Harper Would Divide Canada On Language

Thanks for the info. I saw Harper on CBC's Politics with Don Newman & didn't really get the idea. Now I get it though, and I renew my extreme disagreement with Harper & his acolytes. >:-(

---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

Din Newman=Canadian Institute of International Affairs=elitist imperialist.

I saw some mention of this yesterday but didn't really get the gist.

It's not so much Harper's thoughts on the matter but, what's behind those thoughts I'm curious about.

Harper's support for Quebec sovereignty or any sort of quasi-sovereignty arrangement would send shivers up my spine if I were a Quebecois sovereignist.

On the other hand, I don't see a different sort of relationship between Canada and Quebec, or any other province, as being something to be dismissed out of hand.

Just who's suggesting it that makes me nervous (kind of aligns to Perturbed's thoughts on divide and conquer, i.e., Quebec leaves Canada, U.S. engulfs us all.).

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

I of course jumped onto this story this morning to see what was going on. But why should the Libs and others respond to bad ideology with more bad ideology Sacred Cow stuff? At least my favorite morning cartoon does not pretend to be serious. <p> It never ceases to amaze me that our politicians keep coming up with political solutions that will improve their chances of getting reelected without really identifying the problems they are trying to solve and how the proposed solution will solve the problem. Mulroney certainly did very well at this. Déjà-vu and not necessarily unique to the Conservative Party either. You may wish to read the "Reincarnation of the Dead Ducks" article of mine under Culture on this matter. <p> Meanwhile the media and the population keep watching the ongoing soap, the talk-radio heads get excited, repeat the same "âneries", the same callers come on the air, the same red necks against the same pure-laines, the same "why a special status", the same flames go on these Internet forums, the same finger pointing, etc... The political analysts do more or less the same. Fill, wash, rinse, spin, repeat ad nauseam. But how much longer will this carry on before we can really move forward on the illusion of change. Perhaps we are just quite happy with this situation and there are more important problems to deal with... <p> I myself will certainly agree that there are big problems at the CRTC, the CBC/Radio-Canada, the Francophonie, and the other overly complicated world bodies such as the Commonwealth and UNESCO. I noticed the First Nations was somehow missing and the UN. I would suspect that passing the buck away to the provinces or giving it more visibility would not be politically beneficial. The FHQs (&First Nations?) would then become covered under the multicultural umbrella with other ethnic groups? Now does passing the problem (whatever it is) to the provinces (or eventually the munies and colourful "reserves") make it any better? I will certainly note that de-facto to this day Radio-Canada is very much of a "Radio-Quebec" service. I very much get to hear the Montreal viewpoint here in BC if I wish to tune in French. But then the market and the concentration of francos are in Quebec. Are they not? So in the name of efficiencies, just repeat the broadcast signal across the country with minimum value added content talking heads and you have a national service. Bingo. Next problem. <p> The CRTC regulates among other things your franco broadcasters. So move them to Quebec since the market of francos is there in the same name of efficiencies, buck passing and political gains. The CRTC is already trying to please the francos in Quebec anyhow. Next problem? <p> The Francophonie is kind of an ugly mess in the ROC, certainly as far as the inter-generation assimilation rates go, declining french reading/writing skills amongst FHQs, bureaucracies out of control... The ducks are ailing and likely better off back in Quebec (or NB) if they want to hang on to their French cultural identity stuff. With all respect, the Francophonie (or First nations) forum or related articles on Vive have not generated a whole lot of interest. Francophonie is perceived to this day in the ROC as more of a "franco" problem that the francos can best attend. So move this to Quebec too since the market of francos is there in the same name of efficiencies, buck passing and political gains. That should be a good way to solve the bureaucracy problem. The "french immersion" program is doing well to support the elite kids wanting the ESL and learning disability kids away so they can better compete in our brave new world. Let's keep it that one away from "La francophonie" under the provincial Education competence and the bilingual country claim gets better. Next problem? <p> Repeat same logic and spin. <p> I personally don't think it is a good idea to have your national media Regulator subordinated to political forces in the provinces if you are going to have a sovereign country in our Internet age. Ditto on national broadcasters. I can certainly understand why Quebec sovereinists want this control, and why Canadian Sovereinists don't want this item under NAFTA either. The Internet is the key to the solution here IMHO but politicians generally have no clue whatsoever about the solutions it uncovers to the next generation of kids. <p> I will give Harper credits for implying that there are problems with these Sacred Cows and they need some shaken up. The problems certainly need to be looked at more closely in the context of globalization, the Internet and the changing landscape. I will however give Harper an "F" for the solution to the problem: go back to the drawing board and come up with something better before the next musing session. The Harper story from his speach in Quebec City is not worth further discussions IMHO. I would much rather welcome people to the Francophonie (and First Nations) forum and article discussions, unless you want more "Fill, wash, rinse, spin, repeat ad nauseam". If Harper wants to muse over his "reserve" ideas with francos, I would welcome him to spend some time with FHQs grassroot and even on vivelecanada.ca. But then our vote does not count for much -vs- the Quebec vote. cqfd (ce qu'il fallait démontrer)<p>---<br>"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

I just think we shouldn`t let the vampires in power divide and conquer Canada! I see harper as dangerous too!

---
Dave Ruston

Hi Calumny, I agree with you.

I think that although Harper knows what many think of his ideas--I think he might actually believe them. It may be a faulty ideological principle, but it's his principle. It wouldn't surprise me if the mainstream academics he hung around with at the University of Calgary don't know alternative economics or the history of Canada, the other possiblities. They MAY really beleive what they say. The problem is the thinkers and business-types who work for Harper's party behind the scenes....they don't have a Harper or Preston Manning principle--they have no principles at all. Harper is their rented mule until the next Harper (or Bernard Lord) comes along.


Oh yeah-It's funny what Harper says considering he's bilingual.

For anyone interested in exactly what Belgium Federalism is, and how bad it would be for Canada, you should check out John Ralston Saul's Reflection of a Siamese Twin, starting p. 277.

Saul points out breaking down institutions the Belgian way, on ethnic/linguistic lines, has resulted in an almost permanent inability of the two language groups to work together towards any common goals. It has also accentuated the differences in wealth between the two groups. The institutions of the French-speaking Wallons are getting strangled for funding, while Flemish-speakers just don't care.

Quebecois and ROC may have had their differences communicating, but we've always worked together for common goals (that is after all how democracy in Canada was built). Harper has subsequently said he really doesn't know anything about Belgium, but I think it is interesting he invoked its example, which if applied to Canada would make the national federation unworkable. Saul says, for example, equalization payments would be impossible under the Belgian model. It is a coincidence that destroying equalization is one of Harper's goals?

I urge all of you who think Saul is some kind of Liberal elitist to read his book. You'll learn more about your country than you've ever known before.

---
If you don't like these ideas, I've got others. --Marshall McLuhan

The threat of separatism has been with us for almost three decades now, perhaps it is time to try something else. The gloom and doom scenarios notwithstanding.

Calumny wrote : <i>(kind of aligns to Perturbed's thoughts on divide and conquer, i.e., Quebec leaves Canada, U.S. engulfs us all.). </i><p> Has anybody here ever considered it the other way around ? I know many Québécers are starting to see it that way. It is one of the reason why Conservative support was nil in Québec during the last federal elections.</p><p> That is: The U.S engulfs Canada, so Québec decides to leave Canada.

I think I mentioned this a couple of time a few months back , i.e., if I were a Quebecois desirous of preserving language, culture and values, I'd be a bit nervous about the direction Canada seems to be headed vis-a-vis our relationship with the U.S.

Overall, I think Harper would see the absence of Quebec at the table as win-win for the conservatives, which to his mind is doubtless synonymous to win-win for Canada, or at least whatever vision of the same exists in his mind.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

So Michou, is this not a case for hard-core sovereinists to ensure that the fastest the US engulfs Canada, the better it is for the Quebec sovereinty cause. And yet they did not vote conservative last time around? According to my dark logic, Québécois would then be better off voting conservative if they still wish to sperate. Perhaps that was the thought when they voted Mulroney in.

Susan kickstarted a Francophonie forum topic on this a while ago where she asked on what fronts should the hard-core sovereinists rally on in regards to Canadian sovereinty. See http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewto ... topic=2030

One would think that such an effort could also help the Quebec sovereinty cause. I highly appreciate your continued presence on Vive BTW. Unfortunately little of our exchanges have been done in French so far.

---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

Well Gaulois, the average Québécer is just like any Canadian. Independantist or not, they're mostly normal people with dreams and aspirations and then there's the wheeling and dealing politicians who say they will fulfill those dreams. Contrary to what some like to think, most independantists are not beasts foaming at the mouth and their intentions for Canada are not evil. Wishing for Canada to be taken over by the U.S. is definitely evil.

I've said stuff like this before and I'll say it again, I've never encountered another Canadian (okay, won't presume to speak for Perurbed here) who sees those who seek sovereignty for Quebec as 'beasts foaming at the mouth'. I've never spoken with one who dislikes Quebecois in general (I challenge you to find an anglo male who has a bad word to say about Carol Laure). Canadians who value Quebec may get a little pissed off at times, or confused, but hey, we're only human.

Now, I have met Albertans who view we Ontarians this way, or... is that as servile liberal party bootlickers. My advanced years cause me memory problems at times...

Where am I?

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

I agree anon and since separatism will not go away tomorrow, maybe it's time to stop looking at it as a threat.