fitting it is not comparable to radio canada at all. Neither of these men have advocated the destruction of Canada based on revenge, hatred, and lies. The fact that Canada, big hearted, dumb golden retriever of a country keeps handing its enemies all the advantages in this game is very puzzling and it needs to stop. In any other country in the world this is called treason.

  3. One nasty habit Radio-Canada has is its frequent reference to the false dichotomy between Quebec and Canada. For instance, hospital waiting times in Quebec are compared to those of Canada. That, is Canada without Quebec. Wishful thinking?

    Radio-Canada? How ironic.

  4. And Yannick I just saw your comment on the french schooling system and I have to say you are either disgustingly deceptive or incredibly naive.
    First off, I sincerely doubt your school in Moncton taught you that english people are evil, Canada is an oppressor, and you are part of a peuple conquis. Second, english is only taught by grade 3 (remember the studies about under 8 being the best age for 2nd language) and at that its only for one hour a day. It used to be one hour a week before Charest changed things. In places like the western half of Montreal, Laval, Greenfield Park, parts of the Outaouais that have significant pockets of english speakers, language can be picked up and practiced through everyday exposure. My best years learning french was when I worked in an office full of unilinguals. The same applies to Moncton. Now what about someone in a region with almost zero english speakers, its not so easy now is it? Pile on the fact that english is taught to be a deplorable and terrible thing and there is pretty much ZERO chance that person will take it upon themselves to learn english as a teenager or adult. Add to this that the vast majority of OUI voters were unilingual francophones, and yes it makes me feel as though the Michel Patrice types are very well versed in Brave New World, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.

    1. Well, all I can say is my own experience. I started english in grade 4, only for one hour a day, yet there was not a single person in my graduating class that I could tell you did not know English. It's a bit harder, granted, but it doesen't make it impossible.

      As for English are evil, Canada is an Opressor, And we are a conquered people - well, I mean, history was divided into 4 parts : The Natives, the French period, the British period, and then Confederation. I'd have to say, it would be hard to teach the bit about the deportation without being a little bitter about it, but they didn't teach us to resent today's Canadians for what happened 250 years ago, no.

      It's true that I got rid of my accent and got confident speaking English only when I lived amongst unilingual anglophones, when I moved for my Master's degree, but I was still able to speak, read and write in English very well by high school.

      I agree that when there is no one to speak it to around you, it can be very difficult to pick up the language. That is why, for instance, Immersion schools have mixed results in the ROC. But aren't you mixing apples and tomatoes here?

      Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm under the impression that the bitterness against Bill 101 is mostly from allophones who wish to enroll their children in anglophone schools, and not so much from francophones. What, then, does it have to do with unilingual francophones in Jonquière? Do you think they'd send their children to English schools even if they had the choice? Short of total English Immersion, for the reasons you mention, it would be difficult for them to gain a fair grasp on the English language in their situation anyways, for the same reason that 6 years of core French in Alberta don't teach anyone French. Is that what you propose - total English immersion for everyone in francophone schools in Quebec? I just want to clarify your position. I mean, that might be a bit strong, just like putting everyone in Ontario through French immersion would probably be thought as going overboard, wouldn't it?

      As for the seperatism propaganda going on in the french schools - are you speaking from experience? I find that I never hear specifics about it. which makes it hard for me to think of it as a real thing. It sounds to me like people talk about it like it's a real thing until it becomes a real thing. I'd really appreciate it if you could share your experience, annecdotes, etc.. from going through a francophone school in Quebec. What kind of things would they do to brainwash you?

    2. Let me go a bit further on that - when I hear the typical rant about all francophone schools in Quebec being seperatist factories, I find it difficult to believe because a) it does not agree with my own experience with Quebecers and b) almost always this narrative is told to me by people who have never attended it.

      That it why I would deeply welcome any insight and details in as to how exactly are francophone schools seperatist.

    3. Yanick and Michel Patrice are well versed in Brave New World, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 because they speak English (not to say that these books aren't translated, but you won't likely see them in the Québécois Separatist Factory "schools").
      These masterpieces make most people want to prevent the horror, but Yan and M.Pat do the opposite.

    4. Yes, continue spouting off personal attacks rather than reply to any of the points I've made. I'm sure that's very convincing.

    5. Yanick writes
      ..(As for the seperatism propaganda going on in the french schools - are you speaking from experience? I find that I never hear specifics about it. which makes it hard for me to think of it as a real thing. It sounds to me like people talk about it like it's a real thing until it becomes a real thing. I'd really appreciate it if you could share your experience, annecdotes, etc.. from going through a francophone school in Quebec. What kind of things would they do to brainwash you?)

      How about the fact that there is NO CANADIAN FLAG allowed in any Quebecois French school?
      If you have the balls, walk in a QC "French" school with a flag of Canada and see what happens to you.
      Nowhere in the world do I know of schools banning their country's Flag.

      You are an apologist for the separatists, and only call yourself federalist, but I'm willing to bet that when you get here and pretend that you are one of them, you will see how hateful they are and yes, you may finally want to call yourself a Canadian!

    6. Maybe even call yourself a Proud Franco Canadian!

      And btw I went to Québécois Separatist Factory "French School" and at any time I'm willing to have Editor set up a private discussion so that I may educate you of the DISGUSTING HATE that I lived there!!!!!!!

      By the Grace of God my Parents found a way to rescue me from that hell.

      Over to You M. Yanick....

    7. GensDenis - I would welcome that private discussion.

      And yes, I am a proud Franco-Canadian. If any seperatist has a problem with that when/if I live in Montreal, I'll tell them to go to hell. Somehow I don't think it'll be that big of a deal though.

    8. You may be right about it not being that big of a deal, accept lets not forget how that little neo terrorist Gabriel Nadeau Dubois was telling his twitter followers to watch the "Charest In The Trunk" video. Just pointing out that as well mannered, eloquent, respectful, educated as he is, he went there knowing full well that Mr. Pierre Laporte was assasinaded that way. Could it be the so called schools?

      And thus, you may need to watch your back if you have MapleLeaf gracing it or if you try to bring OurCountry's Flag in a Québécois "School".

      As for our private discussion, if you wish, we can ask Editor to make it happen.

    9. I've submitted something to him before, he should know my e-mail.

      Can't Dubois just be a nut? The guy seemed to think he was Che Guevarra reborn in Quebec.

    10. He is a nut but he is the face of that movement and is given an insane amount of press and legitimacy by the separatist run media. He has a crazy amount of power over his followers and is pretty much immune to any sort of criticism. To pin him as an isolated nut again shows how you will bend over backwards to defend the separatists.

    11. I thought Gabriel Nadeau was a student activist, not a seperatist, Marois opportunistically wearing red squared notwithstanding. I've actually never seen a news report that explained his stance on sovereignty. Are you just assuming that he's a seperatist because of his far-left politics and conflict with the Liberal government? I mean, he might be, but it's a bit presumptuous to assume.

      Somehow I think you have it in your mind that bad Quebecers == Seperatists.

    12. Somehow I just know you'll answer how naïve I am and so on for not 'knowing' just by his style that GND is a separatist...

    13. Like Denis above I‘ll point out to you the absence and unofficial banning of the Canadian flag at the student rallies. 100 days of protest and not one Canadian flag spotted at any of the protests. Even Parizeau, one of the few honest separatists spoke of the separatist tinge to the whole movement. In the Assembly who were the ones wearing the red square? When law 78 was passed who were the perpetual whiners who stood behind the students with their long faces? Who is lending moral and financial support to this protest? The separatist controlled unions. Not to mention Nadeau Dubois made reference to the murder of a federalist politician by separatist terrorists. Did I mention that CLASSE had Paul Rose speak at one of its assemblies?
      You‘re right, its completely insane to assume he‘s a separatist and in 5 or 10 years when he stops playing in the streets and he runs for the PQ I‘ll be as shocked as you are.

    14. Guilt by association fallacy. Supporters of A are supporting B, so all supporters of B are supporters of A.

      Nadeau will become a separatist if and when he starts advocating separation, not before. Certainly not simply based on who supports him. These all-or-nothing, with-us-or-against-us line in the sand tactics do you (or seperatists, for that matter) no credit.

    15. I'd also like to point out that it's kind of hypocrital to lambast me for assuming you were an anglophone based on your behaviour (apparently correctly, since by your own admission you went to English school and self-describes as one of les autres), but it's apparently ok for you to assume the student movement as a whole is separatist based on their behaviour.

    16. Assuming someone‘s racial and linguistic background based on their opinions is a lot different than assuming someone‘s political stance based on their political views. Its like saying that its preposterous to assume an anti-Obama, pro-life, evangelical, conservative will vote Republican. Nadeau Dubois and all the student leaders have advocated getting rid of the Charest government with the only obvious replacement an ethnocentric, hateful, racist, separatist party.

    17. "based on their political views"

      Protesting against rises in tuition is not a political view in and of itself. Student protests are not by their very nature partisan. People like you attribute them a partisanship in order to discredit them as a whole, a kind of group Ad. Hominem.

      There are two main political options in Quebec - The liberals, who are currently not negotiating with the students, and the "ethnocentric, hateful, racist, separatist party". That certainly is no fault of the students. You could argue the CAQ, but they aren't leading in the polls any more so I agree they are not a credible replacement at this point in time. I don't believe that federalist students who are part of the protest movement are reacting any differently when faced with a government that does not negotiate with them. What else can they do but wish for a change in government?

    18. Campaigning door to door in close ridings to convince people to vote out Charest is political. And perhaps you were watching too much Pierre Duchesne but the government has negotiated and made several concessions to the students. He shouldn‘t even have negotiated with them to begin with. I don‘t really feel comfortable with elected officials sitting down with a neo-terrorist who pays his rent by stuffing an envelope of cash in his landlord‘s unsecured mail box without asking for a receipt to talk about how they are going to spend our (well obviously not yours because you have NOTHING at stake here) tax dollars. The student unions were never going to budge because its an effort to make the Charest government look bad so they can bring in the racists.
      And please do your research. First you admit to not knowing what Bill 593 is and now you suggest the CAQ as a political option for those against tuition hikes. Sorry, the Caquistes are for tuition hikes and for Law 78.

    19. "Campaigning door to door in close ridings to convince people to vote out Charest is political." That it is. Haven't seen it in the news though. This has been happening?

      "he government has negotiated and made several concessions to the students. He shouldn‘t even have negotiated with them to begin with. I don‘t really feel comfortable with elected officials sitting down with a neo-terrorist who pays his rent by stuffing an envelope of cash in his landlord‘s unsecured mail box without asking for a receipt"

      The negotiations broke down; the fact they happened is beyond the point. For a student protestor now who wants something to happen, there's nothing left to do but to hope for a new government. It has nothing to do with any sympathy on my part for the students, just a logical assessment of what their options are.

      "And please do your research. First you admit to not knowing what Bill 593 is" I knew what it was - a private member's bill by Pierre Curzi introduced back in March or whatever. The coverage by the editor had left me under the impression that it did not have much traction outside his entourage.

      "and now you suggest the CAQ as a political option for those against tuition hikes." Sigh. I almost included something to that effect, then I convinced myself that saying they were simply irrelevant was probably enough. Not so, apparently.

    20. Curzi‘s entourage includes the Parti Quebecois who are the government in waiting. He left because he thought they weren‘t committed enough on a referendum, on revenge, hatred, and racism they see eye to eye.
      They haven‘t started going door to door because they are currently enjoying the terrace weather and an election hasn‘t been called yet. The neo-terrorists as well as the feuq and fecq have discussed this at length. They were even warned by elections Quebec about 3rd party spending during the last two by elections. I‘m sorry, even as a left leaning student I sat out in 2005 because the only alternative were the racists. Everytime the Charest government has given in they ask for MORE MORE MORE because the goal is get rid of him in favor of a separatist government.

  5. No, I am not advocating forced immersion for any side. I think people should be allowed to choose either way. Bill 101 is a slippery slope as they are now talking seriously about extending it to daycare and university. What does that tell you? The english cegeps are overflowing with french kids who want to better their english. This isn‘t a fight against anglicization, its a fight against billingualism plain and simple.
    I thankfully did not attend french schools but being one of les autres and knowing many immigrant kids who were forced to attend I‘ve heard that they learn that New France was the Golden Age, England the big bad oppressor, we are a peuple conquis blah blah blah. Its so pathetic that the apolitical son of one of my Bangladeshi ex coworkers was ridiculing it on a daily basis.
    I also have a cousin who teaches english in french school and feels like hitting his head against a wall when parent teacher interviews come up. He literally has parents telling him “don‘t waste my time telling me he is struggling with english he doesn‘t need it.“ and this in a riding not far from Montreal that always votes Liberal. I‘m going to go out on a limb and guess there is less disdain for english as a 2nd language in Moncton.

    1. Thanks for the clarification, James.

      The situation in Moncton is a bit different - all the francophones are bilingual, hardly any of the anglophones are. Not much encourages them to be, after all. So de facto everything has to happen in English unless the store owner was progressive enough to hire some francophones. This situation is seen as natural by the francophones there.

  6. Easy solution, privatize the CBC/Radio Canada...

  7. "Easy solution, privatize the CBC/Radio Canada..."

    I second that motion. CBC is a waste of taxpayers money. As far as French Radio is concerned I know of one instance where the local
    Radio Canada transmitter went down in a Western Canadian City and no one called to complain about the situation for several days. Obviously, not a lot of people listening or concerned.

    1. I agree with you. CBC is a pure waste of taxpayers money. Because nobody listen CBC, on the contrary of Radio-Canada.

      English-Canadian films and tv programs also are a pure waste of money. Because people in English-Canada prefer to watch the original american version rather than the copy.

      By the way the guys of Flashpoint and Stargate look really ridiculous with their canadian flag on their suit.

      How many people know that the maple leaf emblem was established in 1834 by Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste as a national emblem for la nation canadienne?


      "Like an American but in less good. I am Canadian."

    2. "English-Canadian films and tv programs also are a pure waste of money. Because people in English-Canada prefer to watch the original american version rather than the copy."

      Peut-être la plupart, mais certainement pas tous les films et émissions anglo-Canadiens... il y en a quelques qui sont tres bien. Degrassi, Last Night, Kids In The Hall, Dead Ringers, Marion Bridge, parmi des autres. On m'a dit que Corner Gas est tres drôle mais je ne sais pas. Je connais des gens qui adore toujours la séries Anne/Green Gables mais je ne la connais pas.

      D'ailleurs, le long-métrage de cet été "Friend Sought For End of World" est une copie de un film anglo-Canadien, Last Night.

    3. I quite enjoy Bomb Girls and Murdoch Mysteries myself.

    4. Codco and 22 minutes before walsh and mercer left. Not to mention HNIC used to be first rate as well as a lot of the CBC‘S sports coverage ranging from the Commenwealth Games to the Olympics.
      Road to Avonlea was very well done too, much like Green Gables.

    5. @ Isidore,

      Did you know that most Quebecois folk music and dancing was copied from English-speaking Scottish and Irish immigrants?

      I would rather be a "less good" version of an American than a Quebecois.

  8. Actually Yannick you may find you don‘t fit in. My franco Albertan friend moved here 10 years ago and found it that way. His first day of school he saw the words “english scum go home“ spray painted on the wall (his father is english). He got bullied and teased regularly at (separatist run french) school because he spoke french a little differently and wasn“t from Quebec. Even as a young adult he was told by other francophones he wasn‘t one of them because he didn‘t consume crappy Quebecois culture. His words not mine. Of course you can‘t paint everyone with the same brush but to me it shows the kind of garbage that is being spewed in french schools.

    1. Right you are, James John. When I was a student several years ago, I got a summer job in the Quebec Revenue Dept. I was probably the weak link Frenchwise, but one person who unjustly took persecution was one of my colleagues (also a classmate in several of my classes in university) who was francophone, fluently bilingual, and several of us addressed him by his Anglicized nickname. Francophones generally don't have Anglicized nicknames, so my supervisors were ridiculing him, and he became quite agitated in front of me. I found that very disturbing.

      Too, right after university, I worked in Ottawa for the feds for a while and was quite astonished to learn how poorly the Acadians I worked with responded to the Québécois pur laine, but after I saw the ridicule they took in the past from Quebec, I can't say I blame them. Sick fascist bastards.

    2. Right you are, James John. When I was a student several years ago...

    3. @Sauga : A bit like how some people insist on calling the Premier "James John Charest", right?

      And you're right, Pur-laine Québecois have a terrible rep in Acadia.

    4. Mr Sauga I find that story incredibly sad and not surprising in the least. Maybe we should go easy on Yannick as he is preparing for a big move to Montreal and conditioning himself to defending separatist arguments and is probably clapping along to Marie Mai all the while.

    5. J.J.: Let Yann come to Quebec with an Acadian accent and he'll face a plenitude of ridicule when he's told he's a lesser classification because he's not pur laine.

    6. Mr Sauga I am convinced it was a jealousy thing with my friend. Here is this guy with an anglo parent, deep in the heart of the dreaded “sea of english“ and he spoke a much better, more proper french with less slang and didn‘t need the protection of a racist hate law to retain his language. I mean, not everyone was like that but enough to make him feel that sting of rejection.

    7. I can attest to the fact that in francophone schools, speaking a non-rural variety of French will get you picked on and made fun of. The idea is that such "standart" dialects are prestige dialects. How could you get made fun of for speaking a "prestige dialect", you might ask? Well, like written on the article,

      "Non-standard dialects are usually considered low-prestige, but in some situations dialects "stigmatized by the education system still enjoy a covert prestige among working-class men for the very reason that they are considered incorrect."

      This is exactly what happens, in Quebec like in New-Brunswick. This is the reason why your friend got made fun of, and (partly) why Acadians resent Quebecers (ironically they are considered to speaking a much better variety of French than Acadians, at least of the South-East chiac variety), why Franco-Canadians in general will see Frenchmen as dandies. It's a big hate-fest, dogs tearing each other appart trying to prove they aren't on the bottom.

      I believe the same thing might happen in America as regards to the British language, or in the South of America (often stigmatized for it's distinctive "drawl") with regards to the Northern/Mid-Western more "standard" accents.

      Ironically, since my family came from the North-East of the province, which has a form of French closer to the "standard" but still distinctively non-Quebecois, I got called a "Quebecer" in school. When I visit Quebec, I sound "comme un français de France". When I talk to Frenchmen, I sound like a Quebecer. Only international students/immigrants who have learned French as a second language have anything good to say about my accent, which they say is easier to understand than the Quebecers'.

      For all these reasons I react negatively when accents are made fun of, as I don't believe people have a huge influence on their accent rather than accident of birth. I don't think we should respect or ridicule people based on what accent they have, regardless if it's a "working class" or a "prestige dialect" kind of accent.

    8. I note with a note of disappointment that when I point out the mistakes in other posters' logic about the alleged racism of Quebec society as a whole (or the French in general, or French Canadians, or sovereignty), I get accused of being a "traitor", a "velvet glove apologist", a "racist", of "wanting to destroy the country", of being a "racist defender."

      When I acknowledge and discuss a form of racism present in French-Canadian society, specifically a form of racism that most of our anglophone and allophone readers are perhaps less familiar with, suddenly there is no one to see it.

    9. Probably because you keep insisting on defending the separatists even though their movement is based on hate, revenge and racism. You denounce these racists as isolated cases. In the US the worst rednecks have been shamed into not saying Barrack Hussein Obama. John James Charest? Still going strong into its 3rd decade.

    10. I don't have any choice when you argue so poorly.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  10. "Alors je suis toujours en compagnie de L.Beaudoin, pour accueillir vos commentaires, vos solutions aussi pour assurer l’avenir du francais" - intro to the clip

    Politically? If "l'avenir du francais" is to be defined by expansion to the rest of the RoC (which it partly is), vote for Mulcair and hope the NDP wins. That will guarantee you some sort of bill 101 for the RoC. As defined by "l'anglicisation de Montreal", carry on as before. Vote the PLQ/PQ, even CAQ. Language cops guaranteed.

    Demographically? Reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. Don't count on immigrants. They won't do the job for you. La langue francaise is your "treasure", so it's up to you to treasure it.

  11. "Don't count on immigrants"

    Merci pour l'info mais nous étions déjà au courant.Nous savons aussi que ces derniers sont trop individualistes afin de former une force de frappe.Aucun regroupement politique à l'horizon.

  12. Should English Canada Subsidize Separatist Radio Canada?

    Mais oui, pourquoi pas? Apres tout, l'Alberta subventionne déja tous les séparatistes, n'est-ce pas? Pourquoi pas ne les permettre pas d'avoir access a la radio?


  13. D'ailleurs, a propos du ancien blog du Rédacteur en égard de la partition du Québec pour faire de Montréal une province canadienne dedans un Québec sans un "pont" entre l'Ontario et les Maritimes...

    Je ne crois pas que la séparation va se passer (au moins, dans ma vie), mais si elle viendrait, le Canada serait uni le long le St. Laurent, au moins (et avec l'accord des États-Unis) et il inclurait Montréal.

    1. Mr. Sauga to all our loyal readersMonday, July 9, 2012 at 4:49:00 PM EDT


    2. Arguing in favour of partition is trolling now?

  14. It seems that pretty much every media outlet in this province is the same: biased and working towards their personal interests. Objectivity apparently isn't very popular in this province. It's sad to see how many little sheep are influenced by all this propaganda.

    As for Canada financing separatists, is this really a surprise to anyone? The separatists/language extremists wouldn't have it any other way. Just like everything else (tuition fees/7$ daycare/etc), they want everything, as long as someone else pays. It's the Quebec dream!
    Do you think they'd stop asking for equalization payments following a successful separation??...

    1. Stump: They'll ask, but being their own country, they can line up and apply foreign aid behind Africa and Haiti. I'm sure they'll have their sympathizers outside Quebec....won't they?

    2. "Just like everything else (tuition fees/7$ daycare/etc)"

      Les fédérastes profitent aussi de notre système.

    3. Les Québécois fédérastes (Oui ça existe).

  15. Editor, while I would relish Howard Galganov doing a show as you propose, he never will. He did a prime time morning show on radio, and even the English press was against him.

    He has made it unequivocally clear he now wishes for separatism just like I do. Quebec is a lost cause that is only dragging the rest of us down with it, and what do we need THAT for?

    Galganov would now do a show on Obama bashing as this is what his blog is all about. Why? He gets far more financial support from the Americans than he does from us. THAT is why he'll do a TV show that is anti-Obama long before he'll do an anti-Quebec show.

    1. "Quebec is a lost cause that is only dragging the rest of us down with it, and what do we need THAT for?"


    2. Correct?
      Intelectual laziness, I say!

      The regions that will form OurEleventhProvince represent more than half of the people in Quebec. those who remain in the RoQ would still not want to separate!
      Tell a story of wag the dog and we, the big hearted, dumb golden retriever Canadians, as James calls us, believe it.

      The Québécois racists are a minority. Separate them from the rest of us and we won't need


  16. Wow this has got to be one of -- if not the most -- rapid degenerations of a discussion on this blog I've ever seen on this blog.

    What the hell is going on, guys?!?!?!

    1. Aucune crisse d'idée... même si je partage (en partie) la prémisse du Rédacteur.

    2. Really, I don’t know what’s going on, Apparatchik. I go away for a little break and all hell breaks loose! ;-)

      What’s with all the hating on Yannick? Even if you disagree with him 100%, one can explain the reasons why you disagree with him without making personal, ad hominem attacks. Even if you disagree vehemently with him, at least he’s not littering the blog with moronic comments like “Pfff!” and “Héhé” as our useless Anonymous troll does. Anyone can see that he’s genuinely earnest in his commenting. OK, so his comment about Nazis was over the top, but I took it simply to be an inelegant way of paraphrasing the famous saying (widely but incorrectly attributed to Voltaire): “I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Making him out to be some sort of Nazi sympathizer based on that comment is absolutely preposterous!

      Also, I agree he has made some naïve comments on more than one occasion, but so what? He’s not from here not does he live here, so why should he be completely up-to-date on current events? He’s still much better informed that most Albertans, by a long shot. I agree that by mainly focusing on questions about other people’s comments, he can sometimes be annoying by poking holes in people’s logic. Still, what’s wrong with that? It’s his prerogative and his questions are generally quite germane to the discussion. If he’s wrong, just tell him why. This blog has mostly been quite civil and it would be a shame if it degenerated into unmitigated nastiness.

    3. Yannick was afforded ample opportunity to withdraw his comment that he would defend Nazis if people made untrue remarks about them. He not only refused to do so, he reiterated his comment and stated that he stood behind his comment for reasons of "intellectual integrity". At best we can conclude that Yannick has no common sense. If Yannick's comment was associated with his real name and it came to light, his employer would fire him. Yannick has no grasp whatsoever how offensive his comment is, particularly to those whose relatives were murdered in the concentration camps, in some cases in front of their own eyes.

  17. Yanick,

    I left the blog late last night thinking that, at some point you and I would have a discussion about the Separatist Factory Racist Québécois “French Schools” based on my own disgusting experience in them, but now I notice you’ve been relentlessly defending the racists. I must say, if you’re not a perfect agent provocateur, you sure act like one!

    What good will it do to spend countless hours educating you on how the “French School” system works in this province when you’ve made up your mind that as long as you’re well mannered, eloquent, respectful, and educated in hate, you can get away with neo terrorist treason?

    If the absence and banning of the CanadianFlag on ALL the “French Schools” in this PROVONCE does not utterly disgust you, I can understand why your dialog with James John has been notably abrasive so far.

    I think I’ll paste parts of a post I put out in the past when I was replying to someone in the RoC who mention that the BQ were just looking out for their people. I hope that it can help you come to understand that the SeparatistMachine is well oiled with hate. Its goal of separation is paramount because while in Canada, the world is watching. Out of Canada, QC can fall to the level seen in some of those renegade kingdoms of the third world where human rights violations are ignored by the UN and such.
    I truly believe that it is the French Canadians who resist being classified as
    Les Québécois who primarily have interfered with that separatist plan because they are not racists. And that is why the battle is in the “French Schools”.

    Old, but unfortunately still very relevant post:

    If you think the separatists BQ and PQ represent the French Canadians, you’re another fallen victim of the Separatist lexicon. The word Quebecois used to be used to describe someone from Quebec City just as Lavallois does for Lavalers. Now a Quebecois is mixed in as part of the "nation" of Quebec.

    It has been studied an discovered worldwide that children can learn as many as seven languages without being mixed up prior to the age of about ten. The world has adopted measures to afford children the right of multilingual learning. Even the worst tyrannical regimes have allowed this, yet the only place that has banned its people to officially learn two or more languages is the Canadian PROVINCE of Quebec!!!

    This disgusting practice is part of the game plan to stop opposing views of a population because the separatists know that the French Media in Quebec is almost all separatist or separatist leaning. How else can we explain that more than 98% of those who voted yes to separation were unilingual French and those who voted no spoke more than one language?

    The separatist government will dig deep in your family tree to see how pure you are. Case in point: “his name is not Jean Charest, its John!!” said a PQ elected official during the ’95 referendum. She thought she discovered the “big lie”, that Jean Charest was part Irish and thus cannot speak for Quebec. The separatists hate 4 men more that most of the others because these men stood in the way of the partitioning of our country. These men are Jean Chrétien, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Charest and Stéphane Dion.

    Note that the children of the separatist leaders are multilingual yet those same leaders prevent the rest of Quebecers access to other languages! You call that caring for their people?


    If you’re wondering how the PQ became so skilled at dismantling our country, I can tell you that during the time of the ’76 Olympic Games in Montréal, Canada, agents of the Rumanian Chauchescu Communist Party met with members of the PQ in the homes of several Rumanian Canadians to teach the destabilization of North America.

    Can you see why the Chairman Mao Tse Tung red square wearing, pot lid tapping Pauline Antoinette Marois Des Hélicoptères wants to lower the voting age to 16?

    As for our discussion, Yanick, has this helped?

    1. No I'm a bit disapointed. I wanted to hear about the schools, yet you're talking to me about Stéphane Dion, Communists, and the fact that racist people call Jean Charest "John" (a fact I fully aknowledged a bit higher, but since I wasn't "defending racists" of course it ran under the bridge).

      I'd like to hear more about these two parts though -

      "How else can we explain that more than 98% of those who voted yes to separation were unilingual French and those who voted no spoke more than one language?"

      This is a very interesting and telling statistic. Can you explain to me where you obtained it?

      If it's true, I would have to agree that seperatism highly correlates with ignorance.

      "yet the only place that has banned its people to officially learn two or more languages is the Canadian PROVINCE of Quebec!!!"

      Believe me I'm trying to understand you. It's just that I've personally met a number of Quebecers who have gone through the francophone public schooling system yet knew English and other languages ; this is hard to reconcile with your narrative. Could you comment a bit further? Is what you refer to as a ban related to the fact that francophone schools in Quebec start teaching at the 3rd grade?

      I mean, it's a fair point that schools should probably start teaching english at the first grade, but as you may have read in the past thread, I myself only started learning English in the fourth grade and as you can see this has not had a particularly deleterious effect on my learning. Or do you mean something else when you talk of a ban?

    2. As for the issue of flags, I agree that it's a bad indicator but it doesen't really tell me about the details of what happens inside the schools.

    3. James JohnTuesday, July 10, 2012 8:39:00 AM EDT

      Actually its a very good indication of what is going on in the schools. If the people in charge are not allowing it then there is a trickle down effect. Its easy to say “oh its a provincial matter“ but the outright banning and hostility?
      And of course you know french Quebeckers who picked up english, this is NORTH AMERICA. And the fact that there are so many people learning english despite Bill 101 is why the PQ is talking about extending Bill 101 to daycare all the way to university. Its not a fight against anglicization, its a fight against billingualism. Billingualism, something that takes their precious dwindling “oui“ votes away.
      As for GensDenis‘ numbers, I don‘t know the stats offhand but all you have to do is look up every region and how they voted to figure it out.

    4. Editor, can we do something about this copy-paste vigilante? Airlifting posts from one part of the thread to another does nothing to contribute to the discussion (especially when the posts in question are already being discussed immediately below) and create just needless spam.

    5. Yanick, at some point we may have that convo, but Voltaire, you are not

      June 1996.
      Montreal Canada (but still Quebec)

      Day Camp for 6 to 11 year olds.

      Monitors are between 20 to 26 years old.

      Young woman monitor asks the children
      “Qui a voté OUI?”

      Some kids raise hands.

      Camp is divided in two groups

      June 1996.
      Montreal Canada (but still Quebec)

      Children telling parents
      “They got to swim and we didn’t”

      Imagine that starting from day care.

      Shame on the Racists !!!

    6. Do I get the feeling that dear Yannick appeals to technicalities when the argument doesn't go the way he wants? Paints himself as having a higher purpose, but dangerously blurs the lines between playing devil's advocate (a worthwhile position if taken with the necessary detachment) and openly siding with the blue team.

      The facts are these: outside Quebec, Acadia and Eastern Ontario there is NO sizeable Francophone community (i.e. a cluster of at least 100,000 people). In the areas outside the regions stated above French is (rightly) treated a lot better than all other (more numerous) minority languages. Within those regions, there are large numbers of Francophones living cheek to jowl with large numbers of Anglophones. It makes sense to have official bilingualism. Period. The only sensible exception to this is rural Quebec where hardly any English is spoken (comparable with the position of Francophones in the Western Provinces).

      The reality on the ground in Quebec, however, is that English is actively discouraged, by rather unfriendly means, in public life, business and, with the exception of native Anglophone Quebeckers, education, in spite of a quarter of the population of Quebec (and nearly half that of Montreal) being more comfortable communicating in English. This is simply unacceptable. You can gild the lilies much as you like, but the fact remains that, by law, a quarter of the population of Quebec is forced to speak in a language that's not their own or, for allophones, their first choice (among the officially recognised languages in Canada). It was wrong when the boot was on the other foot, it is wrong just the same now. There is no counter-argument.

    7. Doesn‘t matter GD, Yannick will say its an isolated incident, one separatist at a day camp.
      Meanwhile he says I argue poorly but he has yet to address the fact that the separatist government in waiting has embraced the disgusting Bill 593.

    8. GensDenis,

      Sorry, maybe this is a bad advise but I would say choose your child's day camps diligently. I found that the camps in McGill and Concordia are excellent. The camps at the YMCA are also very good. My preferences are the Downtown Y (Stanley & De Maisonneuve West) and the Wesmount Y (Sherbrooke West and Arlington).

  18. Actually its a very good indication of what is going on in the schools. If the people in charge are not allowing it then there is a trickle down effect. Its easy to say “oh its a provincial matter“ but the outright banning and hostility?
    And of course you know french Quebeckers who picked up english, this is NORTH AMERICA. And the fact that there are so many people learning english despite Bill 101 is why the PQ is talking about extending Bill 101 to daycare all the way to university. Its not a fight against anglicization, its a fight against billingualism. Billingualism, something that takes their precious dwindling “oui“ votes away.
    As for GensDenis‘ numbers, I don‘t know the stats offhand but all you have to do is look up every region and how they voted to figure it out.

    1. It might very well be a very good indication, but unfortunately what I asked for (and wanted to know) were details of how seperatism is pushed on students in the class. I really, really would like to know.

      As for the stats : no, not really. I mean, higher unilingualism might mean higher rate of voting for seperation, sure, but "more than 98%" is a exceedingly precise and damning number. It means that there were virtually no bilingual Quebecers voting for seperation.

      It's totally possible. In 1996 there were something like 36% of bilingual franco-Quebecers, meaning that around 64% weren't bilingual. The 49.6% that voted oui could totally have come from the 64%. I'd still like to have a solid reference if I'm going to start throwing that number around when I talk to seperatists though.

    2. I'll take a second here and agree with you on the extension of 101 to university to be fighting against bilingualism, not anglicisation. I don't know of any other legislation in the world that segregates universities according to language. It'e a completely different animal than state-sponsored compulsory k-12 education and to even suggest it shows how radical Curzi and anyone who voted for the bill have gotten.

    3. I don‘t know the stats either but it was the areas with the highest rates of billingualism that voted no. For me its safe to say that if someone learns a second language they are a lot less likely to vote yes. Another sinister aspect is that in case of a yes vote and the ensuing chaos a unilingual francophone doesn‘t really have the option to join the exodus now does he?
      The PQ wholeheartedly embraced Bill 593. Some of its major points were torn right out of the QS and PQ playbooks. Also segregating pre-schoolers is disgusting in its own right.

    4. "Also segregating pre-schoolers is disgusting in its own right."

      Well I'd say that it depends on whether or not kindergarden is considered part of "public school" (in which case it's no more or less disgusting than segregating the rest of public school) or if it's optional and part of "private school", in which case personal choice should reign supreme since the parent is a paying customer.

    5. "Another sinister aspect is that in case of a yes vote and the ensuing chaos a unilingual francophone doesn‘t really have the option to join the exodus now does he?"

      Technically, he could make do in what would be left of Canada's bilingual belt, but yes there would be slim pickings and he'd be unlikely to.

      There are jobs to be had in New Brunswick for unilingual francophones, in the health and the education sector especially since we have entirely seperate dual ministries for those.

    6. "There are jobs to be had in New Brunswick for unilingual francophones, in the health and the education sector especially since we have entirely seperate dual ministries for those."

      Another huge waste of taxpayers money....Two sets of administrators, maintenance people etc etc etc. This is not uncommon to the rest of Canada where there are English, French in some jurisdictions first nations school boards. Not too mention public (protestant) and separate (catholic) school divisions. The whole thing is ridiculous and comes at a huge cost.

    7. Yannick when I say pre-schoolers I mean kids who are in daycare. Stop trying to justify it and make it less gross than it really is. Bill 101 is bad enough as it is and pushing it to daycare and university is Quebec sliding further and further down that slippery slope. What is next? Segregated apartment buildings and neighborhoods? A banning of inter linguistic marriages?

    8. "Yannick when I say pre-schoolers I mean kids who are in daycare. Stop trying to justify it and make it less gross than it really is."

      I thought you were talking about kindergarden, especially because it came after a comment about k-12 education that I made. I agree with you that trying to prevent children from choosing their own daycares is terrible. I was just making sure.

      I'm a bit more sincere than you conceive me to be, you know.

    9. Its actually the logically conclusion of Bill 101 and shows exactly why the whole thing should be scrapped

    10. @James John

      Vous êtes un véritable génie.

  19. "Note that the children of the separatist leaders are multilingual yet those same leaders prevent the rest of Quebecers access to other languages!"

    Qui vous empêche d'être polyglotte et de quelle façon ?Auraient-ils fermé toutes les écoles de langues du Québec :)

  20. "There are jobs to be had in New Brunswick for unilingual francophones,"

    We'll see how long that lasts in the event of Quebec separation. The Official Languages Act would likely be trashed and New Brunswick could theoretically lose its bilingual status.

    1. Theoretically, the (federal) OLA would likely be trashed. But New-Brunswick would still have ~30% of francophones who wouldn't immediately abandon their services. I'm sure it would tax the good will of the majority anglophones of the province, of course.

    2. "Theoretically, the (federal) OLA would likely be trashed. But New-Brunswick would still have ~30% of francophones who wouldn't immediately abandon their services."

      I wouldn't count on too many French federal services once the OLA is gone. The only reason the OLA was brought in by that idiot PET was to appease Quebec. Once the seppies and Quebec are gone there will be no further need for the OLA. As to the anglos in NB, I don't think there is a lot of love loss between either the french or the anglos for each other in NB. You see the last poll on the sentiments in the ROC with regards to Quebec separation? I think this sends a cool message to Quebec that a great many people in the ROC are totally ambivilent to Quebec separation and really don't give a damn.

  21. "Once the seppies and Quebec are gone there will be no further need for the OLA. As to the anglos in NB"

    Nous reconnaissons ici l'amabilité légendaires des snglos...Que de la haine envers les francophones.Pathétique.

    1. Effectivement. Celon ce qu'il dit, nous ne sommes pas leurs égaux qui méritent d'avoir des services dans notre langue. La seule raison pour laquelle on a ces services, c'est parce qu'on est des "chialeux"; ils nous donnent donc quelques miettes (qui coûtent bien trop cher). Dès que le Québec part, fini les miettes! On aura donc tous la chance d'être exactement comme eux, qui voudrait le contraire?

      Bien sûr ce sont les mêmes qui crient au viol lorce que les séparatistes parlent de leur enlever des services à Montréal... aucune hypocrisie bien sûr.

    2. Just like QC justified sending En to the back of the bus ("the language of an 8% minority cannot have an official status. That is not a world standard"), the RoC would use the same justification. Wouldn't scrapping of the OLA be just a "normalité mondiale", Anonymous? Considering how scant the franco population is in the RoC, and how Punjabi and Mandarin actually outnumber French?

      Making an "exception" for the Fr language in the RoC minus QC, for "historical reasons", "personal favor", "goodness of the heart" or what not, would not be un-conceivable in general, but not in light of what QC has done to English. When the same reasons as those used on behalf of Fr in the RoC (mainly historical, since demographic justification is not there), were used for En in QC, they were rejected, and the demography rule (normalité mondiale, which is more or less correct) was applied.

      Fine. The state can choose any method it wants. But how hypocritical do you have to be to criticize a potential application of the "normalité mondiale" approach in the RoC while you practice it in your own backyard with such zeal...

      So no, I don't see any future for the OLA in the RoC minus QC. Because of reciprocity, not hate. Just like Brazil requires US citizens to have entry visas when entering Brazil, only because the US requires the same of Brazilian nationals entering the US. No hate. Just plain political reciprocity. Independent QC would learn the value of such reciprocity real fast. I actually can't wait.

    3. No future for the OLA in the RoC minus QC is one thing. I acknowledged it and did not dispute it.

      I took offense from that guy who told me that our services in N-B are "a huge waste of taxpayer money" and that "anglos and french in NB don't lose any love for each other".

    4. "anglos and french in NB don't lose any love for each other"

      I'm sure there is some friction there,but in quebec it is institutionalized and the a main stay of the pq hate.

      face it. it's racism pure lain simple

    5. Its not really linguistic. Its more like the brainwashed francophones fear of les autres and frustrated anglos and allos. Lots of people want to play up some kind of hatred but in place like the western half of Montreal and the Outaouais we‘ve pretty much all been living in harmony for years.
      That is why you are beginning to see the racists panick.

    6. "I took offense from that guy who told me that our services in N-B are "a huge waste of taxpayer money" and that "anglos and french in NB don't lose any love for each other"."

      Look Yannie, I did not intimate that your French services are a waste of money. What I said was that duplicate school boards full of administration staff are a waste of money. Why can't you have english public and french public schools under one administration. (Well likely because they don't get along as I said before). Do you need separate maintenance staff managers, purchasing departments, consultants, superintendants, IT departements....NO, you do NOT. A waste of taxpayers money.
      I am sure being a bilingual and all that NB could force school boards to operate under one umbrella.

      On anglos and francos in NB. Of course they don't like each other. This is obvious by the sign debate in Dieppe and the flag incidents of a few months ago. I have spent a lot of time in NB and the maritimes and their is intense distrust amongst the two solitudes.

      As to the Galganov/Brisson case in Russel, ON. Well the supreme court have ruled in favor of the municipality as some have said. So an outright afront to civil rights for both the French and English communities. If it was me I would simply ignore the sign bylaw which is patently ridiculous and stupid. In a free country (or what used to be) you can put up a sign in any language you frikkin well like. Wait, you still can in most of Canada outside of Quebec and the French pandering eastern townships of Ontario. Bad, Bad ruling on behalf of the supreme court.

    7. Why not have both under one administration? Sadly, since anglophones speak mostly english only(around 17% of bilingual anglophones in NB) and francophones are mostly bilingual, such administrations tend to quickly devolve to "english only". Unless you want to have a bilingual-only hiring policy, but then the anglophones (arguably rightly, as you'd discount 83% of the population) would cry holy murder.

      Whereas in this setup you hire people who speak french for the french school boards and people who speak english for the english school boards, everyone gets what they want.

      You're right that such a setup will not benefit from the same economies of scale as being under one administration would ; but there's also lots of things that are not obviously more expensive if you have dual systems. Having seven anglophone superintendents and three francophone superintendents is not any more expensive than having ten bilingual superintendents.

  22. "historical reasons" ?!?

    Nous sommes les fondateurs de ce pays.Croyez-vous que les É.U deviendront un pays hispanophone dans 20 ans amigo?

    1. "With the surge over the past decade in the Hispanic population in the United States, speaking Spanish is becoming more of a necessity than a choice in many parts of the country. From feedlot managers in Nebraska to New York City stockbrokers, Americans are scrambling to learn a language that is now spoken by many of the35.3 million Hispanics in the United States."

      That's in 2001. I assume Spanish is more, not less, important today in the US...Amigo...

    2. And you missed my point. My point was about reciprocity, not about the legitimacy of the "founding nation" exception. Your claim is that since francophones constitute one of the "founding people", they deserve an official status even if they're a negligible minority, as they are in the RoC. I said fine, but why can't the same argument be extended to QC? Why is it that in QC, the "founding people" principle (i.e. Anglos) gives way to the "one majority, everyone else suck it up" principle?

      In other words, why is it that if a QC Anglo were to say to you: "Nous sommes les fondateurs de ce pays" ("le pays" of which QC is a part of) or "Nous sommes les fondateurs de cette province" (historically accurate claim), you would not accept it? Yet they have to accept the same argument, identically worded, when you say it to them? And please, don't tell me it's because Fr is "la langue menacée". We've been over these grounds already.

    3. Their argument is that french has a special and threatened status in north america. They also hide behind this argument when they talk about passing racist and Orwellian laws.

    4. The truly disturbing aspect of attempts to protect the French language from threats real or perceived is that franophones want to force anglophones to convert to being francophones in the same way as muslims in the middle ages imposed conversion on non-muslims. In Quebec it was done stealthily at first by abolishing English as an official language in Quebec by a series of steps and then more blatantly by stripping parents of their right to send their children to the school of their choice, imposing resrictions on signage, imposing language requirements on businesses, hunting down language law offenders, pressuring businesses to use French where not required by law, infiltrating the media and unions, and various other acts so well described on this blog.Ironically, Quebec's immigration laws have led to certain immigrants who are more interested in imposing their cultural values on francophones.

    5. Nous sommes les fondateurs de ce pays.

      You are the sole founders of a Country that doesn't exist anymore: Nouvelle Françaises do not exist anymore, no more than Etruscans, Hittites, Prussians, Ottomans or South-Vietnamese.

      You are the Co-Founders of Canada and, within Canada, the Co-Founders of Quebec (although the British decided where Quebec's borders lay). It is demonstrably obvious that whatever rights you enjoy in Quebec, should equally be enjoyed by the Anglophones.

      As I've said before: if it was wrong for the Anglos to marginalise Francophones from business and public life when they were in charge in Quebec, then the current situation in Quebec is just as wrong. Two languages are spoken by NATIVE Quebeckers, both these languages should be catered for in Law, Public Services and Business, and no linguistic group gets to choose what the speakers of neither language choose to be their working language in Quebec (apart from the fact that most Allophones end up being tri-lingual, anyway)

  23. In response to the direct question of the Editor, the answer is no. Radio-Canada should closed down.

    A couple of other issues arise from the question.

    Firstly, the CBC should be discontinued and its assets sold to the private sector. In a democracy, which Canada is (with the exception of Quebec where the Michael Patrice- held view that collective rights trumps civil liberties prevails), and so long as the government establishes and enforces rules to encourage competition among the media and prevent monopolistic and oligopolistic practices, there is no need for state-owned media.

    Secondly, if the principle that the Editor is advocating is that the public should not directly or indirectly support with tax dollars separatists or those who seek to break apart Canada, then I agree and would extend the principle to, among other things, service in the federal Parliament. Why should taxpayers pay salaries and pensions (egregious but that is another topic) to and provide a platform for these enemies of our country? No other country in the world tolerates this.

    1. Maybe not just in Quebec - Harris-Decima shows that 46% of Canadians want CBC funding to remain the same and 23% want it increased".

      It's ok to have a fringe opinion (only 12% of Canadians believe in getting rid of CBC), but you should realize that Canada as a whole supports the CBC, either rightly or wrongly.

      As for indirectly or directly supporting seperatists with tax payers - perhaps you should drop the "indirectly" from there. Many people are supported by taxpayer money - all students, people who do research, employees of the federal government, employees of the Health services (though provincial it is funded in part by the feds), etc... Unless you advocate a witch-hunt of OQLF proportions, you'll never identify the seperatists who are currently on the federal payroll.

      I assume, then, that you mean seperatists whose seperatism is relevant to their taxpayer-funded job like CBC. Fair enough. I just believe that you hold this position not because of CBC's inherent seperatism, but because you are already against CBC from the start. If, for instance, most people involved in federal Tourism offices in Quebec would be seperatists, I doubt you'd advocate getting rid of Tourism offices, or even getting rid of the seperatist employees (since finding them out would necessitate a witch hunt).

      I think all that can be done, in this case, is what the Liberal party has done : denounce the crook to the Quebec Press Council as having been a journalist when under a clear conflict of interest, and take care of it on a case-by-base basis. It is, after all, not a crime to be a seperatist in Canada; not any more than it is a crime of being a communist or even an extreme right-winger and one cannot use political convictions to fire someone from their job unless those political convictions interfere with said job (as it obviously did in the case of this journalist).

    2. Having the CBC/Radio-Canada in Canada is hardly an unusual situation. Quite the opposite, public broadcasting exists in virtually all countries around the world and there is a reason for why this is. I don’t have figures on how many public broadcasters are state-owned but, for example, the United Kingdom has a strong tradition of public service broadcasting (the BBC goes back to 1922) and yet it is a very robust democracy. Thus, John Krug’s first argument makes no sense.

      By not being as reliant on advertising as commercial broadcasters, they are able to transmit programmes that are not commercially viable to the mass market (public affairs, documentaries, educational television). In addition, they may facilitate the implementation of cultural policies, such as encouraging national identity in Australia or with Maori-language broadcasting in New Zealand or Welsh-language programs in the UK.

      I would dread a world of television that consisted mainly of reality talent shows. In Japan, NHK television broadcast plenty of educational television (such as many language courses, which is sadly lacking here) as well as historical dramas. The exception is the U.S., where PBS and NPR are closer to commercial networks than in Europe.

      It’s true that I can’t think of any examples where public broadcasters serve to destroy the state they serve. That doesn’t make sense to me.

      If one is discussing the funding of public broadcasting (as opposed to the existence of public broadcasting), the typical alternatives to government financing is generally compulsory television licence fees for anyone who owns a television or a personal computer/mobile phone with internet access (such as in France, Scandinavia, Japan). In the U.S., more than half of revenues come from individual contributions from pledge drives or telethons (like PBS). Some countries have a mix of television licences with advertising (such as Italy, Ireland, Poland, Greece) and others have that plus government grants (Germany, Albania).

    3. @John Krug

      Monopolistic and oligopolistic practices are not confined to the state-owned sector. They are also common in the private media sector. Murdoch's empire is one example.

      Both state and private media have the problem of monopolistic tendencies, and another problem: they all basically disseminate propaganda.

    4. @The Cat

      The existence of public broadcasting in many countries is not an argument for the continuation of public broadcasting.

      The BBC, which you cited, is today subject to tremendous criticism in the UK for many reasons. The BBC is a corrupt organization because it evinces a left wing mindset. It is notoriously anti-Israel, for example, and this attitude colours all of its reporting on the Middle East. The UK has numerous non state media entities espousing a wide variety of views and the UK broadcasts can even be picked up outside the UK through satellite broadcasting. The BBC may be like an old comfortable chair for some, but there is no need for the BBC.

      There is no need to implement cultural or any other policies through state-owned media. Are you suggesting that the government should write scripts for state-owned media? Pravda was a fine instrument to do that in a totalitarian USSR, but I do not want the government feeding me its ideas as to what I should read, write or think or otherwise moulding my behaviour.

      I would certainly agree that there are some fine programs on PBS, but there are also many fine programs on HBO, for example. In any event, PBS and the CBC are two completely different organizations.

      Again, there is no reason to have a large bureaucratic organization like the CBC which, incidentally, is very poorly run as knowledgeable insiders would tell you.


      That is why I qualified my comment by saying that the government would need to establish and enforces rules to encourage competition among the media and prevent monopolistic and oligopolistic practices.

      As for propaganda, there are some good newspapers and some good writers on some newspapers, but the blogs are in certain instances far more interesting and informed.

    5. @John Krug: I’m trying to understand your argument.

      “The existence of public broadcasting in many countries is not an argument for the continuation of public broadcasting.”… OK then, so, why not?

      “The BBC, which you cited, is today subject to tremendous criticism in the UK for many reasons.” OK then, can you cite any of this criticism?

      “The BBC is a corrupt organization because it evinces a left wing mindset.” Well, that’s odd because I’ve never known a mindset to make one corrupt. In any event, can you elaborate? Are you saying that Pravda = CBC/Radio-Canada??

    6. @The Cat

      Below is some of the criticism (which I am quoting from the Internet) that has been levelled at the BBC .

      Political Bias

      The Centre for Policy Studies- a right-wing think tank - has stated that, "Since at least the mid-1980s, the Corporation has often been criticised for a perceived bias against those on the centre-right of politics."

      Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century

      A report commissioned by the BBC Trust, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century, published in June 2007, stressed that the BBC needed to take more care in being impartial.After press reports emerged that BBC employees had edited the Wikipedia article's coverage of the report, the BBC issued new guidelines banning BBC staff from "sanitising" Wikipedia articles about the BBC.

      Israeli–Palestinian conflict

      The Daily Telegraph has criticised the BBC for its coverage of the Middle East. In 2007, the newspaper wrote, "In its international and domestic news reporting, the corporation has consistently come across as naïve and partial, rather than sensitive and unbiased. Its reporting of Israel and Palestine, in particular, tends to underplay the hate-filled Islamist ideology that inspires Hamas and other factions, while never giving Israel the benefit of the doubt."

      In response to perceived falsehoods and distortions in a BBC documentary , British journalist Melanie Phillips penned an open letter in The Spectator to the Secretary of State for Culture accusing the BBC of "flagrantly biased reporting of Israel" and urged the BBC to confront the "prejudice and inertia which are combining to turn its reporting on Israel into crude pro-Arab propaganda, and thus risk destroying the integrity of an institution."

    7. I am continuing my reply below.

      Pro-Muslim Bias

      Hindu and Sikh leaders in the United Kingdom have accused the BBC of pandering to Britain's Muslim community by making a disproportionate number of programmes on Islam at the expense of covering other Asian religions.


      In 2008, the BBC was criticised for referring to the men who carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks as "gunmen" rather than "terrorists". This followed a steady stream of complaints from India that the BBC has an Indophobic bias that stems from a culturally ingrained racism against Indians arising from the British Raj. Rediff reporter Arindam Banerji has chronicled what he argues are numerous cases of Indophobic bias from the BBC regarding reportage, selection bias, misrepresentation, and fabrications. Hindu groups in the United Kingdom have accused the BBC of anti-Hindu bigotry and whitewashing Islamist hate groups that demonise the British Indian minority.

      Anti-American Bias

      In 2006, Chief Radio Correspondent for BBC News since 2001 and Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to "correct" it in his reports, and that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it "no moral weight".


      The BBC has been criticised for 'overstaffing' news, sporting, and cultural events and in doing so both wasting licence fee money, and using their dominant position to control the coverage of events.

      A 2010 House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report criticised the number of staff that the BBC had sent to sporting events such as the Beijing Olympics and the Euro 2008 football championships. In June 2011 the Corporation sent 263 staff to cover the Glastonbury Festival. The next month they sent 250 staff members to cover an event marking one year until the start of the London 2012 Olympics, ten times the numbers used by other broadcasters.

      When I wrote that the BBC is corrupt by virtue of its mindset I meant that it had a bias in its news coverage and programs, which should not be present in a media institution owned by the state. Incidentally, I worked in London for several months a few years ago and had ample opportunity to experience the BBC on television and on the radio.

      My fundamental point is that with certain exceptions(such as healthcare and even then I believe that we need a two-tier system) the state should not engage in a business or provide services which can be carried out by the private sector. The state does not manufacture photocopiers, it leases or buys them. What does the CBC do that is not being done by non state-owned media? Why should the taxpayer have to pay for something which is otherwise available?

  24. CBC receives about 1.6 billion (not sure of exact figure after last years budget cuts) per year in funding from the government of Canada. Then, they compete (TV only) with private enterprise networks (CTV, Global) I dont think CTV or Global get any funding. Further, the mainstream broadcasters must fund the Canadian Talent Fund (CTF) as a requirement of licence. Guess who receives a lot of this funding for productions. Guess CBC and you will be right. The CBC really does not serve any purpose in the 500 channel universe. CBC should be privatized and if no buyers, the assets should be sold off. I do agree with the national radio service provided by CBC. Its good to have a national broadcaster but not when it competes with private enterprise as does CBC English and French TV.

    1. Why do you say radio doesn’t compete like television does? I don’t understand your argument. Public radio competes with commercial radio the same as with television. The private sector is hardly the end-all/be-all of everything cultural. Montreal commercial radio has become so unlistenable that I switched to CBC Radio One years ago and will never go back.

    2. Simply put for simple minds. CBC radio does not sell advertistments.

    3. Yeah, we already know that, simpleton. That's what makes it good.

  25. Yes, I am of the opinion that the CBC should be discontinued irrespective of the advocacy of Quebec independence by some of its employees.

    Yes, I am also of the opinion that persons who are employed in tax payer funded jobs and who advocate Quebec independence when performing their jobs should have their employment terminated. Incidentally that would include the seriously unqualified Justin Trudeau if necessary.

    Your example of a separatist working in a federal Tourisn office in Quebec is most amusing for its delicious irony.

    Witch hunts would not be desireable.

    1. You have correctly understood my points about the CBC and persons working in state-funded taxpayer jobs.

      More fundamentally, I do not think that the state should be competing with private enterprise.

    2. It's pretty much an axiom of libertarians. So no public power, telephone companies, air carriers, healthcare system etc...

      I can actually agree in the different way. I don't want no private healthcare competing with the public option. Torn on schools, the one-size-fits-all of public education leaves to be desired.

      Often it overlooks the fact that many of these industries wouldn't have even started were it not for the intervention of the state. Or perhaps they think that its time has come and gone.

  26. My understanding is that the CBC was modelled on the BCC a highly respected broadcasting institution within the UK and in more recent years around the world. There is nothing wrong with the model. CBC radio is generally highly respected. Within Quebec, I understand Radio-Canada does function well. The main problem is CBC TV which has seen its funding cut many times, and its answer seems to be to buy mostly US imported programs/shows. It is only a threat to private channels because many of its programs have been better than what the private channels show. If the private channels are so good, let them compete - this is the UK model and it works well. If the BBC were to close down, the UK TV quality would likely reduce, not improve, and the same would happen (and is already happening) in Canada. I feel the English CBC TV needs funding levels akin to that of Radio Canada and there ought to be at least 2 English CBC channels, one for general interest TV (Hockey etc) and one for more specialised shows, very much akin to BBC, to do experimental shows (It was BBC 2 that developed Monty Python, not BBC1) and then there may be better quality Canadian content on TV. Unfortunately the Canadian Govt is far too concerned with saving pennies and listining to business lobbyists (Canadian private media channels and US interests) to see this. Instead the current Canadian Govt model seems to be to turn CBC into something akin to a Canadian PBS channel - though OTV already does this, very well too.

    In regard to the heavy influence of separatists within Radio Canada, this has been the case for decades, and is similar within the French speaking NFB and in most media organisations. In fact is is pervasive in many govt funded organisations in Quebec. I concur that Radio Canada heads should be a lot more careful about the type of exposure it gives to separatists, though a reason why separatists get so much air time is that this is a big issue in Quebec and there is precious little countering arguments or rebuttels from the Canadian govt against so many of the absurd arguments of the separatists. During the 1990s referendum, there was practically no public rebuttels from the fed govt, hence why separatists had such an open field and had the influence it did. Saying nothing can be seen by many as tacit acceptance of the opponents argument. Radio Canada has a duty to report fairly bon separation, ut does not do the job it should do. This is the issue that needs to be addressed. Shooting the messenger (Radio Canada/CBC) though is not the answer. The CBC should have an important role in uniting Canada, not vice versa. Closing down CBC would be disastrous, and leave media in the hands of a few business men in Canada and to US media interests. Is this good for Canada? CBC needs more funding, not less, and should stay with the BBC model. It could also benefit from having higher quality Canadian content - including good writers, producers. Canada should be producer and net exporter of TV, not an importer.

    1. Well said JP!

      Salut à toi...

    2. JP,

      If I can see the problem through your perspective, I have to say that we can not compare Canadian TV with the British one. Why? Because we live next to the 313 million big of English media market.

      You see, television market in the United Kingdom can shut down American influence easier than Canada. The can choose not to purchased American shows, no matter how popular they are. And the viewers can do nothing about that. Sure, there is the internet. But with location block it will not that easy (nor cheap) to watch American shows.

      Not so in Canada. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CW, PBS are available free on the air. That is, even if cable and satellite companies could be forced not to carry them, viewers could get them just by antenna. So network TVs in Canada (CTV, Global, Citytv) are forced to air those American shows. American shows: more viewers, more revenue, more budget, better quality. There is no way around it.

      Since Canadian broadcasters can not beat US networks, they just join the party. They buy American shows, show the shows in the same time as the American ones, and have CRTC implement the simsub rules. Without simsub, guaranteed that there will be no more private Canadian broadcaster.

      So it is hard for CBC to take the BBC model. While CBC has produced some notable scripted shows, they really are trivial compared to the American juggernauts. Remember, unlike in the UK, a Canadian can possibly spend his whole TV-watching life and not watching any Canadian TV.

    3. Why should the taxpayer pay taxes to provide you with entertainment that you like on television or radio?

      The government has limited revenues and a deficit. It has to prioritize its expenditures. Do you advocate spending revenues on entertainment or healthcare?

      Do you seriously advocate that the taxpayer should pay taxes to enable you to watch hockey as you have stated?