Two legal Canadian political parties (the PQ and the BQ) say the federal government should give the Plains of Abraham back to Quebec. Also the feds own property near the National Assembly on which stands the statue of Rene Levesque. That should be given back too. The newspaper Le Devoir writes: It is an aberration that the astatue of Rene Levesque is actually on federal land. A PQ member says that the party is demanding that Ottawa give back to Quebeckers the full ownership of their National Assembly.
PQ leader Pauline Marois wants Premier Charest to pressure the federal government to turn the property b ack to Quebec.
An article in this morning’s Gazette says the federal government is willing to review its ownership of the lawn in front of Quebec,s National Assembly where the statues of some former provincial premiers now stand
What do you think?
Do you agree?
Of course the federal government should give the land back to Quebec…in exchange for the return of the more than $300 billion that Quebec has netted on equalization payments which it has received from Ottawa since 1981.
I’m with Tony on that…. give back the land? For free? Not bloody likely……….. the ‘give me, give me, give me’ rhetoric of quebec politicos makes me sick.
Good morrow, all!
Remember the plea of “Lucien Bouchard” (from the Montreal “Just For Laughs” festival):
“Please, English, when Quebec leaves Canada and becomes its own country, do not move out. That will leave just the Indians — and they have guns!”
Give the Plains of Abraham back to the Indians — and let the French argue with THEM! Popcorn, anyone? CTZen
What will be frightening is if Ottawa does give the land back!
“What will be frightening is if Ottawa does give the land back!”
For me, it would be unbelievable if they DIDN’T give the land back. What has been the federal gov’t’s response to quebec demands in the past? A great big ‘yes sir – can I polish your shoes too?’…
Seriously – I sincerely hope they don’t give the land back, but I’m not holding my breath. Quebec owns Canada, and when they yell “JUMP” we ask “how high?”.
I think they should give it back, with the provision that the present signs and instructions be maintained as bilingual as all Federal properties are. Federalism is strengthened when seperation is weakened.
Give it back after the battle was lost by the French?
Isn’t that a little like a poker dealer giving you back your stake after you lost the game?
Feh.
Emotions vs emotions leads us nowhere. After all what we call Canada, (save for British Columbia) and the Hudson Valley down to New Amsterdam and the Ohio Mississippi valley along with Michigan were french and traded at the Paris treaty between England and France, at the end of the 7 years war, for the sugar canes of the Antilles and some Caribbean islands without so much as a by your leave from the local populations.
London then in 1841, again without consultation, carved what was left of the territory to mate the frenchies. What a success.
Peter writes:
I think they should give it back, with the provision that the present signs and instructions be maintained as bilingual as all Federal properties are.
Interesting that you say that.
A little known provision of the Official Languages Act requires that anyone or any organisation that takes over the operation of something under federal jurisdiction must maintain full bilingual services for the services offered.
That includes the provincial governments that take over federal operations. Example: the federal GST is administered in Quebec by the provincial government.
Over the years, many, many services under federal jurisdiction have been transferred to Quebec for administration. I wonder how many have full bilingual services, as the law calls for.
Indeed, if anglos in Quebec were of a nasty disposition they could go around to all those provincial offices and demand that all services be offered in both official languages (and that includes signs). In effect, this would be like having an anglo/federal version of the language police.
On this one, I agree with Tony. Over the years, I have been active on several committees defending the right to services in english, particularly in health and social services, bill 101 notwithstanding.
Speaking about the Treaty of Paris, in 1783 it was signed by the Brits and the USers and titled “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between His Britannic Majesty George III and the United States of America” Article VII stated that because Britian was ceding all its land east of the Mississippi to the US, that trading along or fishing in the Mississippi River would always be open “to subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States”.
Later there was a war during 1812-15 in between the co-signers.
In the first act of bullying, because they now had the troops to back the courts, the court rendered a judgment, in 1929, that the treaty had been declared as “falling under the class of treaties automatically annulled by any subsequent war between the contracting parties”, in this case the war of 1812 (it seems someone remembered that we had set fire to a very prominent building in Washington – revenge, say what?). It is a question for jurists to decide whether, under international law, the US must revert the lands east of the Mississippi, back to Britian because of the cancellation,. Methinks the USers shot themselves in the foot.
In Quebec the Hurons were there first. They are presently setting up a powow on the Plains for reconcilliation between Que and Ott. I think it would be a nice time to give those lands in Quebec City back to the Hurons. That way the separists could not claim they won, because the next thing you know they would want the Quebec Province back.
Nice thinking Jim. While in classic college I was called to the superior’s office because in an essay I had written that we should give back the land to the Amerindian, then called Redskins, pay for damages done and all go back to our lands of origin. Mind you, in my case it would have been a split decision, but then at 15 or 16 you don’t analyze all that much.
Give it back? I thought they were humiliated by it. Sheesh. Marois and her ilk can kiss my grits.
I’m no fan of Quebec’s totalitarian anti-liberty posturing as Tony is but I will admit that strides have been made towards English services. I see more and more confidence in Quebec civil servants willing to speak to me in English. Hydro, SAAQ, Revenue Quebec, have all been honorable and I appreciate it – just like I appreciate Paul for sticking up for English rights. It’s simply a matter of respect as nationalists are fond of saying.
Yes, expatriates may not be aware of the progress being made. Much of that progress can be attributed to the so-called children-of-bill 101.
They are at ease with both languages and very often with a third one. Thanks also to those anglo parents who have chosen, of their own free will, immersion schools for their children.
These young adults now are entering the work force and they bring a fresh approach to the whole question. As I have often written and said, when my generation of dinausors will have gone, much of the problem will be solved.
I hope so, but I sometimes see regressions. When I see Jean Charest making silly comments about “too much English” I find it crass and unfair. It all comes down to proper leadership, and as you said, maturity. Maybe we’ll get there soon enough.
But, Paul, I’m still told, “maudit importees,” “parle moi en francais” and “la loi 101″ from time to time. And so do my friends and acquaintances. It’s still there. That’s a reality.
That stuff will cease once the narrative changes in society and politics. As long as the PQ is there it will always be in the background.
All that being said, yes, things are better.
In responding to The Commentator’s post, Paul wrote:
Yes, expatriates may not be aware of the progress being made. Much of that progress can be attributed to the so-called children-of-bill 101. They are at ease with both languages and very often with a third one.
But, Paul, the “progress” that you refer to that The Commentator was specifically talking about was “strides (that) have been made towards English services. I see more and more confidence in Quebec civil servants willing to speak to me in English.”
The people you, Paul, are referring to — “the children of Bill 101″ who “are at ease with both languages” — wouldn’t need services provided in English because being bilingual they could easily understand the French. You see, Paul, bilingual people don’t need to hear Quebec civil servants talk to them in English.
So, Paul, Bill 101 has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, if anything, it would be the failure of Bill 101 — that is, the law’s inability to convince non-francophones to speak French — that would require Quebec civil servants to resort to speaking English.
As former MNA William Shaw once said: “What’s the point of bilingualism if everyone is?”
Commentator, I’m still told:”you speak good french for a foreingner, where were you born?” That question is put to me, despite my Québec accent and colloquialism, by older people. The young ones could not care less.
Tony, you, in a way, are right. When everybody will be bilingual, in Québec that is, the language question will be moot except for a few diehard “purs et durs” who are gradually doing just that:die. However, we will get closer to understanding the ROC and, hopefully, they Québec. Mutual respect is easier when communication is possible.
Besides, courses are now being given in the public sector, stressing the fact that merely speaking the other language is not enough to be bilingual: knowledge of the culture underlying the language is as important. Intellctual and emotional bilingualism is the ultimate step…that is still, on both sides, a long way off.
Paul,
Heh.
We often forget that there’s insecurity directed at “French from France” too!
Commentator, you must be referring to “les maudits franças”. And yes many Quebecers feel that their french is not up to par with, not so much French from France, but Parisian French that even Frenchmen despise.
Maudits anglais, francais, italiens (wops), etc.
It’s all the same.
A friend of mine, married, and happily so, to a French woman used to say that a French was one visiting and going back while les maudits français were the ones that stayed.
By the way Commentator did you know that wop was a job title, while the street car rails were installed in Montreal and the streets were repaved many Work Operatives Pavement were required. The foreman would ask for X number of WOPs at such and such a place. Since most of them were Italian, the word stuck and became synonimous and eventually pejorative.
My learning of “WOP” dates back to the days of immigration thru Ellis Island, NYC, where the immigration officers, wanted to sort out the Italians into two groups of those with and those without papers. They shouted “those with-out-papers (WOPs) line up to the left………..etc.”
My father, by the way, went to the employment office at the Viau Biscuit Company on Viau Street in East End Montreal during the depression. Tacked to the door was a notice which read “English need not apply”. 25 Years later I married a French Canadian lady and 25 years after that she ran away with my best friend, I don’t know who he is, but he’s my best friend. Anyone for a Viau tea biscuit?
Speaking of Viau…
Several years back here in Arizona, I met an aquaintance at a seminar whom I ended up inviting to my home for dinner. A few hours before he came he called and asked if I minded if he brought Whippets. Growing up in Quebec with those delicious marshmallow treats known as Whippets…
see: http://tinyurl.com/apejdb
…I enthusiastically said: sure! Bring ‘em on, I just love Whippets!
Well, this fellow comes over, promptly sits at my kitchen table, and takes out some small canisters — the kind that one puts into those automatic whipped cream makers — and he starts inhaling it like Frank Booth (played by Dennis Hopper) in Blue Velvet. It appeared he was attempting to get high.
Needless to say, I freaked out and almost threw this fellow out of my house.
Good thing I didn’t because “whippets”, apparently, is the name given to the cannisters and the marshmallow cookie is known as a “Mallomar.”
So it was a simple matter of miscommunication amid cultural differences!
Tony, ha. That was some messed up movie.
Paul, my version of WOPs is closer to Jim’s!
“When everybody will be bilingual, in Québec that is, the language question will be moot”
But this is one of the biggest reasons why I HATE our bilingualism policies here in Canada…. the bilingualism numbers have consistently gone DOWN (not up) in canada (ever since Trudeau). We spend MORE and MORE money attempting to make a bilingual country – but the numbers indicate that in reality this will never happen… we’re getting LESS bilingual (as a country), not more.
Speaking many languages can be an asset (although I’d pick spanish after english myself, not quebec-french) – but the last thing ANYONE needs is a government LAW enforcing language. It’s plain wrong.
Joe, I’m with you but it’s apparently one of our “progressive and envied” policies that must never ever never ever be debated; like health care or separatism. If you dare, you run the risk of being labeled a right-wing nutto; a follower of Bush. Wait, he’s gone. It’s ok to follow Obama, right?
You can’t legislate culture in any meaningful way. If you do, you get one big gigantic wastoid-scam like the CBC.
“You can’t legislate culture”
Amen brother!
There are no laws imaginable that can save a dying culture if the people themselves are allowing it to die. The laws do nothing – it’s up to the people to ensure the survival of their culture and they certainly don’t need laws to do it!
Pierre Trudeau, the father of bilingualism, once said that had he known what the connotations that eventually became associated with the term “official bilingualism” would be that he would have called it something else.
All that “official bilingualism” was supposed to mean was that federal government services would be offered in the two official languages by the federal government everywhere in Canada (or, at the very least, where numbers warrant). Somehow it has morphed into something else.
For example, there is a section in the Official Languages Act that calls for the promotion of the two official languages in non-governmental sectors of society. Well, that very well may be unconstitutional. To promote one or two languages over any other one (and there are hundreds of languages spoken within the borders of Canada) is discrimination based upon language, a possible violation of equality rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now, one may counter and say, correctly, that “language” was left out of that section of the Charter specifically for that reason. But recent international rulings may impact our domestic rulings and make “language” a prohibited basis of discrimination here because of certain international agreements Canada has signed.
Curiously, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms does include “language” as a prohibited basis of discrimination and that’s why in the famous Brown Shoes sign language Supreme Court Decision of 1988 Bill 101’s language of commercial sign provisions were found in violation of the Quebec Charter’s equality section but not the equality section of the Canadian Charter.