Monday, August 20, 2012

Leader's Debate..Welcome to the Liar's Club

There's been a lot said and written this morning in the newspapers and on the radio and television, concerning last night's debate.
You could read or watch these reports and commentaries all day long and you still wouldn't be half-done.
But most stories were be boring and repetitive, nothing much happened in the debate and I doubt that voter perceptions were changed.
Perhaps tonight, in the one-on-one debate between Jean Charest and Pauline Marois, we will hear something more substantive.

As is my custom, I'll try to bring forward a few facts and opinions that you won't hear elsewhere.
Here is a short critique of the four Leaders.

FRANCOISE DAVID

If ever I move to Shangri-la or the Garden of Eden I would surely vote for Madame David.
She would make a perfect ruler of a world where we didn't need fossil fuels because everything ran on renewable, clean energy and where cars and airplanes would be a thing of the past.

It is a world where everyone over eighteen receives a guaranteed salary, just for existing and everything her government provides citizens is free, including medicare, education and housing for all who can't or won't provide for themselves.
All this would be paid for by taxing to death the few people in Quebec who earn more than a 100 million dollars a year and by increasing royalties on mining companies to 8000%.
If this is not enough , perhaps manna will shower down from Heaven, but probably not because nobody in this land believes in God.

It is a world of equality, where all the minorities would be allowed to wear their native garb while embracing the Quebecois culture of poutine and maple syrup. They would all happily sing "Alouette"and watch hockey, swigging down beer and pizza and smoking Export 'A.'

It would of course be an independent country, free of the constraints of Canada and those pesky economists .
There would be no debt and there would be no savings or bank accounts, the government would provide everything.
Banks would be outlawed and bosses and shareholders sent packing.

Citizens! All this can happen, just vote for Amir Khadir and Francoise David.

It amazes me that the Quebec Solidaire holds only 6% of the vote, according to pollsters.
I'da think that this type of program would appeal to the moron and idiot class which I always pegged at about 15% of the population.
Sheesh, Madame David can't even fool them!

JEAN CHAREST

Predictable. Same old same old.
Everyone knows he's a good debater and he has a knack for selective facts and figures that he trots out to defend himself and his government.
His attack on Marois over an alleged illegal campaign contribution fell flat and he never really got to pound away on the question of law and order.

One thing that seemed strange was the reaction shots of the Premier smiling like a Cheshire cat while being lambasted by Marois or Legault.


PAULINE MAROIS
Madame Marois is the most skillful of all leaders at not answering a question.
Ask her a YES or NO Question and she will launch into a long-winded response that has nothing to do with what was asked.
The television moderators were no match for her, unlike a radio commentator last week who stopped her mid-sentence and asked empathiclly if she would PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Of course when she did say something substantive, it was utter nonsense.

As is her custom, she told one helluva whopper that nobody in any media outlet picked up on.



Let's deconstruct that statement, it is nonsense any way you look at it.

According to Marois her husband gave his doctor to his son because his didn't have one and the son had a newborn.

Marois didn't say her husband "GAVE UP' his doctor, she said that he gave the doctor to his son, perhaps like a Christmas present.
But it did sound like he gave up his doctor in favour of his son, something so utterly unbelievable that how anyone could accept such a nose stretcher is beyond belief.

Imagine, the upstanding, reputable and by the book Claude Blanchet being without a doctor because he gave his up in favour of his son.
This sacrifice from a guy who could waltz into the Westmount Clinic any day he wanted and receive all the treatment in the world as long as he paid.
Oh, but I forgot... He is too reputable and honourable for that, we all know that Mr. Blanchet has a reputation as a straight-shooter, never bending or breaking the rules and always following the letter and spirit of the law.

Readers, would you be interested in some swampland in Florida?


FRANCOIS LEGAULT
Francois Legault was a bit out of his league, but didn't lose any points or support, I imagine.

Anglos, were roundly ignored by all the leaders, except Mr. Legault, who took the time to do a little bashing.
Here he makes the claim that you can't get served in French in downtown Montreal and that Bill 101 is not being enforced with enough vigour.

Anglos, get in line to vote for him!!!!
.


 By the way, of all the issues that Radio-Canada brought up as discussion points, the provincial debt was never mentioned.
As I said in a previous post, there is no debt crisis in Quebec as long as all the politicians agree in advance to never discuss it!

Readers, I leave the last word to you in the comments section.

116 comments:

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. ****ATTENTION COMMENTERS *********
    If you are new to this blog and wish to comment, please read the rules by clicking on the "HOW TO COMMENT" box at the top of the page.
    You cannot use "Anonymous" screen name but you can maintain your anonymity by following the instructions.

    For regular contributors, i apologize for this message, you'll be seeing it regularly at the beginning of the COMMENTS section.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm so sick and tired of this.

    Can we just separate and let them go down in a ball of flames and then beg for help?

    It's the only way to solve this. It's like a divorce that needs to happen for everyone's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is sickening is that the OQLF themselves made a study and stated that 97% of companies in the Montreal region offer French to their clients. Even in the West Island 93% were able to offer French. To continue to spending MILLIONS on the OQLF and inspectors is sheer and utter stupidity and a waste of tax payer's money.
    If we want to get Francophones to support getting rid of Bill 101 and the OQLF, using this example and the millions of taxes dollars wasted is a way to gain more support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many francophones would argue that the French service is only at that level because of 101, so it's clearly working, so why remove it?

      You might have a better understanding for this mentality once I tell you about an anecdote.

      Some people are in favour of Laissez-Faire Capitalism; one of the measures they are against is minimum wage. They would argue that it is unneeded : since employers aren't in the habit of paying employees more than the worth of their work, this does not create higher-paying job but rather discourages employers from hiring more workers by artificially raising the labor price.

      Those people would then continue and explain that if we did away with minimum wage, the whole situation would likely sort itself out with more employment for everyone, less unemployment, and lower costs for items since the savings on Labour would be passed on the customer.

      It's not a very popular idea, you'd be unlikely to find many people convinced by it. Most people would probably tell you that companies should be paying the minimum wage as it is right now anyway, and that taking away the law would just make possible something almost no one wants to see happen - the lowering of wages of those who can least afford it.

      Likewise, if a Francophone believes that he should be able to get service in Montreal from one end of the city to the other, you're unlikely to convince him that things are going to get better if businesses are no longer obligated to offer said service.

      Delete
    2. What a whiny, weasel culture!!

      You cant legislate pride!!

      You call that French? Embarrassing...

      Delete
    3. How about the fact that we're all bilingual and that the number of us who don't speak French are ludicrously few and far between and that such non-French speakers aren't likely to be employed to work with customers anyway?

      Let common sense prevail. We all descend from people whose languages have died out at some point. Time to evolve, Yannick. The real shame is getting left behind.

      Delete
    4. It's not a question of legislating pride, it's a question of legislating service.

      In Canada a commerce is not allowed to refuse service based on religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation or the color of one's hair - but it should be allowed to refuse service to the language of the local majority?

      A commerce has to make reasonable accommodations for people in wheelchairs, people who need seeing dogs, is liable to ensure the public space is safe for its customers, but would not be held responsible to be able to communicate in the language of the local majority?

      Nope, sorry, I don't buy it.

      "How about the fact that we're all bilingual and that the number of us who don't speak French are ludicrously few and far between and that such non-French speakers aren't likely to be employed to work with customers anyway?"

      Then complying with the legislation should be no problem, so why is there a pressing need to remove it?

      "Time to evolve."

      Why? Because the members of the majority of this country find it too inconvenient to provide us services, even where it makes sense? We should roll over and accept to become just like them, a monoculture from coast to coast?

      Nope, I don't buy that either.

      Delete
    5. T'es en pleine forme aujourd'hui Yan,je suis impressionné,vraiment.

      Delete
    6. Because you know it's not about French. It's about revenge!!
      Disgusting!!

      Delete
    7. You can't be more wrong, GensDenis. I have no desire for revenge. Just a desire to have more recognition for my language in my country, especially in the areas where there are large minorities/small majorities of Francophones.

      Delete
    8. Monsieur Denis,imaginez un instant que les contraintes que vous vivez à Montréal en tant que minorité anglo,vous les viviez à travers tout le canada à titre de francophone.Ne me revenez pas avec l'argument que les francophones au même titre que les Chinois,n'ont aucune restriction concernant l'affichage commerciale.Quel imbécile irait s'afficher en français à toronto ou à calgary,par exemple,même si il n'existe aucune interdiction?

      Delete
    9. Yannick, if a francophone cannot be served in French in Montreal,why is he or she incapable of going to a business that provides service in French? If there is a need someone will offer service in French. It is a basic principle of economics.

      Delete
    10. It's a very good question John Krug, and one I've given considerable thought to.

      The answer is the same for why we have any laws regulating commerces : because people don't know a priori what a commerce may or may not be like until one is interacting with them.

      Someone won't know whether or not a restaurant cooks their meat properly or have a cockroach problem; we don't expect the customer to spread the word of mouth that the place is unsanitary, there's a regulation against it.

      Someone won't know whether or not a commerce treats its employees badly; we don't expect the customer to post on facebook that the employees aren't making minimum wage, there's a regulation against it.

      Someone won't know whether or not a commerce discriminates against blacks or homosexuals. We don't expect the customers to learn about it in the newspaper, there's a law against it.

      Someone won't know before hand what ingredients is in a product, or whether a product is safe. We don't expect customers to try it once and never buy it again : we force manufacturers to include information (bilingually, thank you) and prove that it is safe.

      There are all these things in which we don't expect the market to solve problems. The reason is because the market won't solve those problems. People are not nearly connected enough to be able to coordinate on that level. To me, language is just one more thing like the above. It's not a problem in Calgary or Toronto, so people over there don't make laws. It was apparently a problem in the past in Montreal, so that's why they have a law in Quebec.

      Delete
    11. The answer is the same for why we have any laws regulating commerces : because people don't know a priori what a commerce may or may not be like until one is interacting with them.

      But why is it necessary to know this "a priori"? What about enquiries? What about trial and error? Why is this such a bad thing? We know from Montreal Transit (or whatever it's called... I'm a foreigner) that it is within the rights of an organisation to arbitrarily refuse service. A shop can refuse service to anyone, provided it's not on discriminatory grounds ("we don't sell that", "you've had one bottle too many", "My staff will not be spoken to in that tone", all plausible reasons to refuse service). What's to stop a patron to take his/her business elsewhere? Surely the only case in which this is not possible is when the service/goods are provided by a local monopolist (like, say, transit...), which should, by law, be more accommodating and, by nature, be large enough to have someone capable of dealing with clients in the most common languages spoken in their jurisdiction. And yet it seems that the situation, as you describe it, is exactly reversed, and you can't see anything wrong with that...

      P.S. Editor: I know I should read before I publish (a grammar howler went through in my first issue of this comment), but is there any hope of an edit function in the future? Just asking, not complaining.

      Delete
    12. On s'en calisse du Français. Si tu vis pas sous un roche depuis 10 ans, tu es capable de tout faire en anglais.

      Evolve or perish.

      I prefer my anglo friends over the smug attitude of frenchies any day. And I'm a french speaker !

      French is useless, keeping us in the past. You want to live fully in french ? Go to Abitibe Temiscamingue or retarded Saguenay and you will live in french.

      Delete
    13. Yannick,

      "It was apparently a problem in the past in Montreal, so that's why they have a law in Quebec".

      Have you ever wondered why in a non-totalitarian state with a francophone majority population the francophones were incapable of opening their own businesses and competing with unilingual anglophone businesses and spent their time complaining about lack of service in French and then decided to repeal English as an official language and then continued to complain about it?



      Delete
    14. "...tu es capable de tout faire en anglais"

      Pas au Québec Moomou,désolé.

      Terminado!

      Delete
    15. @John Krug

      Anglophones are some of the most privileged people on this earth, being literally at the pinnacle of society in the richest countries of the world. I'm not attempting to impute them a moral wrong, but starting from such an inequity means that francophones were perpetually poorer, less educated, etc... than their anglophone neighbours : a situation that has only changed in the 60's thanks to the efforts of Trudeau, Louis-J Robichaud in NB and the Quiet Revolution in Quebec.

      For instance, when my grandfather was young (he's about 70), his county was too poor to afford a high school; he had to join a religious order to receive his high school education (he promptly ran away upon receipt of his degree). We're coming back from far behind...

      Delete
    16. "I prefer my anglo friends over the smug attitude of frenchies any day. And I'm a french speaker !

      Tu me donne plutôt l'impression que tu n'es qu'un vendu,une impression comme ça.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  5. Francophones will never agree to abolish Bill 101, the OQLF, restrictions on religious symbols or foreigner immigration. The Quebecois are racists, rotten to the core because of decades of brainwashing, ignorance and lack of education. Nothing will change in this province, not in any of our life times, or even that of our children or grandchildren. The damage is done, it is imbedded in the culture here now.

    The only change you will see, is a change for the worse....things are going to go downhill even further, especially once the separatists are back in power next month. People are going to get even less tolerant than before. Why not, we will have the cheerleaders of racism on the forefront!

    The debate has shown where we are headed. PQ majority, CAQ opposition. Charest doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to get back in, at best maybe he can hope for enough vote splitting to get him a minority government, but even his loyal Anglophoner voters do not even want to vote for him. Get ready for the PQ and CAQ to ruin this province.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ruin this province ??? This province is already ruined. The only chance we have believe it or not, is to get rid of the Liberals and vote CAQ. I know you must be thinking, are you crazy. Since the CAQ has stated that they won't discuss separation and want to work on the economy and health and other stuff that ailes this province, it's a gamble we need to take. This way, if the Liberals lose our vote, then come the next election, in order to get our votes back, they'll have to change their policies in order to better serve our community. By keeping them in power, they will continue to trample on our rights just as the PQ does. Yes, the CAQ wants to enforce Bill 101 too but who cares. They are all enforcing Bill 101. Difference is, after the CAQ's term, we'll have a chance to hopefully put a Liberal Gov't in place that will be more inclined to change policies in order to help the Anglophones here. This is our only real option for change.

      Voting Liberal is narrow minded. You are only voting to stop another referendum. Who friggin cares if there's a referendum or not. Who wants to continue to live in the province with the laws in place that is slowly killing us anyway. WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE !!! We have an opportunity to bring about a change in Gov't thinking come the next election. It's too late for this one as NO party is for us. Let's think about what will happen in the future just 4 to 5 short years away. I know it seems like a long time, but it's something we MUST consider.

      Delete
    2. Of course this province is already ruined. Heck, province nothing, we're talking region of the world, as Quebec is the 5th most indebted region on planet Earth, and still falling. This isn't merely about a not-well-to-do-province, it is about a region of the civilized world having gone completely and totally to shit. The fall of a civilization economically, socially and structurally.

      Poor choice of words. Substitute "ruin" for destroy, decimate or obliterate.

      No one should vote for the Liberals. Vote for the CAQ and especially PQ. If you're going to drink poison to put yourself out of your misery, drink the deadly stuff and get it over with. Vivre le Quebec Mort. We're all leaving anyway, hit the self-destruct button and run.

      Delete
    3. Secularism, and the restrictions on religous symbols that it requires, is intended at stopping religious conflicts and the imposition of one system of beliefs over another. In a secular society, the State does not endorse or reject any particular system of belief or religion. It is a neutral and equalitarian position. As such, it is the contrary of racism, which exacerbates differences to promote discrimination and hatred of others. Your claim that the current push for a more secular Quebec emanates from deep-rooted racism is ridiculous.

      Now, you seem to claim that Francophones oppose foreign immigration. If that is the case, how can it be that Quebec, where francophones represent 80% of the population, receives 50 000 immigrants a year (and growing) for a population of 8 million, one of the highest rates of immigration in the world ? I would have thought that the congenital racism of the francophone majority, so vehemently opposed to immigration, would have blocked it. The enlightened and righteous minority of oppressed non-francophones must be extremely clever to play such a trick on the majority. Or maybe the majority if very dumb and weak. I have yet a better hypothesis: we're one of the most welcoming peoples on the face of the Earth. You are right though, as long as speaking french will be seen as a congenital moral defect by true racists like you, Bill 101 will keep its relevance for us.

      Delete
    4. Damien, I respect that position, but by preventing people from wearing certain clothes or symbols the state is in effect rejecting a number of particular system of beliefs or religion. A true neutral and egalitarian position would allow people to wear whatever they wanted with no state discrimination.

      After all, many of the clothing worn is not worn for strictly religions reasons but also for cultural reasons. As such, this "Chart of Secularism" is eerily reminiscent of how Natives were treated in Residential schools where they had to walk, talk, dress like Westerners, or how not so long in the past we Francophones in New-Brunswick were afraid to speak French in public for fear of getting told to "Speak White".

      En bref, in the area of clothing, culture, spoken language between individuals, religion, a true free society lives and let lives.

      Delete
    5. Oh please, shut up with your hypocritical lies. So all religious symbols banned, EXCEPT for Catholic symbols like the cross? Like I have always said, WHITE, CATHOLIC AND FRENCH, that is the only accepted members of this sick, sick, sick society of uneducated, hillbilly-like, lazy and ignorant people.

      You ban all religious symbols, you ban them ALL. Not everyone else except yours.

      Quebec controls its immigration, the only province that does so, and it accepts less into the province than any other. I don't even feel like typing more to dispute what is black is white, what is up is down. Yeah, that is ALWAYS the bloody case, argue the opposite of reality.

      At any rate, you will get what you deserve soon enough. Trapped in your lobster pot, unable to leave. Bring on the next and final referendum. Careful what you wish for, because it might just come true.

      Delete
    6. I thought they would ban crosses as well?

      Delete
    7. Absolutely not. "And the ban would not apply to symbols of Quebec’s “heritage,” such as the crucifix placed on the wall of the National Assembly"

      http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Macpherson+opts+selective+secularism/7095415/story.html

      I'm sure Damien will agree that the crucifix is part of his circus clown Quebec culture. Actually sorry, that is not a very nice thing to say, circus clowns have far more culture than the Quebecois.

      Delete
    8. "In a secular society, the State does not endorse or reject any particular system of belief or religion. It is a neutral and equalitarian position."

      The State is never neutral nor egalitarian on anything. Never was, never will be.

      States are power centers that exist for the benefit of the elites. States come quipped with creeds and symbols just like religions do. They indoctrinate the populace from an early age (schools are not just to teach you math and physics) and impart ideology through culture (culture is not just Bach or Picasso, it is a set of attitudes and beliefs).

      Secular states fight religion not to protect religious people from nefarious effects of their religions (and there are some nefarious effects, just to be clear). The true intention is to get rid of competing sets of beliefs and shift people's loyalty away from other objects or subjects.

      So for example, despite the fact that the veil can be demeaning to a woman, when madame Beaudoin attacks Islam, her true intention isn't to protect the Muslim women (whom she doesn't care about). Despite using partial facts (some women do indeed find themselves forced to wear it, some wear it willingly, I know a couple myself), madame Beaudoin's intention is not the welfare of these women. Her intention is something else.

      Delete
    9. "Her intention is something else."

      ... and she never tried to hide it. Wasn't she the one boasting that "multiculturalism is not a Quebec value"? Yes, she was.

      I remember thinking that she is one intolerant lady, but just a one-off. And apparently I was wrong. The entire PQ base (about 35%, based on the recent polls) are thinking just like her - this is way too much, in my opinion.

      Delete
    10. @ West Island Lad
      You criticize selective secularism and I think you are right in that respect. The crucifix above the president's seat in the National Assembly should go away, like hidjabs on public servants. The historical point for keeping it is, IMO, electoral hypocrisy, and a lack of courage.

      @Yannick

      People can wear whatever they want. Only representatives of the State will be banned from showing religious symbols, to make it clear that the State does not favor a religion or another. You might be interested to know, also, that I would oppose measures to prevent individuals from wearing religious symbols in the street, when going about their private business. I disagree with complete bans of niqap and burka, like exists in France and Belgium, and I also think we shouldn't imitate the french who prevent students from wearing religious symbols in public school.

      Delete
    11. @Damien - do you really think that representatives of the state wearing a Hijab is a sign of the government favoring that particular religion? I don't. I'm sure everyone knows that it's just those individuals wearing a piece of clothing. Can't we live and let live for the handful of muslim/jewish/etc.. government employees?

      Nevertheless that's good to hear.

      Delete
    12. Les habits du KKK ne sont aussi que des pièces de vêtement,non?Laisseriez-vous quelqu'un habillé ainsi vous servir à la RAAQ?

      Delete
    13. Non et je ne laisserais pas quelqu'un fièrement afficher la croix gammée non plus. C'est quoi le rapport?

      Delete
  6. Editor, you misinform your readers by saying: "By the way, of all the issues that Radio-Canada brought up as discussion points, the provincial debt was never mentioned.
    As I said in a previous post, there is no debt crisis in Quebec as long as all the politicians agree in advance to never discuss it!"

    I stopped halfway through the debate (recorded it, will watch the rest tonight). The subject of the debt was clearly debated. Most insistant on the subject was Legault, expectedly. I remember, in particular, an exchange between Marois and Legault on the proportion of natural ressource royalties to use to pay the debt. Legault wants to use all royalty money to pay the debt, while Marois said 50% of the royalty money should go to the debt, noting however that she intends to raise the percentage paid as royalties by natural resource extractors, meaning that in the end, Legault or Marois would put comparable amounts of money from royalties on the debt. I also remember hearing Legault accusing David of not wanting to adress the debt problem, she answered she believed it is a real problem, but that she's more concerned by a more global, largely environmental debt we're handing over to our children than the purely financial aspect of our government's debt. Oh, I also remember hearing Emmanuelle Latraverse, one of the journalists moderating the debate, pointing out the fact that Quebec is the most indebted and most taxed province in Canada. And that's the stuff I just remember on the top of my head. You nit pick the facts to suit your political narrative, Editor.

    Editor, you claim that Quebec remains purposedly oblivious to the debt problem, that Quebec ignores the problem and doesn't discuss it. Nothing is further from the truth, it has been a recurrent subject of political discussion and debate for more than a decade, if not more. Remember the hype around "deficit zero" during the Bouchard era ?

    Perhaps Editor doesn't follow the electoral campaign closely enough, or maybe he chooses to see and hear only what doesn't contradict his prejudice. Just in the last two days, I heard politicians from 3 distinct parties talk about the debt, if I exclude yesterday's debate. It began after Legault presented his financial framework, where he explained how he intends to reduce Quebec's debt to the level of the Canadian average by 2017 (if I remember well). His strategy was then attacked by Nicolas Marceau, economist and PQ MNA, who calculated that Legault's strategy would in fact take 400 years to reach its objective (bring back the debt to the canadian provincial average). The same day, I heard Bernard Drainville, former Radio-Canada journalist and PQ MNA, relayed by JF Lisée, journalist and PQ candidate, comment on the same. By the way, Lisée, whom you like to call an insufferable idiot, Editor, is one of the few public voices that have done more than just shout "the debt is exploding !!!". Right-wing commentators, your humble self included, can't do anything more productive than shout "debt" and "cut down the bureaucracy" without any practical solution. Meanwhile, the pinky leftist hippie Lisée actually published an entire goddamn book on means to rationalize public finances and reimburse our debt.

    I also remember seeing Jean-Martin Aussant, leader of the ultra-separatist fringe party Option Nationale, in an interview with Gerald Fillion on RDI Économie (economy program of the french CBC news network) just a few days ago, where they were discussing, precisely, the debt issue. Aussant was pretty adamant about the urgency to reimburse the debt, and presented his plan to address it. Oops, another pinkie leftist separatist concerned about the debt who actually intends to DO something about it. I guess things ain't exactly the way you'd want them to be, hey Editor ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. @ damien

      Point one;
      My point was that Radio-Canada did not make the debt an issue in and of itself and while it was briefly mentioned, there wasn't one realistic proposal to lower it.

      Point two;
      Marois is on record as saying she will INCREASE the debt, just last week.
      Her mythical mining royalty windfall is as realistic as the Moon being made of cheese.

      Point Three
      Jean-Martin Aussant is not a leader of anything but himself, he'll be teaching cegep in a very short time.

      Point four
      Why isn't "cut down the bureaucracy" a viable solution? Quebec's bloated bureaucracy is the number one reason for the debt. How can you possibly think that cutting it down won't be a reasonable start and why do you claim that I never offer solutions, that's just not true.
      Here's one;
      STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE!


      Point five
      The only thing JF Lisee has to say on the debt is that it is not a problem. Read his fantasy arguments in his KO nonsense.
      As for Drainville he is stupider than wood, have you read his proposals to renew Quebec's democracy? A high school teacher would give him a F for writing a fantasy piece in place of civics.

      For Pete's sake, can you not see that these two men are morons. Go to antagoniste.net where all these stupid separatist arguments are destroyed and shown up as fantasy.

      When an intelligent person like yourself drinks this Quebec Koolaid, it is truly a signal that nothing will get better.

      Do you not realize that Quebec is on a downward course that is irreversible, because all the politicians, separatists or federalists believe in the same thing, spending like the Greeks and beating up on Anglos and Ethnics as a diversion.
      If the PQ drives another two or three hundred thousand tax-payers out of Quebec, it will be the beginning of the end.
      As they debt load increases and the tax base crumbles,the collapse of Quebec's welfare state will be inevitable.

      So let us agree to disagree, I'm not sure you will convince many on this blog about the merits of the PQ and separatist brain trust.

      They are waiting for you over at vigile.net where you can spout this make-believe to your hearts content.
      Over here you'll be called out for rank naivete.

      Good Luck! and Goodbye.

      Delete
    2. Point one:
      Agreed, the TV consortium did not include the debt as a specific point to debate. The themes were much larger. The governance theme certainly engulfed the debt issue. That being said, to bemoan the fact that the debt wasn't debated enough is a legitimate point. The same could be said of other very important issues. The leaders' debate, truth be said, is a chaotic, superficial, and unenlighting show. Let's agree on that part.

      The core of criticism, however, was that you presented the facts in such a way that falsely suggests that Quebec and its politicians are completely oblivious to the debt problem. Nothing is further from the truth, yet you work very hard to instil that idea in the minds of your readers.

      Point two:
      Show me the record of Marois saying she'll increase the debt. All I can find is Legault accusing her of wanting to augment it.

      Mining loyalties are no windfall, you are right, and the PQ has been very clear about this. Indeed, the cyclical nature of the natural resources market can't make it a reliable source of revenue. Moreover, the amount of money that can be recovered from mining is relatively modest when compared to Quebec's budget AND debt. If someone is presenting mining royalties as a anti-debt panacea, it's Legault, not Marois. Only exception to what I just said would be royalties on oil in Old Harry and Anticosti. We have yet to see fountains of oil squirt out of these places, though.

      If you claim that augmenting royalties on resources is unrealistic, however, I'm afraid you live on another planet. Quebec is known globally as one of the best places to do mining: low corporate taxes, tax credits and subsidies for mining companies, low royalties on *profits* only... Being a bit more demanding won't scare off mining companies, otherwise these wouldn't be a place on Earth where they'd want to mine.

      Point three
      That petty comment hardly qualifies as a "point".

      Aussant leads a fringe party, granted, but believe me he has followers. He'll probably loose his election and his seat, but he's quite popular among the younger crowd, and I find him inspiring myself. Now, I don't know what's so dishonorable about teaching in Cégep, but I'm pretty sure Aussant will find a job better suited to his background.

      Point four
      "Cut down the bureaucracy" is no solution, it's a hollow political slogan. So is "stop spending money you don't have". If you think a state is governed by shouting out simplistic ideas, I don't want to see people of your hilk in power. What would PM Editor do ? Walk in and fire people at random ? Kinda reminds me of Legault. "We're gonna fire 1000 people here, 3000 there, that'll clean up the government machine !"

      I know for a fact that dumping some dead weight would help, and I agree that bureaucracy is heavy in Quebec (yet it's nothing compared to the bureaucracy I've experienced in the US, and my contacts with the French bureaucracy was painstaking like Quebec never was to me). BUT, finding the right people that really need to be layed off, and finding the right solutions to lightened our bureaucracy is a complex problem. Just purging the machine like the big C people want will, in effect, send Quebec in a downward spiral way worse than what you claim happens now.

      You want to cut the fat ? Fine, I'm in. How ? Where do you cut, how do you prevent or limit the damage to the population ? How do you separate the useless from the essential ? What government jobs don't need to be done ?

      Delete
    3. Point five
      Lisée devoted an entire chapter in "Pour une gauche efficace" on how to tackle the debt. Here's the non-actions (that's how you just called them, right ?) he proposes:
      - Return to Deficit Zero ASAP, the situation that prevailed since the Bouchard era and that Charest sent down the shitter since 2009. If the debt stops increasing, it is effectively going down over time.
      - Reimburse 32 billion dollars of the debt immediately by selling 25% of Hydro-Québec's shares to the private sector. This frees up interest money in the budget as well- almost 2 billion.
      - Accelerate payments in the Generations Fund created by Jean Charest by 1.3 billion a year, financed in the following way:
      a) Harper reduced GST by 2% to 5%. We recovered that tax space recently, increasing the provincial tax by 2%. This brings 2.1 billion of new money in our coffers. Lisée proposes to alot 400 million of that to the Fund.
      b) Charest completely abolished the tax on capitalm which was modest. Quebec maintains that situation, with the exception of the financial and oil industries that don't need this benefit. Also, fees charged to these private sector companies for government services would be augmented. Result, 400 more millions in the fund.
      c) This is a weaker point, but he claims that gains in efficiency in the bureaucracy could reduce government expenses by 0.7% of the budget, or 400 million.
      d) Fight fiscal fraud : 100 million (dubious to me).

      That's a lot of talk about how to reduce and control the debt for someone who doesn't want to do anything about it.

      Draiville isn't an idiot. Many of his propositions to renew our democracy are great. Fixed election dates, popular initiative referendums, election of the prime minister by the people... Not exactly stupid.

      I didn't hear you debunk Marceau, who's the author of the point about the debt I reported initially. You probably can't: his economics trample yours any day.

      Delete
    4. Point 2
      http://www.radioego.com/ego/listen/11652

      Point 3. "Aussant leads a fringe party, granted"" Your quote, not mine ...He is irrelevant.

      Point 4. Quebec has the most bloated bureaucracy in North America and one of the highest in the world. If every other province and state can get along with a third to half less employees it is a no-brainer that there is place to cut.

      Point Five.
      Sell 25% of Hydro Quebec. It isn't worth close to that. Hydro brings in just over 3 billion in profits a year (almost half by attributed to the electricity it rips off from Newfoundland.) Nobody would pay that much for a 25% stake, it is a 2.3% return on investment.
      And if you want to raise Hydro consumer rates to market values, there would be a revolution!

      Point Five A. Increase taxes some more. MAKE THE RICH PAY!
      nonsense.
      Nowhere do any of the leaders come close to dealing with overspending. They all have proposed some cosmetic cuts (except Marois) but all have added new spending.

      You rationalize all of this spending by pretending you can tax more.
      Do you not understand, the answer is not taxing more...it is spending less.

      Delete
    5. Well we're certainly not going to cut provincial government spending with Pauline in power - she wants more power from the Federal government and to perform these tasks, the provincial government will certainly have to grow AGAIN. That's one reason it's so inflated now: she has been creating departments to do the same jobs that the Federal government once had employees doing and paying from Federal coffers. Cutting back spending on stupid language police and answering inquiries as to how to make people more miserable would also save money but, heaven forbid, they will never do that - we have to have government involved in everything we do!

      Delete
  8. I promised Apparatchik I would get back to him on a certain exchange we had; I am going to do so here, so that it can be seen and commented on by many people.

    "I hope you aren't referring to the former, because you should be aware that people in Canada have successfully fought and won their right to build French-language educational institutions."

    I am specifically talking about the teaching of languages to new immigrants. This is a pro bono education that is not in any way mandated by any federal law or the constitution, and is paid for entirely by the province. As such, I expect different provinces to only provide that which they consider relevant : English in most places, and French in Quebec. The original poster's position that Quebec is "basically stripping people of their constitutional rights" by not teaching immigrants English is misinformed.

    "For all the reverential "primacy" Quebec demands in recognition of our Frenchness, we continually show our ingratitude"

    No argument there - but you have to agree that the position of Quebec, even if it is just a Province, is different than other Provinces in Canada. Quebec is the only French province, constantly at the mercy of the other Provinces to be drowned by the Tyranny of the Majority. The fact that our leaders have abstained from doing so, even Harper (though post-Majority that seems to be changing), is a testament to their high-mindedness and fairness and is entirely to their credit.

    Of course, in the West instead of calling it fairness or high-mindedness, they would argue that our leaders are spineless, crooked, and "whoring themselves out for votes" (apparently not their votes, though).

    "This sort of discrimination is in my view insulting; the Federal government at least offers potential immigrants equal points for either language."

    The federal government has to be fair towards both official languages, while Quebec does not because only French is an official language over there.

    Let me ask you an honest question : If Alberta was taking care of its own immigration, do you think they would give equal points to English and French proficiency?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The real fear among at least the PQ is that post-101 Quebecers will taste the forbidden fruit of English and that there will be a large-scale abandonment of French, however gradual."

      Do you mean to say that the PQ fears that if francophones can speak English they won't bother to speak French? Because in the ROC our fears are entirely the opposite; we're not afraid that we won't speak French, we're afraid that there will be no reason to because outside the home there will be no services, no ads, no situation in which it can be spoken. And this is mainly because the Anglophones do not value our language and they are the indifferent majority, not because we don't value it ourselves. In fact we are the ones making all the efforts for bilingualism, more than anyone else in this country, and our reward is to count as anglophones in the eyes of Anglo-supremacists upset at the fact that they don't have access to 100% of federal jobs.

      For instance take a look at the situation of Bathurst : a city in Northern New-Brunswick surrounded by francophones.

      Despite being roughly 40-60 in favour of francophones, a majority of Anglophones (58%) don't know French while a tiny minority of Francophones (16%) don't know English. It's not hard to understand, therefore, why there are more households where English is spoken at home than French, since francophones who have an anglophone partner are able to speak English while their partner is unable to speak French. Want to take a guess as to which language dominates ads, even though francophones are a majority?

      Often in such situations the children end up going to Francophone school anyway (I met many of such when I lived in Moncton), but it's clearly a sign that our language is not valued even when we are the majority as these francophones have a partner that is unwilling or unable to learn their language. You could argue that this is a choice these francophones make; I would answer that it's also a choice that these anglophones make and that francophones don't live in a vacuum, and hardly ever have language as the single over-arching thing of importance in their lives.

      "Let's just say that there's at least one (not even officially bilingual) province that is (increasingly) taking a more pragmatic approach than Quebec currently does"

      The ROC provinces do allow students who are not strictly adhering to Section 23 of the Charts of Rights and Freedoms to attend French schools; but they do so on a case-by-case basis and the priviledge is given at the whim of the school board; this is not the "free choice" or "equality of access" that anglophones in Montreal are asking for.

      That said, I do agree that Quebec should do the same, for instance for immigrants from America or the Commonwealth.

      "See above. We need more bilingualism, not more unilingualism."

      I agree. But I think the best way to foster bilingualism in this country is to teach more French.

      I admit I have a ROC francophone bias and am unfamiliar with the Montreal context.

      Delete

    2. "Alternatively, you're overlooking the anti-miscegenation laws passed by many U.S. states based on the fear that mixing with "niggers" would lead to the destruction of the pure White race."

      Apples and oranges. I do not view language as a zero-sum game, while the anti-miscgenation laws certainly did think of race as a zero-sum game. However, I think that the only way to be sure immigrants know French and have a chance at bilingualism (which is of tantamount importance to Quebecers) is to put them in Francophone schools.

      "That's disappointing to be sure; however, I hope you're familiar enough with my advocacy on this blog to know that when *I* say bilingual, I mean bilingual."

      If you pardon me saying, Apparatchik, I believe you have a rather sheltered Montreal experience and are exposed to much more open-minded individuals than you would encounter in the Rest of Canada. Anglophones who live in Quebec have willingly moved or remained there, and as such have come to terms of sort with 101 and the current linguistic situation; I believe I can generalize a little bit and say that they value the French language and bilingualism or at the very least do not oppose it.

      The reality in the ROC is very different. Our language is not valued there except by the government, and even this causes people to complain. Putting everyone in the same basket will dilute francophones in a sea of anglophones where they will undoubtedly learn that their language has no value because no one around them bothers to learn it, and will quickly assimilate (as has happened in other cases where bilingual schools were attempted). If Francophones are to have any chance to hold on to their language, they need their own educational institutions.

      Delete
    3. "I agree. But I think the best way to foster bilingualism in this country is to teach more French."

      Excellent Yannick,Excellent...

      Delete
    4. About Bathurst- a look at the "Metropolitan area" (such as it is) shows an even more lopsided situation as much of the hinterland is Francophone.

      So, the area is 66% Francophone and 33% Anglophone, with 58% of Anglophones not knowing French (same as before as they all live in the city) while the proportion of unilingual Francophones jump to 26% when one adds in the rural areas.

      One-way bilingualism at its best.

      Delete
    5. I am specifically talking about the teaching of languages to new immigrants. This is a pro bono education that is not in any way mandated by any federal law or the constitution, and is paid for entirely by the province. As such, I expect different provinces to only provide that which they consider relevant : English in most places, and French in Quebec. The original poster's position that Quebec is "basically stripping people of their constitutional rights" by not teaching immigrants English is misinformed.

      That's a half-truth, and I'm being generous with you. See here.

      ...you have to agree that the position of Quebec, even if it is just a Province, is different than other Provinces in Canada. Quebec is the only French province, constantly at the mercy of the other Provinces to be drowned by the Tyranny of the Majority. The fact that our leaders have abstained from doing so, even Harper (though post-Majority that seems to be changing), is a testament to their high-mindedness and fairness and is entirely to their credit.

      "Constantly at the mercy of the other provinces to be drowned by the Tyranny of the Majority"?!?! I don't agree with your formulation. Ontario and Alberta aren't exactly sending a few million anglophone "reinforcements" to drown out the francophone demographic in our province.

      Of course, in the West instead of calling it fairness or high-mindedness, they would argue that our leaders are spineless, crooked, and "whoring themselves out for votes" (apparently not their votes, though).
      Six of one...

      The original poster's position that Quebec is "basically stripping people of their constitutional rights" by not teaching immigrants English is misinformed.
      Have a look here at 2b, 6, 12, 24, 26, 27. Then tell me how by not teaching as well as severely curtailing the expression of either language community (through laws, no less!) isn't making a mockery of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

      The federal government has to be fair towards both official languages, while Quebec does not because only French is an official language over there.
      Used to be both languages here in Quebec too until the language supremacists got their way. How would you like it if New Brunswick suddenly gave up its bilingual status and we turned back the clock five or six decades to the good old days when the "anglos called all the shots and the Acadians knew their place"? I don't want that and I'm sure you don't either. But it isn't any better when the lunatics not only take over the asylum but also take revenge over the wardens' children.

      Delete
    6. Let me ask you an honest question : If Alberta was taking care of its own immigration, do you think they would give equal points to English and French proficiency?
      Perhaps not, but you're talking to someone who believes immigration should be a purely federal matter specifically to avoid provincial bigotry of that sort.

      Do you mean to say that the PQ fears that if francophones can speak English they won't bother to speak French?
      That's absolutely what I mean. It's like your parents forbidding you from bringing home someone of a different ethnic background and going overboard by doing everything they can to keep you away from that group.

      in the ROC our fears are entirely the opposite; we're not afraid that we won't speak French, we're afraid that there will be no reason to because outside the home there will be no services, no ads, no situation in which it can be spoken.
      I deplore either language "dying out". But between nature taking its course and artificially culling a group, my vote is unashamedly for the former. And although I hate feeling like this, when I see haughty pomposity of many separatists in Quebec, some days I wish they WOULD just move to Alberta and be assimilated once and for all.

      In fact we are the ones making all the efforts for bilingualism, more than anyone else in this country, and our reward is to count as anglophones...
      Disappointing to be sure, but at least they don't call you "les autres" and don't forbid your communities (however small) from doing things your way by whipping up populist hatred. I'll take indifference over fomented malaise any day.

      Anglo-supremacists upset at the fact that they don't have access to 100% of federal jobs.
      Have you seen the studies showing how two people in Quebec can have the same qualifications and yet the one bearing the last name Tremblay is much much more likely to be hired than the one called Habib?

      It's not hard to understand, therefore, why there are more households where English is spoken at home than French...Want to take a guess as to which language dominates ads, even though francophones are a majority?...it's clearly a sign that our language is not valued even when we are the majority
      Ensure the kids are bilingual and in a generation or so, we can make credible demands for bilingual ads.

      The ROC provinces do allow students who are not strictly adhering to Section 23 of the Charts of Rights and Freedoms to attend French schools; but they do so on a case-by-case basis and the priviledge is given at the whim of the school board; this is not the "free choice" or "equality of access" that anglophones in Montreal are asking for.

      I'd really like to see hard numbers to quantify just how much "whimsy" these school boards really show.

      I think the best way to foster bilingualism in this country is to teach more French.
      Agreed. And the best way to foster bilingualism in this province is to teach more English and not treat it like the plague. Unilingualism is the real plague.

      Delete

    7. I admit I have a ROC francophone bias and am unfamiliar with the Montreal context.
      Take your RoC francophone bias, cross the Ontario-Quebec border, flip it around, bathe in the mirror image you see and you'll understand me perfectly. Why else do you think I completely support your pro-French views in the RoC? We're seeing active bigotry of the same variety here, just in the other language.

      Apples and oranges.
      I most vehemently disagree. Bilingualism is presented as the scurge to be avoided in Quebec and when you close the door to equality and dialogue you're left with a dialogue of the deaf (if you're left with a dialogue at all).

      If you pardon me saying, Apparatchik, I believe you have a rather sheltered Montreal experience and are exposed to much more open-minded individuals than you would encounter in the Rest of Canada.
      And I believe your having lived a precarious francophone existence in English Canada has obscured the outright ethnolinguistic hatred and bigotry that sadly is common fare here in la belle province.

      Anglophones who live in Quebec have willingly moved or remained there, and as such have come to terms of sort with 101 and the current linguistic situation
      Don't be deluded into thinking there's been any coming to terms. Nothing short of genuine bilingualism that is truly representative of what (at least) Montreal is would be acceptable. Separatists keep pushing aggressively to pontificate on what does and doesn't qualify as "Québécois" but refuse to hear the majority that states that Quebec is very much a part of Canada. If the separatists can't be disabused of their delusions of grandeur, I don't see why Quebec anglophones should willingly prostrate themselves at the altar of insolent French-Canadian nationalism. I know if I were a full anglo, I sure as hell wouldn't. There's a huge difference between strongly encouraging openness and netuering your minorities.

      If Francophones are to have any chance to hold on to their language, they need their own educational institutions.
      I agree, which is why I strongly advocate robust institutions for both language communities. However, I also think that these institutions shouldn't exist in a vacuum but should collaborate rather than compete.

      Putting everyone in the same basket will dilute francophones in a sea of anglophones where they will undoubtedly learn that their language has no value because no one around them bothers to learn it
      I don't think that creating a monolithically English RoC and a monolithically French Quebec is the way to fix that.

      Delete
    8. Yannick, French is the only official language in Qurbec because the fascist government of Quebec repealed English as an official language. What would you say if the government of your beloved New Brunswick did that to French? Would you be an apologist for the anglophone majority in New Brunswick?

      Delete
    9. Yannick, what do you think is the true intention behind the language laws? I'm talking about the intentions of the ruling elite.

      Hint: it's the same intention as behind the "war on drugs".

      Delete
    10. "What would you say if the government of your beloved New Brunswick did that to French?"

      Quelles sont les chances pour qu'un unilingues francophone trouve un emploi décent au N-B ?

      Delete
    11. Yannick,

      If celebrating a language means banning another, I want no part of it. I've told you many times that the “French schools” in QC are not French, they are Québécois separatist factories!

      Could you, Yannick tolerate that your child attend a school where the flag of your country is banned? A school where the children are taught that a country as admired in the world as Canada is the enemy? A school where children speaking to each other in English or other languages is punishable by the teachers and such punishment be backed by the government?
      Such is the case in QuébécoisSeparatistFactories of our PROVINCE!

      If you are not disgusted, could you and M. Patrice be the same person?








      Delete
    12. "A school where children speaking to each other in English or other languages is punishable by the teachers"

      Yannick, unfortunately this is true - in way too many French schools (private or otherwise) children speaking English or other language (during the breaks) are being cautioned to speak French only and parents are being summoned at schools because of that. Do you find that normal? Two brothers speaking between them their mother tongue and being chided for doing so - is that normal?

      If you ever decide to spend a few years in Montreal you will see that things are not as rosy and utopian as you think they are.

      Delete
    13. You are quite right TS - Why can't the separatists (the politicians see it) see that these practices are the exact same brain-washing techniques that the Nazi's used to persuade the German population about the necessity of annihilating the Jews, the mentally retarded, anyone not blond-haired, blue-eyed, purebred German, etc. before the second World War? Is history not teaching us anything? I am as proud of being English and of my heritage as any Francophone is about their heritage and I'm not out to rob them of their heritage as they are of destroying mine in Quebec! You can't keep backing a dog into a corner and not expect it to turn on you! People are the same - you can't keep pushing them and pushing them with expecting retaliation.

      Delete
    14. On the subject of being told not to speak English at school - I can say that this happened with us in Moncton, N-B. The situation was different, though, as the students speaking to each other in English were all francophones.

      I don't really have an opinion on it; they have the rest of the world to speak in English in, that the francophone schools tries to get them to communicate in French on school property is not exactly Auschwitz.

      Delete
    15. Yannick: Auschwitz is not a great comparison to the point I'm trying to make - we Anglophones also pay taxes on both the schools and our property which SHOULD give us a right to expect that our children will not be punished for speaking the language of THEIR CHOICE on property that is subsidized by OUR taxes! Where does this sort of attitude end? Certainly not in the near future.

      Delete
    16. That's a fair point, Cutie. I would have expected that Anglophone students in Quebec have attended Anglophone schools though.

      Delete
    17. "they have the rest of the world to speak in English in" - I am sorry, but I find this argument infantile and something I would expect from S.R

      In the case I have mentioned it was not English their mother tongue, and even if would have been the case - why would schools interfere during the breaks? I, and most of the non-francophone parent I spoke to about the issue are finding it discriminatory and worrisome. How about if I send my child to a French school and I am on the school property, should I address my child in French? Are you out of your mind?

      Delete
    18. Shouldn't a French education facility encourage the speaking of the language, though?

      I agree that it's a controversial point; that's why I said I didn't really have an opinion on it.

      I think the idea that you should speak to your child in French on school property is ludicrous, but I also think that you're taking the argument ad Absurdium

      Delete
    19. @Yannick: Yes, you would think that they would send their children to school in English but if they did not attend English schools in Quebec themselves, they are not allowed to send their children to English schools. I gather you live in NB so you probably didn't know this but it's true. The other thing is, for those of us who did attend English schools in Quebec when we were young, many of us wanted our children to be bilingual so we chose to send them to school in French to give them the advantage of being bilingual. That did not mean that I expected them to speak only French when not in class. Now, if Pauline Marois gets her way, even our CEGEPs, when our children leave high school, will be only in French. Right now our ADULT children have a choice as to whether to attend French or English school but Marois would end this choice. What does this do to the chance of our children finding decent jobs anywhere but Quebec when they graduate? Talk about a small job market they have to look forward to! Maybe my child does not wish to reside in Quebec - that should be up to them! It should be up to these ADULTS to have a choice to attend school in English or French not to be forced to attend French post-secondary school because the stupid provincial government gives them no choice. This would be OK if everyone (like the politicians) had to the money to send their children outside Quebec to attend post-secondary school. Way too much government intervention into our lives! This has to end.

      Delete
    20. Alrighty then,

      a French education facility does just that, reached French - it should not go overboard and going to ridiculous lenghts preventing OTHER languages. I see breaks as their own down time, and conversing the the language of their choice should be a given. Doing otherwise it is as petty as the STM worker furiously refusing to answer a question addressed in En.

      I am happy you agree with me that I should be *allowed* to speak with my child on school property on the language I want, however two brothers should not? Where exactly is the logic?

      Delete
    21. Fair enough Cutie, I have nothing to say against that - by the way, I believe in Quebec they let children who went to school in English in other parts of Canada attend the English schools.

      That they don't allow children whose parent has English as a mother tongue, as Section 23 of the Charter stipulates, is beyond me.

      Delete
    22. @Yannick - all they have to do is use the "notwithstanding" clause of the charter to get out of everything. Self-centered, ignorant, fools - not much else I can say about the PQ politicians! I'm like so many other federalists - I feel it won't be much longer before the rest of Canada tells us to pack our bags and get out. They are fed up with Quebec and who can blame them - whine, blackmail, threaten - that's all they do. That's when our REAL problems in Quebec will begin and end badly. I hope I'm around for the problems that will face these separatists when they start to see the real world they will be facing without the money, protection, pensions, EI payments, the Indians claiming their land and remaining part of Canada with the hydro-electric plants and an economy that is in total ruin, land that is worth nothing and trying to export their goods (whatever that will be: maple syrup, wood?) in French only to the rest of the world! BIG SHOCK COMING GUYS!

      Delete
    23. We lived up the road from an Irish-medium school in an Irish speaking region (Gaeltacht) in Ireland. My kids were all homeschooled, so they didn't attend that school, but there was a sign in the parking lot that said (in Irish) "Only speak Irish after this point". So it doesn't just happen in Quebec.

      Delete
    24. if the PQ refuses to speak in english, and stops education and businesses trading in english, no other country in the world will trade with us. The INTERNATIONAL language for trade and education around the world is English.. If the PQ get in and people say they will hang around to fight them at the next election.. good luck to you guys.. Quebec will be bankrupt before the next election and you will be fighting for nothing.. the house prices will be rock bottom, cost of living will be so high. lots of people will loose jobs as the businesses will ALL move out of this province..it wil lbe a hell hole and a ghost province.. filled with Zombies and their followers... sorry to say it, but watch this space... IT WILL HAPPEN IF THEY GET IN...!!!

      WAKE UP QUEBECOIS !!!!!

      quoted on a FRANCOPHONE website

      "Buying an English course in Quebec in 2012, is to buy freedom and independence."

      ...this FRENCH website is called Learn English and leave Quebec !!!

      this is what is quoted on a french website.. most Quebecois are only here because the PQ wrote bill 101 to stop them learning English so they stay in the province as captives..there are so many who say that if the PQ get in on 4th Sept they will leave to go to Ontario or to the USA.. this is quoted from a french (francophone) website...so much for the separatist movement..
      http://www.quitterlequebec.com/perfectionnez-votre-anglais/

      Delete
    25. C'est pas des cours d'anglais ,c'est des cours de globish à rabais.

      Delete
    26. You say that like it's a bad thing! Globish, as you call it, has even more reach than English: I'd say that if you don't like English, Globish is the way to go. They speak it even in France!

      Delete
    27. TS says it well enough on a stream below. i think it fits here too:

      TS Tuesday, August 21, 2012 6:33:00 PM EDT

      Have you noticed a pattern that when someone points out something negative about you or quebeckers, you come back with a negative comparison, like bringing out that someone/something is worse, will make you or quebeckers look good?

      To give you an example - hypothetically, of course, if one would tell you that you are a xenophobic and racist a**, you're comeback would be: "Yeah, but the nazis killed people". Well... you know, you still are one, regardless of what anyone else did.

      Just wanted to point that out.

      And Rena,

      ["Only speak Irish after this point". So it doesn't just happen in Quebec.]

      Wasn't there terrorism and near civil war in Ireland?

      Delete
  9. To West Islanders - out of curiosity, has anyone noticed the sharp increase in the amount of new real estate listings in the West Island over the past weeks? Way too many 7-digit prices as well, which means in my opinion, that a lot of business owners are packing. And apparently there's no significant increase in the rental demand...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if the PQ refuses to speak in english, and stops education and businesses trading in english, no other country in the world will trade with us. The INTERNATIONAL language for trade and education around the world is English.. If the PQ get in and people say they will hang around to fight them at the next election.. good luck to you guys.. Quebec will be bankrupt before the next election and you will be fighting for nothing.. the house prices will be rock bottom, cost of living will be so high. lots of people will loose jobs as the businesses will ALL move out of this province..it wil lbe a hell hole and a ghost province.. filled with Zombies and their followers... sorry to say it, but watch this space... IT WILL HAPPEN IF THEY GET IN...!!!

      Delete
  10. "...that a lot of business owners are packing."

    Croyez-vous qu'ils vont quitter pour de bon cette fois-ci?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ S.R

    Hopefully there will be another massive flood of businesses leaving Quebec again, resulting in the permanent unemployment of the Quebecois employees left behind.

    ReplyDelete
  12. C'est exactement le but de l'exercice:Vous vous adaptez ou vous quittez.Les choses sont tellement simples parfois,n'est-ce pas ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quick question: how does one adapt to bankruptcy?

      Delete
    2. Quick answer : Vos épouvantails sont révolus

      Delete
    3. I wonder how the francophone staff of these quitting entrepreneurs will adapt to losing their job...

      Delete
    4. You know, easy - they'll collect BS. Oh, wait...

      Delete
    5. L'important pour tout de suite est de faire le ménage,nous verrons ensuite pour la couleur des murs.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  13. Replies
    1. Les sondages vont dans ce sens :)

      Delete
    2. Bonne chance avec votre nouvelle natione aucune le prequatione.

      Latest ROC polls

      in the event of referndum those supporting Quebec staying in Canada. 52%. A very slim majority

      Those that do not favor Quebec staying within Canada with special privileges and treatment from Ottawa. 88%. That is a big number!!!!!

      Obviously the ROC has lost interest in Quebec and are becoming ambiivent to any further demands for special treatments such as those being prescribed by Marois.

      Quebec by default may get another referendum even though the seppies are not in the majority.

      Should be interesting.

      Delete
    3. "Bonne chance avec votre nouvelle natione aucune le prequatione."

      Si Signore

      Delete
  14. An excellent comment in the Globe and Mail on Monday's debate

    Wow! Charest won that one game/set/match. He might not win the election but he tore Marois apart; a vastly superior debater. Charest was particularly strong at the end when calling the PQ's hypocrisy on not being clear about whether they would (and giving a date if yes) hold a referendum in the first mandate. Also very solid on calling her out on not supporting the rights of Quebec students who chose to attend class during the strike [i.e. getting stopped by striking students] and making her look bad on her proposed policy that would ban religious minorities from wearing hijabs, kippahs etc in the public service (but a crucifix is OK because that's part of Quebec's heritage and not religious?!).

    Charest's recall of statistics and being able to reference what's going on in the rest of Canada and the rest of the world makes him so much more effective in a debate when discussing everything from the economy to healthcare. Marois just doesn't have that range -- probably because she is an embodiment of the parochial nature of the PQ that seems to have no clue as to how the rest of the world works....only that it's "Ottawa's" fault -- that's about the depth of understanding of international affairs of pequistes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. From Sunday's Globe and Mail article by John Ibbotson about Quebec committing slow-motion suicide:

    Demographic decline is the greatest problem afflicting Quebec society. Not enough babies are being born to sustain the population. The average age in Quebec is older than in any province to its west. Without young, skilled immigrants to fill vacant jobs, pay taxes that sustain social programs and contribute to pension funds for older folk, those jobs, programs and pensions will eventually disappear.

    What is the solution that Quebec politicians propose? Deter, restrict and insult immigrants.

    The Quebec government is responsible for selecting most of the immigrants who come to Quebec. It doesn’t do a very good job.

    In 2011, Quebec represented 23 per cent of Canada’s population. But over the past five years, the province has been responsible, on average, for only 19 per cent of the annual intake of permanent residents, according to Statistics Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada data.

    In the business class, Quebec has a selection target of 9,000 to 10,000 immigrants a year, but only brings in 2,500 to 2,700.

    Quebec’s French-language requirement ensures that many of the immigrants who do arrive in that province come from poorer parts of the globe, where new arrivals are less likely to have the education and skills needed to contribute.

    In 2010, for example, 50 per cent of immigrants to Ontario came from Asia or the Pacific, with the emerging economic powerhouses of China and India being two of the biggest source countries. But not many of them speak, or want to learn, French.

    That may explain why, in that same year, Quebec drew only 15 per cent of its intake from Asia and the Pacific. Instead, 41 per cent of new arrivals came from Africa and the Middle East, and 19 per cent from the Caribbean and Latin America. The two regions are home to some of the world’s most impoverished states. But in many of the countries there, such as Haiti and Morocco, people at least speak French.

    Many of those who do immigrate to Quebec promptly leave. Data is thin here, but the Quebec government did recently report that a paltry 10 per cent of investor-class immigrants selected by the province between 1999 and 2008 were still living in the province in 2010.

    “Citizenship and Immigration Canada is concerned with statistics showing low rates of investors selected by Quebec actually arriving or remaining in the province,” a spokeswoman for the department stated in an e-mail.

    So Quebec is unable to attract sufficient immigrants; many of those who do arrive come from some of the poorest places on earth, and many of the more affluent head straight to another province.

    You might think that, faced with such grim realities, Quebeckers and their political leaders would be debating how to attract and keep more immigrants, especially those who can bring needed skills and resources to the province.

    Instead, they compete over who will more vehemently promote and defend their shared cultural heritage, even as the population ages and stagnates.

    It may be good politics, but it’s slow-motion suicide just the same.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are quite a few posters here that go after Yannick for his support of some apects of language legislation. I don't see all of what he is saying as unreasonable. By the way I am very anti bill 101, and pur laine chauvinism. Yannick is just pointing out that by Francophones learning English and using it to communicate to non French speakers, there can be an expectation that French services outside and inside Quebec are not needed if the French speakers can communicate in English. Which as a members of Quebec minorities we should understand it because the Pur Laine chauvanists want to impose the same on us.

    As a member of a visible, religious and ethnic minority in Montreal and later on in Toronto, I have to say that while in Quebec the suppression of rights, discrimination and double standards were state sanctioned, I cannot say that Ontario doesn't have their fair share of the population that doesn't want something similar to bill 101 that would benefit whites in general and Anglo saxons in particular.

    Which is why I am very glad the rest of Canada is diversifying and that not one ethnic group is a clear majority, unlike the case in Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Not a Hypocrite:

      "I cannot say that Ontario doesn't have their fair share of the population that doesn't want something similar to bill 101 that would benefit whites in general and Anglo saxons in particular."

      I live in Toronto. I interact with people of many diverse backgrounds, including closely with Anglo Saxons, and I have never encountered any attitude remotely resembling what you have described.

      Delete
    2. @john krug

      You don't have this open confrontation anymore because the demographics of the city is not conducive to do so. It was not the case until the early 1990s. I never said an overwhelming number of whites and/or anglo saxons support discriminatory legislation, but just go look at any comment section of any Toronto newspaper especially the Toronto Sun on any article linked to immigration or multiculturalism and you'll see what I am talking about. Google Toronto and Paki bashing.

      Only reason Paki bashing stopped was, the ones getting bashed, bashed back. So instead of getting direct taunts, threats or violence. You'll get indirect messages. The need to preserve Canadian identity, adapt to "Canadian ways", etc...

      Delete
    3. Every society has a share of frustrated people who want a "law like bill 101". ON has its share, QC has its share, so do Zimbabwe, Mali, Australia, and so on. (the UK has its own version of the PQ called EDL, France has The National Front). The question is: in which society is that share high enough in number and influence to effectuate political implementations of laws like 101. Let's see. QC has one. ON doesn't.

      Does this mean that Qc is racist and ON isn't? No, it means that in QC, as in the southern US up to the 1960's, resentments and vanity reached sufficient critical mass to become state sanctioned and culturally approved. Which means that ON as a state is more or less a regular liberal democracy, whereas QC has been a borderline lunatic state since about mid 1960's.

      Delete
  17. Well here we go again - another damned referendum! There should be a federal law in place to limit the right to have referendums, on anything, more than once every 20 years or so. This instability in Quebec hurts all of Canada every time the PQ come into power. Our dollar falls, our mutual funds suffer, our property values in Quebec hit rock bottom and the separatists don't give a tinkers damn about any of the ordinary citizens of this province or country. Can the separatists not see that their leaders only care about power - nothing else! Do they think Pauline Marois or Parizeau care about the population? They have lots of money and when Quebec falls into ruin, as it surely will, they will pack up and move somewhere else without a thought in their stupid heads about the mess they leave behind! I always thought the Quebec population was wise enough to see the motives behind these people but perhaps I was wrong. Too many now think they are better off without the rest of Canada protecting their language and when they separate and find they can't make it on their own, they will be begging to come back but, by then, the rest of Canada will no longer be interested in protecting their language. Assimilation will then be the only choice to end this conflict. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! We have approximately 3.5M people deciding the fate of 33M people!

    As to partition of the province, there will be no choice. Here in the Outaouais, 95% voted "No" in the last referendum. Do the separatists really think they can force us to stay in Quebec? They are pushing us into a civil war that we do not want but will not have a choice! You can not live in peace with at least half the population unhappy. The only people left behind will be the ones who do not have the money to leave and start over. Desperate people do desperate things and fight is one of them. How sad all of this is in the best country in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I must say, thank you for writing this post. Very entertaining! Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  19. FROM ED BROWN
    To begin, reading or writing and speaking French are two different things. Many of us learned to speak French years after high school and were satisfied that speaking it was enough. Most of my anglo friends are the same way. While I speak fluently I do not bother to read French posts by people like S.R. because in his effort to show his educated french he uses words I've never heard of and won't be bothered looking up.
    In teaching French I ask again, why does the government give free french courses to immigrants but not to residents. Are they afraid that if we could read and write french we would want their positions and jobs. Perhaps they could start by teaching french to the Haitians they are shipping in by the boatload. I can't understand anything they say in French or English. Their education is very low and the only reason they are being sought after by Quebec is because they speak french.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right Ed: I was in the hospital not long ago and the Haitians employed there were not able to communicate in either language. I do not speak French and I have been in Quebec for 60 years but when I was young all my French friends wanted to learn English so, to my detriment, I never learned to speak French. I want to point out though that my two sons are bilingual and are proud Canadians. Switching languages to them is just a matter of course and not a concern in any way. They don't even give it a second thought. This has just made their lives easier living in this area of Quebec!

      Delete
    2. And Ed - I should also add that I get really peed off when I see these same immigrants, that come to Canada, marching alongside the separatists in rallies! As if they didn't leave their own countries because it was too miserable there but they can't wait to jump in on our differences even though they have no heritage here to fight about! Some nerve.

      Delete
  20. So um, what about the debate people? I tried to watch it, but CBC wasn't streaming very well on my connection and I lost sound quickly.

    What did you guys think?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Projet de citoyenneté québécoise : Marois propose des règles plus strictes

    http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/elections-quebec-2012/201208/21/01-4566965-projet-de-citoyennete-quebecoise-marois-propose-des-regles-plus-strictes.php

    J'adore cette femme!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. S.R

      how do you feel about Legault?

      Delete
    2. Je déteste cet homme,il est totalement instable.

      Delete
    3. Je déteste cet homme,il est totalement instable

      He's a former Pequiste: that might explain it...

      Delete
  22. A couple of useless comments:

    First, is it just me, or did anyone else think of Elvis Gratton when Legault was giving his closing speech?

    Secondly, I was very disappointed by the level of french used during the debate. These are people who claim they want to protect our language and our culture? As far as I know, it's "Ce soir" and not "A soir". I know a few french teachers who wouldn't be very proud.

    Hearing Legault speak like this doesn't surprise me, I'm sure that's the real him; but Marois??? Madame rich lady who probably took multiple french diction courses, and who lives in the West-Island? Bullshit! I'm sure she's just speaking like that for the sake of all the country hicks who say things like "ma matante". Nice strategy, making yourself look like the regular, common folk.

    In other news, Marois is now claiming she will require a "french exam" for all political candidates. I guess when it comes to language, democracy takes a back seat for PQers (but we all knew this already). I've said it before and I'll say it again, when you discriminate based on language, what's stopping you from adding religion to that list (a very realistic scenario in this province), and then why not race?.. Perhaps one day, the extremists will manage to convince all the sheep that we need to protect not only our language, but also our white/catholic heritage.. You know that's what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "A soir","ma matante"

    "What the fuck" est beaucoup mieux et moins vulgaire évidemment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. I think that it's problematic for the Editor to forbid and to delete anonymous comments while it still remains an option in the "Select profile" pull down menu.

      Delete
  24. Have you noticed a pattern that when someone points out something negative about you or quebeckers, you come back with a negative comparison, like bringing out that someone/something is worse, will make you or quebeckers look good?

    To give you an example - hypothetically, of course, if one would tell you that you are a xenophobic and racist a**, you're comeback would be: "Yeah, but the nazis killed people". Well... you know, you still are one, regardless of what anyone else did.

    Just wanted to point that out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Je répondais simplement au "self-hater" qu'est QOTS qui semble vénérer les langue étrangères,sauf la sienne.

      Quand on veut se débarrasser de son chien,on dit qu'il a la rage.

      Trop facile.

      Delete
    2. @TS

      This has been going on for a very long time on this Blog. When I first started following I was astonished at how it consistently it happened and pointed it out myself.

      Delete
    3. @Laurie, I don't think this can be changed. People say a lot of things to themselves so they can have a positive view of themselves...

      ... and I just noticed a typo in my post - I hate that. It should have been: '*your* comeback would have been'

      Delete
  25. The whole thing is ridiculous.

    The Quebecers are being had by the politicians.

    The ROC is being had by Quebec.

    That's it, that's all.

    Perhaps separation will fix the problem for the ROC. No doubt in Quebec, you will be stuck with
    your policitians.

    Marois and here sense of profound democracy by having people running for office examined to ensure proper French. Of course, the next thing will be skin color, or perhaps ethnicity. There would appear to be no bounds to this womans chicanery. Ya know, the same people that were in opposition to Harper cutting off the toonie per vote gratuity to the various political parties. What a bunch of hypocrites. Now she is talking about using taxpayer's money to further her seppie agenda. Thats certainly fair to the taxpayers who have different objectives. Maybe they should invest the taxpayers money into producing better Poutine. Might make more sense.







    ReplyDelete
  26. Ok -- quick question. Green Party of Quebec, do they believe in Quebec sovereignty, French nationalism and anti-English language laws? I'm thinking of voting for them but NOT if they hold any of the same values of PQ, CAQ or PLQ.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think anglos and allos should think twice before voting for any other party but the Quebec liberals. While Charest hasn't helped the minorities and won't openly do so. I think we are alot better off under Charest at least until the demographic situation continues to improve for minorities in Montreal island. Once Vaudreauil and points west of that get a non Pur laine majority, partition is something that Quebec won't be able to ignore. Besides a vote for the green party is a vote thrown and the CAQ is just a pro bill 101 light party. Might as well hold your breathe and vote liberal. With such a close race Liberals can still squeak through and get a majority. Anglos shouldn't make the same mistake as they did in 1976 splitting the vote between union nationale and Liberals. Also remember the backstabbing Oncle toms' NDP will do to QUebec anglos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I haven't voted for the Liberals since 2003. You know the old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on *me*. I foolish thought Charest believed in Canadian values and equality. Wow...I was ever wrong!

      Charest and his Liberal party has done NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING positive for the English community. Quite the contrary, he has made things far worse for the English community, even out doing the Parti Quebecois in terms of language restrictions and anti-English rhetoric. Hold my breath nothing, I will never, ever, vote for that back stabbing traitor!

      I rather throw my vote away, thank you very much. I will NOT rewarding his behavior, even if it means a separatist government. I said it before, I'm actually toying with the idea of voting PQ, and when the next referendum happens (and it will!), I am voting 'Yes'. I would like nothing more than to see Quebec kicked out of Canadian confederation. I have given up on change for so-called province, the only solution left is to hit the self-destruct button and leave. I hope to live in Ontario in the near future, where I can watch Quebec sink from afar.

      Delete
    2. Apple: I understand where you're coming from and a lot of us feel that way but remember one thing, borders for a new Quebec, could be established from a referendum and you're "yes" vote could back-stab your friends and neighbours. Last time in this area we voted 95% "no" and I stand on the border issue that "you're not taking us with you". Keep this in mind when voting for remaining in Canada.

      Delete
  28. You might qualify for a new government solar energy rebate program.
    Click here and find out if you qualify now!

    ReplyDelete