Nikki Yanofsky Sings O Canada Amid Controversy.

Nikki Yanofsky's rendition of O Canada in Vancouver's opening ceromonies had stirred controversy from coast to coast.
Some take the jazzy version as an insult, while others applaud the effort.
It seems that the organizing committee is being heavy-handed and declared the performance  copyrighted (I hope that they don't claim O Canada as theirs as well.)

The video of the performance received 15,000 hits on YouTube in less than 24 hours and hundreds of comments both negative and positive before being pulled due a complaint about copyright.

I believe Canadians have a right to see the video of the performance and add to the debate in regards to it's suitability.
It is our national anthem and we have a right to critique it, invoking the doctrine of FAIR USE.

What's you opinion of the performance?

Don't be shy, sound off! Send in your comment!!!!

By the way, Ms. Yanofsky also sings the theme to CTV's Olympic theme for the 2010 games.
There doesn't seem to be any controversy over that one.,,.See it here!!!

Are Vancouver Olympics Melting Down?

So far it doesn't seem to be a very auspicious start for Vancouver's Olympic Games. The lack of snow is the over-riding element and has already played havoc with the scheduled events, but it is not the only problem.

Was Vancouver a mistake in the first place?

The death of Georgian luge athlete Nodal Kumaritashvili was tragic and sad, but paradoxically actually heightened interest in the Games, just as a good car crash brings out our ghoulish instincts.

Of course, no west coast event would be complete without an anarchist demonstration, bent on destroying property and generally adding a healthy dose of mayhem to the festivities. It's hard to understand exactly what they are protesting and I'm not sure that they know themselves.
Some complain that the games are being staged on Native land, but it seems that the Indians have been pretty happy about their role that they've been assigned at the Games.
Others protested that the money spent on the Olympics should have gone to social programs. From the looks of the demonstrators, I am sure the money could have been well spent on more safe injection sites. Perhaps the Olympics should have considered making one into an official venue.

That being said the opening ceremonies did not go off cleanly, with the failure of machinery to hoist some of the pillars that were to be lit with the Olympic torch.

While Montrealer Nikki Yanofsky gave a talented and jazzy performance of O Canada, it seems that it didn't sit well with about half the country, who were outraged at the liberties she took.

The lack of French throughout the ceremony was so pervasive that it was embarrassing to all Quebeckers, including we Anglos. Subtitles are just not acceptable in a bilingual country, VANOC seemed completely oblivious to that fact that Canada is almost one quarter French. Bobby Orr was a good choice to to be a flag bearer and Wayne Gretzky an excellent choice for flame lighter, but geez, what about Guy Lafleur?

The entertainment was an English only affair with just one performance in French. The fiddle number which featured Ashley McIsaac included performers from all over Canada, except Quebec, which has an excellent fiddle reputation. For me, that was the most insulting slight.

As for the controversy over Miss Yanofsky's rendition of O Canada, I never realized how picky Canadians can be.

I even read a post where a gentleman was outraged that the Canadian flag hoisted in the stadium was not regulation and had a distorted vertical element.
Sounds pretty petty, but he was right.

For those of you interested in what a bad representation of the Canadian flag is, here's a sample;

Don't see anything wrong with it? Neither did I, until it was pointed out to me that the following is the correct and official version of the Canadian flag;

Can you see the difference? Apparently VANOC can't either!

Let's hope things get better.

Good Luck to all Canadian Olympians, Especially our Anglo Quebeckers!

The Olympic opening ceremonies are over and it's time to encourage all our athletes from across the country to do their best.

Because this blog is about the Anglo Quebecker experience,  I feel no shame in wishing the following Anglo-Quebec athletes good luck.

Jeffrey Frisch, from Mont Tremblant,  who is a skier.

Anna Goodman, another skier from Pointe Claire, Montreal

Gina Kingsbury a hockey player from Rouyn-Noranda










Roberto Luongo a NHL hockey goalie for the Vancouver Cunucks, who hails from St. Leonard in Montreal




Catherine Ward a hockey player from Montreal












Clara Hughes, a speed skater from Glen Sutton and Canada's flag bearer!








...and how about Hampstead, Quebec's Nikki Yanofsky, who sang O Canada in the Olympic opening ceremonies. Wow!

She also sings the theme to CTV's Olympic theme for the 2010 games. See it here!!!

Quebec's Immigration Dilemma Part 5- Assimilation

Assimilating immigrants in Quebec has proven to be a costly and largely unsuccessful affair.
For obvious reasons Quebec has favoured choosing immigrants from French speaking countries. It was felt that these people would transition into the French side of the language divide and maintain the predominance of French in Quebec. But so far, the French assimilation rate of immigrants is only 60%, and falls short of the 80% necessary to maintain the status quo.

The newcomers, while speaking French, are as culturally different from Francophone or Anglophone Quebeckers, as can be. It presents an unexpected problem, the newcomers don't fit in at all.

This is because they lack the necessary skills needed in a complex society.  Most immigrants who arrive from Muslim  countries don't even share fundamental values, such as the equality of men and women.
Today's immigrants, unlike the previous waves of newcomers,  are prone to demand that Quebeckers accommodate them, rather than vice-versa.

A rising chorus of voices is advocating that accepting people with fundamentalist religious views or little education and job skills, just because they speak French, is a mistake.

Many Quebeckers, especially those outside Montreal, demonstrate an outright hostility towards immigrants, believing that is they and not the immigrants who are being assimilated. The overall Quebec view of immigration is at odds with what Canadians think in other parts of the county.

Here's a video made by Radio-Canada a couple of years ago. It's quite an eye-opener.

Quebec finds itself caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In order to maintain it's demographic position in Canada, it needs to match the high Canadian immigration rate. But by bringing in a large amount of unproductive people, many of which  don't fit in or assimilate over to the French side, Quebec is becoming more populous, but less and less French.

For Quebec, the economic price of immigration is staggering. It's welfare rolls are bloated with unproductive immigrants. While immigrants make up less than 10% of Quebec's population, they represent 30% of the people on welfare and 25% of the people on unemployment insurance. Quebec also subsidizes immigration support organizations with over $14 million in aid a year.
Up to one third of  immigrants are refugees or family reunifications, immigrants who are unproductive and represent the largest economic strain.

The generosity of  Quebec society is at it's breaking point.

For Quebec, there is but one solution, lobbying Ottawa to drastically cut the number of immigrants, so that Quebec can do likewise.
To continue on with massive waves of immigration will have dire consequences.The province will become poorer, less French and continue to lose it's demographic position in Canada.

Quebec's Immigration Dilemma- Part 4 The Effect of the Ethnic Vote in the Next Referendum

One of the greatest fears that Quebec nationalist's share, is that immigration will render a future referendum almost impossible to win.
There's no doubt that if immigration remains at the historically high level that it is at today, that  fear is entirely justified.

Today Quebec welcomes 45,000 new immigrants each year (that limit will be increased to 55,000 in 2010), Since 1995, according to the Quebec government statistics, the province welcomed 598,000 new immigrants. Subtracting from that number those immigrants who leave to greener pastures in BC or Ontario, the net effect is that Quebec has gained  480,000 immigrants since the last referendum.

In that 1995 referendum, immigrants as a group voted over 90% against the sovereignty option and were largely blamed for the referendum defeat. (Remember Jacques Parizeau's "Money and the ethnic vote" remark.)

Today Quebec does a better job of absorbing newcomers into the French side of the language divide, so it's fair to say that in any new referendum the number of immigrants voting for sovereignty would be higher. That being said it would be an achievement if the number reached 20%. Even if we use this optimistic (or pessimistic) higher number in a hypothetical scenario, it augers badly for the sovereignists.

Let us consider the razor thin margin that the "NO" side won in the last referendum. Out of the 4.7 million votes cast, the NO side received 2,377,028 votes (50.58%) and the YES side received 2,322,740 votes (49.42%.) Just 54, 288 votes (1.16%) separated the Yes from the No's!

Let us also imagine another referendum, one held today in 2010, where everybody voted exactly the same way that they did in the 1995 referendum. The only difference now,  we will incorporate  fifteen years worth of new immigrants who will vote 80% in favour of the NO side. Under this scenario, the NO side would get an additional 358,000 votes and the YES side an additional 120,000 votes, for a net gain of 238,000 votes for the NO side.

The new totals would look something like this;

2010 Referendum 

NO       2,735,028    (52.9%)

YES     2,442,740    (47.1%)

Difference - 292,288 (5.8%) versus 54, 288 in 1995.(1.2%)

For sovereignists, it is a frightening scenario. If we project things out a little farther it even gets worse (or better)

If Quebec maintains the historically high figure of 55,000 immigrants per year, it will mean that in five years, there will be another 225,000 new ethnic voters and the results of a referendum in 2015 might look something like this, again, using 1995 referendum numbers as a base.

2015 Referendum 

NO      2,915,028    (54.0%)

YES    2,487,740    (46.0%)

Five more years of immigration will yield:

2020 Referendum 

NO      3,095,028   (55.0%)

YES    2,504,740   (45.0%)

If things trend out, twenty-five years after the referendum of 1995 (10 years from today), immigration will have added 744,000 votes to the NO side and only 186,000 to the YES side. Immigration will represent an absolute swing of 10% over to the NO side as compared with the 1995 referendum.

It means that in 2020,  5 out of every 7 seven francophone Quebeckers will need to vote YES in order to achieve sovereignty.  Not likely......