Your thoughts on official unilingualism?

[Benz]

A bit more involved than that....

Involved yes. For sure. Still, it's easy.

Unless you think Gambia is far more superior than Canada.

[Benz]

Monarchy vs. Republic is like choosing between a Toyota or a Ford. Technically they both get you where you need to go and if you have a Toyota that works it does not make sense to trade it in for a Ford.

Note to myself, never ask TimG recommendations on which car to buy. lolll

It's definitely NOT like comparing two cars. Monarchy is not something you choose. You do not get a Toyota because the owner has blue blood.

Very bad comparison/analogy.

[Benz]

As I explained above: Canada is the vehicle and english and french canada are passengers.

Who is the driver? When the english command the destination and the french has no say, the french is in the wrong vehicle.

IOW english canada is a subgroup too and should not have a veto either.

English Canada HAS a veto. No one can change the federalism without the approval of the english Canada.

The fact that current demographics mean English Canada has a democratic majority does not mean much when you consider how English canada is divided across regions with different priorities. IOW english canada is not a monolithic entity that speaks with one voice (neither is french canada for that matter).

Indeed. In a normal federation, a senate is suppose to compensate those difference. Unfortunatly, in Canada, the senators or the higher chamber are chosen by the prime minister of the lower chamber, instead of by the regions they are suppose to represent. That makes the senate totally irrelevant.

What we want are structures that encourage good faith compromise and negotiation. I think we agree on that. No good comes from one group dictating terms to other groups. I take the position that vetos discourage compromise because the groups holding the vetos can block any change as long as they can live with the status quo.

I do not deny that possibility. However, the history is saying that YOU are the one not in good faith and WE are the ones paying the price. After the betrayal of 1981, we do not trust you anymore. That is why we need that veto. So the next time, there would be a REAL negotiation. Lévesque has proposed you a system where Québec has no veto and look what you have done. You back stabbed him. To late now. That is why even the Quebec federalists want a veto. English and French are two different nations. A veto is necessary.

The 7/50 formula means that no player can be intransigent because if they are they get left out of the consensus. This means good faith negotiation and compromise is more likely under the 7/50 rule than under the veto rule. The veto rule is only useful for people who think the constitution is perfect and never needs any future changes because the veto ensures there won't be any.

No, because the 7/50 assumes that Québec is just a province among the others and that we are all english canadians. It's not the case. Québec is a different nation.

I repeat, I have no problem that the House of Common is dominated by the english people. I have no problem that the english people has a bigger say regarding the federal politics. As long as Québec has the power on what regards our politics, the rest is just normal. Regarding the constitution, it's a total different story. Constitution has the supreme rules of the country. The government is not suppose to change the constitution all the time according to its own desire. Otherwise the constitution is irrelevant. It's too important to be the exclusive choice of the majority, especially when there are more than one nation that must follow those rules. If the rules are to be applied on all of us, then we must have a say and agree on those rules.

English and French are more alike than they want to admit. It's not that difficult to get along and it should be easy to agree on the terms. The only reason we can't, is because you do not have to. It's because you can set the rules and we have to shut up and obey. That's why the little differences between us are irritating to a point where we rather separate than the status quo. 50,6% of the Québécois gave you another chance in 1995. Among that 50,6%, there are the english that see themselves as canadians, not Québécois. That's alot of unsatisfied people ready to quit. If you want to stay stubborn and keep an exclusive ownership on the constitution at the expense of the Québécois, be my guest. Eventually Québec will quit and it will solve your problem for goods. The veto will no longer be an issue. You will be able to keep you 7/50 rule just as you wish.

But if Québec quits, how will you keep that country together? Who will be your scapegoat after we leave? You will not be able to blame Québec for all your misfortune.

[TimG]

Who is the driver? When the english command the destination and the french has no say, the french is in the wrong vehicle.

The "English" are not unified. The "French" have joined with like minded "English" to ensure their interests are protected within the state of Canada. Obviously that does not happen all of the time but it happens enough that the "French" have no basis for complaints about the direction the vehicle is going in because they are usually one of the primary drivers.

After the betrayal of 1981, we do not trust you anymore.

Quebequers have a habit of electing politicians who are dedicated to breaking up the state of Canada. It is simply not possible for such politicians to negotiate in good faith since any compromise would undermine their publicly stated objectives. For that reason, the claims that Quebec was "betrayed" in 1981 is largely nonsense because there was no possible compromise that would have been acceptable to a dedicated separatist and the "betrayal" was simply political theater manufactured by Levesque to advance his real cause: the independence of Quebec. He was extremely successful (so successful that he was able to manipulate Quebec federalists into supporting his fictitious narrative lest they be accused of being traitors to Quebec).

The only option for English politicians was to either accept the status quo or proceed without the approval of separatists. That is why I said that vetos simply ensure that the status quo never changes and they are a horrible way to design a constitution.

No, because the 7/50 assumes that Québec is just a province among the others and that we are all english canadians. It's not the case. Québec is a different nation.

Whether you like it or not Canada is a federal state with 10 provinces. The fact that the 10 provinces are legally defined entities in the constitution means the provinces have to be part of any amending formula. The province of Quebec has a francophone majority but it is not exclusively french. What you are asking is that the French nation be given a veto in additional to the power it exercises as the majority in the province of Quebec. That is something I disagree with because no one group deserves a veto over constitutional change. Granting vetos simply makes change impossible by encouraging players to make demands that other parties cannot accept. Edited September 28, 2016 by TimG

[Benz]

The "English" are not unified. The "French" have joined with like minded "English" to ensure their interests are protected within the state of Canada. Obviously that does not happen all of the time but it happens enough that the "French" have no basis for complaints about the direction the vehicle is going in because they are usually one of the primary drivers.

The Canada you describe has no link to the actual reality. You are living in a fiction or parallel world.

Quebequers have a habit of electing politicians who are dedicated to breaking up the state of Canada. It is simply not possible for such politicians to negotiate in good faith since any compromise would undermine their publicly stated objectives. For that reason, the claims that Quebec was "betrayed" in 1981 is largely nonsense because there was no possible compromise that would have been acceptable to a dedicated separatist and the "betrayal" was simply political theater manufactured by Levesque to advance his real cause: the independence of Quebec. He was extremely successful (so successful that he was able to manipulate Quebec federalists into supporting his fictitious narrative lest they be accused of being traitors to Quebec).

You are ignorant and ... can't say it without being banned. Stop your futile judgement about things you do not know and keep up with the facts.

Facts:

-Lévesque convinced all provinces but Ontario and NB, to force the federal to give the provinces an Opt Out. They were called the group of eight.

-Lévesque has proposed to let go the traditional claim of getting a veto for Québec if the previous point was to be adopted.

-Trudeau finally said, ok, I will accept your terms but I have one condition, there must be a referendum.

-Lévesque said, ok, tomorrow I will try to convince the others.

-During the night, Trudeau contacted the others and they discussed without Lévesque. He convinced them to betray Lévesque, to accept only his terms and in exchange, there would be no referendum.

-The *auto-censored* prime ministers have all accepted. They gave up on everything that was important to them, just to make sure Québec does not get anything, even if they would get the same thing.

Lévesque was defeated in the referendum at 40% the previous year. He had no intention to break up the country. On the contrary. By giving up the veto, he demonstrated that he was ready to move on to something else.

What you do not understand is, Trudeau gave Québec a much better reason to separate than any independentist ever did. When they did a referendum in 1980, it was because we feared the day that Canada would betray us and set the rules without us. We voted no and the next year, our fear became true.

You are not trust worthy and we (both sovereignists and federalists) gave you alot of opportunities to solve that issue.

The only option for English politicians was to either accept the status quo or proceed without the approval of separatists. That is why I said that vetos simply ensure that the status quo never changes and they are a horrible way to design a constitution.

No, there was another option. It was the main option. The option supported by the group of 8 until they betrayed Québec. That option was to give the provinces an Opt Out with full compensation. Québec was asking to particular rights or veto. You screwed it up big time. It's because you failed us that now we need a veto. You are not trust worthy. The best example is the way you avoid the history and rewrite it.

Trust me, I will not stop to bring back your face into your own shit. The more you will ignore it, the more I will bring it back to your face.

Whether you like it or not Canada is a federal state with 10 provinces. The fact that the 10 provinces are legally defined entities in the constitution means the provinces have to be part of any amending formula. The province of Quebec has a francophone majority but it is not exclusively french. What you are asking is that the French nation be given a veto in additional to the power it exercises as the majority in the province of Quebec.

What are you talking about? The majority of french speaking people in Québec has only incidences on Québec politics. You are mixed up.

That is something I disagree with because no one group deserves a veto over constitutional change. Granting vetos simply makes change impossible by encouraging players to make demands that other parties cannot accept.

English has a veto through the number of its people. Veto is not horrible when necessary. Absence of veto IS horrible when it is needed. It explains why the natives and alot of french outside Québec faced cultural genocides. We are not your sub group. We do not belong to you. You cannot talk in our name. The fact that you outnumber us does not give you the legitimated right to ignore us. Especially when your ancestors are responsible of the cultural genocides.

I do not fit in your version of Canada. There are no room for us.

[TimG]

The Canada you describe has no link to the actual reality. You are living in a fiction or parallel world.

I simply described the world we live in where we have had PMs from Quebec for 40 of the last 50 years. For most of that time francophones were extremely influential in the government. It is simply not rational to claim that Quebec does not have a huge influence on the direction that the state of Canada follows.

Stop your futile judgement about things you do not know and keep up with the facts.

You are not providing facts. You are constructing a narrative that validates your need to be a victim.

The real story is not so simplistic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-myth-of-the-long-knives/article4182838/?page=all

In fact, the Gang was deeply divided in purpose and united only in its opposition to Mr. Trudeau. By the time the first ministers gathered in Ottawa in November, 1981, it was ready to fall apart.

...

Besides, the draft was not a fait accompli. It couldn't have been, since neither Mr. Trudeau nor his justice minister, Mr. Chrétien, had been aware of its contents until sunrise. (Mr. Lyon didn't even know of its existence until after Mr. Lévesque.) As much as the anglo premiers might have hoped it was a done deal, they didn't know what the prime minister was going to decide when they all gathered for the final session that fateful morning.

...

Who knows what Mr. Lévesque might have obtained if he had indicated the least willingness to sign something at that moment? He might have won a new round of talks on the division of powers or refinements to the Charter. He might even have found an ally in the federal government in resuming the struggle for a Quebec veto. Instead, he stormed off in a fit of personal pique to beg Westminster to keep us a colony.

Obviously, the writer if that article is constructing his own narrative, however, he is clearly informed. Probably more informed than you. You should not assume that what you have been told is true.

English has a veto through the number of its people. Veto is not horrible when necessary.

English canada is not a united entity. It if it has the numbers that is simply a fact of life. If demographics change it would not have the ability to block constitutional changes on its own. There is a huge difference from what you are asking for.

Especially when your ancestors are responsible of the cultural genocides.

You actually have no idea who my ancestors are. FWIW, they are French Canadian. My parent's first language was French.

You seem to want to wallow in victim-hood. Whine about how unfairly Quebec has been treated when any objective analysis would conclude that Quebec has enjoyed an extremely privileged and influential role in the federation. What I find most ironic is you seem to be upset that English Canadians don't "get" French Quebec but you have shown zero effort to try to understand the POV of English Canada. Respect is a two way street. You have to show it to get it.

[Benz]

I simply described the world we live in where we have had PMs from Quebec for 40 of the last 50 years. For most of that time francophones were extremely influential in the government. It is simply not rational to claim that Quebec does not have a huge influence on the direction that the state of Canada follows.

Having an influence and ruling are not the same thing. It's normal that more than 25% of the population has an influence. It does not mean they rule.

Father Trudeau is not a francophone to me. If you insist that he is, then I have to say he is the biggest traitor in our history. Trudeau's constitution is the main reason why I prefer to separate rather than the status quo. Chrétien worked against Québec like if we were his enemies. But you have the feeling that he worked for us because he was giving so much money to his own friends in Québec. The people did not benefit from it, only his friends. Mulroney is anglo. It does not mean much that he is coming from Québec. I had more respect for him than for Chrétien and Trudeau. But I consider that he betrayed us and himself with the Charlottetown referendum. They all come from Québec and Québec did not benefit from it.

Even if Harper was the exact opposite of what I expect a prime minister to be and that I had no affinity with his politics, unlike the ones I mentioned, he did not work against Québec. Often, his politics were the contrary of what we want but, he did those to serve the country the way he thoughts it should be. With one exception, it was not an attack against us. Unlike the others, like when Chrétien did his Sponsorship scandal. Trudeau, Chrétien and many others coming from Québec, did attack directly Québec to give us trouble and it was their intention.

You are not providing facts. You are constructing a narrative that validates your need to be a victim.

The real story is not so simplistic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-myth-of-the-long-knives/article4182838/?page=all

Obviously, the writer if that article is constructing his own narrative, however, he is clearly informed. Probably more informed than you. You should not assume that what you have been told is true.

I have told you the exactly what the Gang of 8 wanted, what they were agreeing on and what they did not. I told you what was the position of Trudeau and what he wanted. I have put information that you can confirm or invalidate if you want. But you don't. Instead, you provide the opinion of a man that brings NO information. That man totally avoids to justify his opinion that the group of 8 had nothing in common despite they all signed the same document saying they all agree. When you have an opinion going in the opposite way of the facts, you have to bring a minimum of justification. Total fail. In the second paragraph you quoted, he is explaining exactly how the 9 english provinces betrayed us. It's pathetic. They were not aware of the content? So what, they signed it!!!!! No excuses! But the worst of its biased analysis is...

Who knows what Mr. Lévesque might have obtained if he had indicated the least willingness to sign something at that moment? He might have won a new round of talks on the division of powers or refinements to the Charter.

WTF? His 7 partners changed their mind and were now on the side of Trudeau despite Trudeau never gave them what they want. They accepted the Trudeau's deal. It was too late. There was nothing more to negotiate at that time. Trudeau got every thing he wanted from the English provinces. He had no intention to honor the deal he promised to Lévesque. The fate was already sealed. Trudeau was NEVER open the door to a veto to Québec, nor even let a province to opt out with compensation.

English canada is not a united entity. It if it has the numbers that is simply a fact of life. If demographics change it would not have the ability to block constitutional changes on its own. There is a huge difference from what you are asking for.

There is a difference only when the english are not a majority. Whether you kill someone with a gun or a knife, it does not change anything to the fact that you killed someone. No matter how, the principle remains. The english are in a situation where they have a monopoly over the constitution and it is unfair.

You actually have no idea who my ancestors are. FWIW, they are French Canadian. My parent's first language was French.

Donc, tu parles français n'est-ce pas? If not, how do you explain that?

You seem to want to wallow in victim-hood. Whine about how unfairly Quebec has been treated when any objective analysis would conclude that Quebec has enjoyed an extremely privileged and influential role in the federation. What I find most ironic is you seem to be upset that English Canadians don't "get" French Quebec but you have shown zero effort to try to understand the POV of English Canada. Respect is a two way street. You have to show it to get it.

Really? Can you demonstrate what you are saying for once? Tu parles toujours à travers ton chapeau. Explain me how I do not try to understand english. I understand it too well.

[TimG]

Having an influence and ruling are not the same thing. It's normal that more than 25% of the population has an influence. It does not mean they rule.

That is the nature of democracy. People make coalitions with others and rule jointly. Quebec has been a huge part of the ruling coalitions and has had a much greater influence than the 23% of the population would normally get. For that reason, Quebec has no business complaining about the direction the country is going since they helped shape it.

F have told you the exactly what the Gang of 8 wanted, what they were agreeing on and what they did not.

You assembled the facts into a narrative that suited you. I gave you a link that took the same facts and assembled a different narrative that does not suit you. You need to learn the difference between facts and narratives. The myths that you have created are not the "truth". They are half truths at best.

Donc, tu parles français n'est-ce pas? If not, how do you explain that?

My grandparents lived in western canada and stopped using French when my parents were young. I was raised in English but some branches of my family still speak French. I consider myself English Canadian and only brought it up because of the irony of your attack on my ancestors when we likely have a few in common.

Really? Can you demonstrate what you are saying for once?

1) English canada does not see itself as a unified entity. It is divided along regional and political lines. You can't claim to be a victim because 'English Canada' has a majority when English Canadians knows that Quebec has an huge influence in the federal government. You may believe otherwise but that is my point. Your beliefs are ridiculous from the POV of an English Canadian. You need to understand that.

2) Acknowledge that Quebec society is not unified. Quebequers overwhelming favor laws like Bill 101, however, they have very different opinions on many other topics. Calling Trudeau a traitor or 'not a real Quebequer' does not help your case. It just shows that you are an extremist who can't be reasoned with. Obviously, I am not saying you should not criticize Trudeau and others but the 'not a quebequer' nonsense has to go.

3) Understand that separatists cannot 'negotiate in good faith' with the rest of the country because anyone dealing with them will always suspect that they are trying to 'create the winning conditions' instead of trying to find a mutually agreeable compromise. You may think that they can but their political position makes it impossible from the POV of an English Canadian.

[Machjo]

Just to clarify on Bill 101, no, not all Quebecers, and not even all French Quebecers, agree with Bill 101. Take me for example, Yes, I agree with the principle of official monolingualism in the sense that Quebec ought to have only one official language of government administration, and maybe impose that on natural monopolies too, but that is about as far as I go. Bill 101 goes ten times farther in imposing itself on education and all but the smallest mom and pop shops.

Consider the Conservative Party of Quebec too. It's views make even the PC Party in Ontario look authoritarian! It's mostly a very libertarian party in spite of its conservative name.

[Benz]

That is the nature of democracy. People make coalitions with others and rule jointly. Quebec has been a huge part of the ruling coalitions and has had a much greater influence than the 23% of the population would normally get. For that reason, Quebec has no business complaining about the direction the country is going since they helped shape it.

23% is the recent number. It was 25% in 1980. It was 35% in 1867.

You are again mixing up federal laws and constitution. I see it is a concept you have a severe difficulty to understand. I have explained you many times but you still fail to understand. I will take another approach. What is your understanding of the House of Common's role vs the constitution's role?

You assembled the facts into a narrative that suited you. I gave you a link that took the same facts and assembled a different narrative that does not suit you. You need to learn the difference between facts and narratives. The myths that you have created are not the "truth". They are half truths at best.

I exposed the decisions and actions that have been done. What they wanted and what is the result.

You quoted a man that tried to justify the 180 degrees change of the english provinces. The premiers were adults. They must assume the consequences of their decisions.

If you think I am not saying the truth, prove it.

What the Gang of 8 wanted?

What Trudeau wanted?

What Lévesque wanted?

What the Gang of 8 obtained?

What Trudeau obtained?

What Lévesque obtained?

The outcome is that the constitution is 100% aligned on what the english Canada wanted and Québec is excluded. It was, it is still and will never be acceptable for a nation to be that much dominated on the supreme rules such as a constitution. But you seems to be unable to understand what is a constitution and its role.

My grandparents lived in western canada and stopped using French when my parents were young. I was raised in English but some branches of my family still speak French. I consider myself English Canadian and only brought it up because of the irony of your attack on my ancestors when we likely have a few in common.

I have alot in common with your ancestors. You do not. That's the irony. French language was banned from public schools in most of the western provinces at the time of your grand-parents and the youth of your parents. English Canada has taken away from you and your parents a cultural heritage that was in your blood line for several centuries. If Canada would have NOT banned it, what would have happened? You would be bilingual by now. You would be able to speak french and english just like me. Your ancestors would not be foreigners to you. What have been done, is done. If you do not care about that, it regards only you and it is not of my business. However, my culture is well alive and I intend to preserve it. I am from a different nation and my nation must have a say over the constitution. If you have a problem with that, then Canada must be divided.

1) English canada does not see itself as a unified entity. It is divided along regional and political lines. You can't claim to be a victim because 'English Canada' has a majority when English Canadians knows that Quebec has an huge influence in the federal government. You may believe otherwise but that is my point. Your beliefs are ridiculous from the POV of an English Canadian. You need to understand that.

oh yes, I am very aware it looks ridiculous from your point of view. When you will understand why you are wrong, you will then be ashamed. For some reasons, you still fail to understand the difference between regions of a same nation and different nations. Compared to the Europeans, you are 500 years behind. They are above 20 different nations, speaking above 20 different languages and yet, they manage to maintain a union. Not without difficulties. It's a huge challenge but, they are working on it. We are only two (besides the natives) and we are not able to agree on a constitution. Our experience of living together should give us a huge advantage but we waste it all the time because of residual piece of this former british empire where you think that domination is the natural course.

2) Acknowledge that Quebec society is not unified. Quebequers overwhelming favor laws like Bill 101, however, they have very different opinions on many other topics. Calling Trudeau a traitor or 'not a real Quebequer' does not help your case. It just shows that you are an extremist who can't be reasoned with. Obviously, I am not saying you should not criticize Trudeau and others but the 'not a quebequer' nonsense has to go.

If you are asking an anglo in Quebec "are you Québécois?", he will reply to you "I am Canadian". They belong to the english canadian nation, not Québec nation. It's their choice, not mine. Whether Trudeau considers himself a Québécois or an english canadian is totally irrelevant. I judge him by his choices, not by his cultural belonging. On the morning of november 5th, he created the best reason ever Québec would need to separate from Canada. I insist on the fact that he betrayed Québec. What he has done is totally unacceptable.

Despite all that, I understand why he did it. In his mindset, the culture is irrelevant to politic. For him, the rule of law is the only thing that matter. He was not capable to see how the culture has a direct link to the rules. Laws are directly influenced by people's values and those values are part of the culture. Trudeau had a french dad and an english mom. His own experience made him think that a State a law is the answer to everything. He thought that his solution would avoid cultural disputes. Shut up mom, shut up dad, the law is the law, comply and that's it. He was very imbued of himself and he was not the kind of guy to admit his wrong decisions. I could discussed for a long time about him but, it is complex and I would do it much better in french.

That's an explanation, not an excuse. The constitution is snapchat of english canadian values of that time and he made it very difficult to modify. Worst than giving a veto to Québec. So as time advances and values are changing, the constitution will become an irritating issue in the future, even for english Canada.

3) Understand that separatists cannot 'negotiate in good faith' with the rest of the country because anyone dealing with them will always suspect that they are trying to 'create the winning conditions' instead of trying to find a mutually agreeable compromise. You may think that they can but their political position makes it impossible from the POV of an English Canadian.

oh I do understand that it is your mindset. But it is not the truth. You have a very childish disney point of view where I am a bad guy and you are therefore the good guy. It means that whatever I say is bad, and whatever you say is good. Very binary. You are not even giving yourself the chance to understand the point of view of the sovereignists. That's is why you prefer to call them separatists. It suits better your understanding to the whole thing.

In 1990, I was 17 years old, in secondary 5 and I did a speech to my classmates about the importance of Meech. I was telling them that we most move on and accept to build Canada as active partners. I told them that the time of independence is irrelevant part of history. That we can get in Canada with Meech everything we would have as independent. When english Canada let Meech died, I was in shock. Bourrassa is a federalist, not a separatist. What are their excuse now? Then I understood the big picture. Respect is not something you ask. It is something you impose. We must not ask Canada to give us a veto. We must get our sovereignty and then tell Canada, here is the deal. We are equal partners on the constitution or we quit.

We are not asking alot. I do not want an advantage for Québec in the House of Common. I do not want that the rules are applied differently on a Québécois. The rules must be the same for every one. The only thing we asked is that we set the rules of the constitution together. That's it! But we are not asking anymore. We understand that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand by yourself. So we most become sovereign and impose it. If there is no deal, then full independence will be the outcome and I am fine with it.

It is very childish from you to say that we are the ones not in good faith while the history shows the exact opposite. Whether it is the sovereignist Lévesque in 1981, or the federalist Bourrassa in 1990, or anyone else in our history, it always been the same thing. English Canada wants to keep its domination above the french. To accomplish that, they forced the french outside Québec to lose their culture and be assimilated to them. Your are the proof yourself.

Pull the plug off of your traditional separatist hatred and use your brain to imagine what Canada would have been now if Meech would have pass. How the "separatists" would do to motivate people to separate Québec from Canada? How many separatists would there be by now? I would definitely not be one of them. Whenever the federal would do something that Québec does not agree, Québec would have just use an opt out. Plain and simple. No more fights. Blocking constitutional changes? How many changes happened since 1982? It would not be a perfect world, but there would be solutions to work on. Unlike now where separations seems to be the only solution.

[Machjo]

Had Canada not banned French, German, and Hungarian, and never passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Indian Act, the Gradual Civilization Act, etc., most parts of Canada today would speak neither English nor French, exogamy rates would be higher than they are, and Canada would essentially be a multinational state with a few French pockets in Quebec and a few English ones in southern Canada.

[nanlan]

We are a group of Concordia University students studying Power and Conflict Resolution that would like to facilitate a respectful dialogue between the English, French and Aboriginals of Quebec.  Please help us out by filling out our anonymous survey below or by taking part in the discussion on our Facebook page.  Thanks for your help! 

 

Nous sommes un groupe des étudiants de l'Université Concordia étudiant la résolution de conflits et de pouvoir qui souhaitent faciliter un dialogue respectueux entre les Anglais, les Français et les Autochtones du Québec.  Donnez-nous votre opinion en remplissant notre sondage anonyme et bilingue sur les sujet qui concerne Québec!  Merci pour votre collaboration!

LINK to survey:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PBLNGL6

LINK to Facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/discutonsletstalkquebec/
 

[taxme]

On 8/19/2016 at 9:00 AM, Machjo said:

I just got challenged on a French Québec forum and need your help.

I proposed that instead of a sovereignty referendum, Québec should have a referendum on official unilingualism in the Constitution and federal administration.

For example, it could propose that the English provisions of the Constitution and federal government administration, packaging and labelling, etc. would not apply to Québec.

I'd pointed out that one advantage would be money saved for the taxpayer. Another would be that Federal employment in Quebec could be more accessible to those who don't know English and so make it more accessible to indigenous and allophone Quebecers too.

Another would be that Québec would no longer be obligated to provide English language education. It would probably still do that but could limit it more to where numbers warrant it for example without any Constitutional obligation to do so.

Another would be that Quebecers could import products from other countries with or without English labelling and so expand consumer choice.

One forum member said he liked the idea but that English Canada would never agree to it.

I explained that English Canadians are just as tired of having French imposed on them as Quebecers are of having English imposed on them.

I'd given the example of an entrepreneur in BC who'd run into the problem of importing US products with no French labelling. He eventually had to quit importing it because it wasn't worth the expense of French translation in BC.

He was still unconvinced, believing that English Canadians would gladly impose French on themselves if that is what it took to impose English on Quebec.

He seems to believe English Canadians are that massochistic. I disagree.

So, who's right? Would you agree to drop English in Quebec and French in the ROC?

I'll post this thread in the other forum too.

Pretty much all of the Ontario provincial government has gone bilingual, and on Ontario highway signs all are pretty much bilingual. Does Quebec do the same? NO. In New Brunswick everything is done in both English and french. All their highway signs are bilingual. Does Quebec do this also? NO. Manitoba is even starting to slowly go bilingual.

Quebec has done everything possible to try and eliminate the English language. Even with having a large proportion of their population being Anglophone it makes no difference to Quebec. Quebec must secede from Canada. The cost of bilingualism for the rest of Canada has been horrendous in trying to keep Quebec happy and stay in Canada. And it will cost billions more to keep butt kissing Quebec to stay in Canada. The francos are Quebeckers first, and Canadian second. I know, I was born in Quebec. Never been happier since I left the place. I can go around anywhere in BC, and can speak English without any problems, and all signs posted are in English. My English language is not welcome in Quebec anymore so I don't want to have anything anymore to do with their french language here. Either Quebec goes or the politicians in Ottawa must demand that Quebec become bilingual. The Anglophones are treated as second class citizen's in a country that likes to call itself a bilingual country. Why is it that Quebec can declare itself unilingual french, and all is ok, and yet if another province declared itself unilingual English, we can be sure as hell that the politicians in Ottawa would be out there whining and crying about how that Anglophone province is showing bigotry and being intolerant. How can one province get away with it, and another most likely not?  

[?Impact]

18 minutes ago, taxme said:

I can go around anywhere in BC, and can speak English without any problems

So you cannot go anywhere around BC and speak French without any problems. In much of Montreal you can get by speaking English without a problem, the same is not true about French in any other major city outside of Quebec except Ottawa.

b.t.w. the Ontario government is far from bilingual. I have dealt with many of those in the provincial government, and they can't speak a word of French. What you are referring to is that services are for the most part available in both official languages, but the level of those services certainly depends on where you are located. Printing highway signs in either or both official languages is not a big deal, my biggest problem with Quebec was back in the 70's after they had just put up the bilingual seat belt signs they then wasted a bunch of money painting out the English on them - that was just stupid. I have a bunch of issues with the language laws in Quebec in how they relate to private business, but those are different issues.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

So you cannot go anywhere around BC and speak French without any problems. In much of Montreal you can get by speaking English without a problem, the same is not true about French in any other major city outside of Quebec except Ottawa.

Seems I heard that New Brunswick is the most bilingual province.

"Of Canada's ten provinces, only one (New Brunswick) has voluntarily chosen to become officially bilingual. New Brunswick's bilingual status is constitutionally entrenched under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 16–20 of the Charter include parallel sections guaranteeing the same rights at the federal level and at the provincial level (New Brunswick only)."

[H10]

On 8/19/2016 at 1:05 PM, eyeball said:

On 8/19/2016 at 0:50 PM, ?Impact said:

You realize there is still a sizeable English population in Quebec that you are disenfranchising. Perhaps if you live in Saskatchewan you don't give a darn if Quebec in unilingual French because it has zero bearing on you, but what if you were English living in Quebec? Maybe we should have a French unilingual law for Saskatchewan, fewer people would be disenfranchised.

I don't think anyone is suggesting English be banned are they?

How does a unilingual English person get government services when you say they are a unilingual french province? It means you can call them and they sorry no English spoken here, no service.

[Benz]

9 hours ago, hernanday said:

How does a unilingual English person get government services when you say they are a unilingual french province? It means you can call them and they sorry no English spoken here, no service.

Official does not mean exclusive. You can get documentations and services in english as well. The Quebec anglos has more services in their language with the Quebec government than any french outside Quebec with their respective provincial government. My ex girlfriend was an anglo and all her communications with Quebec government is in english. She never felt unfairly treated by the state.

Official french language means that the red stop sign might be written in french "Arrêt" and if you are not capable to figure out that a red octagon at an intersection means stop sign, then you are just too stupid to drive.

If the french outside Quebec are not having the quarter of what the english in Quebec have.

[H10]

6 hours ago, Benz said:

Official does not mean exclusive. You can get documentations and services in english as well. The Quebec anglos has more services in their language with the Quebec government than any french outside Quebec with their respective provincial government. My ex girlfriend was an anglo and all her communications with Quebec government is in english. She never felt unfairly treated by the state.

Official french language means that the red stop sign might be written in french "Arrêt" and if you are not capable to figure out that a red octagon at an intersection means stop sign, then you are just too stupid to drive.

If the french outside Quebec are not having the quarter of what the english in Quebec have.

Untrue, in Ontario there are entire francophone cities and communities and on top of that French are entitled to French services in dealing with government.

If French is only official language of quebec it will exclude anglos who speak no french from official functions.  Which is bad idea.  

[Benz]

12 hours ago, hernanday said:

Untrue, in Ontario there are entire francophone cities and communities and on top of that French are entitled to French services in dealing with government.

If French is only official language of quebec it will exclude anglos who speak no french from official functions.  Which is bad idea.  

Why is it  a bad idea? How come it could be a good idea that someone who speak no french be in an official function?

You are talking about the french of Ontario... but I said french outside Québec. That includes PEI, NS, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, etc... is not normal to use the supreme court to subscribe your children to public school? Is this a third world country or what?

[H10]

Just now, Benz said:

Why is it  a bad idea? How come it could be a good idea that someone who speak no french be in an official function?

You are talking about the french of Ontario... but I said french outside Québec. That includes PEI, NS, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, etc... is not normal to use the supreme court to subscribe your children to public school? Is this a third world country or what?

Because all citizens have to at some point deal with official functions!

How many French are in those places you named?  Very few.  Montreal has a long time English population who is sizeable.  I mean if the population was very tiny, then I could see the argument for having just French. then of course there are also people who want to move to quebec to do business as well.  It certainly would not be good to have all your laws and programs stated in French.

Don't you think it is important for English tourist and visitors and children in quebec have some ability to understand the laws of your province?

[Benz]

Alot of french has lost their mother language and are now english speaking only. Indeed. That is the cause of interdiction of the language in public schools. Now that few are remaining, does that justifiy you to forbid the remaining french to have shools? Is it this a fucking thrid world country advocating cultural genocide?

Wait a minute. You did not pay attention. I told you. Official does not mean exclusive. You are talking like if the english speaking people here cannot function in english. Whether it is communication with the state, having schools or hospitals, english people have everything they need in their language. One can totally live in Quebec and not speak french at all. If you are not aware of that, you know nothing Jon Snow.

The laws are translated. If you were a visitor, you would know what is going in Québec. Tourism having nothing to complain about our attitude. Nous avons une bonne réputation auprès des touristes en général et la communication n'est pas une difficulté. We are discussing in your language if you did not notice. Explain me in french why we are not capable to speak english.  You need some reality check. Your knowledge of the context here is a bit off.