Archives de catégorie : In English

Quebec’s plan to eradicate English

Publié le par

It’s much worse than everything you’ve heard. The assault on the Anglo minority in Quebec has been best summed-up by Marlene Jennings: it is, she said, a “perfect formula” for “eradication.” She should know. The former Liberal MP headed until recently the Quebec Community Groups Network, spearheading the fight against François Legault’s many-pronged and still evolving eradication plan.

The numbers don’t lie. Quebecers who have English as a mother tongue account for 8 per cent of the population. But what of the ability to attract newcomers into the Anglo fold, given the enormous power of attraction of French on the continent? The proportion of Quebecers that uses English more than French in their daily lives is only 14 per cent. That doesn’t even double the count. Granted, 44 per cent of all Quebecers do speak English as do close to 80 per cent of young francophone Montrealers, but that is poor consolation.

Case in point: Quebec’s intolerant immigration policies has only let into the Montreal area about 90,000 unilingual English-speaking newcomers in the last three years — since the election of the governing CAQ — which barely adds 14 per cent to the Anglo population, so you can see where this is headed.

Everybody knows that the CAQ language bill, now in effect, will crack down on any doctor or nurse who would dare speak English to anyone not member of the “historic Anglo community,” meaning those who attended school in English. The actual text of the law tries to hide this fact by stating that French is required “except in health,” and then a specific section gaslights jurists by saying it specifically does not apply to the general statute on health and social services.

Don’t be fooled by the fact that other law compels hospitals in all regions to set up English speaking access plans and to render services in English for anyone who asks for them. In reality, Anglo Quebecers have little other resource than to rely on the 37 institutions of the English public health network, which barely employs 45 per cent of the Island of Montreal’s health workers.

Outside that small cocoon, English speakers needing medical care will be lucky if they fall in the hands of the puny proportion of French doctors that actually speak their language: 88 per cent. It is clear to anyone who follows these issues that French Canadians outside Quebec would revolt if their access to health in their language was that dire.

It’s even shoddier, of course, in the labour market. Toronto readers know, thanks to Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne, that “the law prohibits the use of any language but French in the province’s workplaces, large or small, public or private.” Specifically, the new law extends to mid-sized shops, the regulation having existed for 35 years in larger ones.

The damage is already done: in the last census, the proportion of workers in the Montreal area who used mostly English at work was down to 20 per cent, those who use it regularly down to 49 per cent. Why aren’t all these people fined by the language police?

Canadians write off Mexico as a travel destination?1 day agoCorruption, laziness and incompetence, endemic in Quebec as famously reported in Maclean’s magazine, are surely the only explanation for this lack of enforcement, hidden perhaps behind a slew of exceptions enabling anyone to speak any language to clients, suppliers, the head office, or colleagues, provided French is the “usual and habitual language of work.” Usual and habitual, which are, of course, code words for intransigence. Now if someone would be foolish enough to impose, say, English as the “usual and habitual language of work” in Toronto or Mississauga, all hell would break loose.

In Quebec, only 14 per cent of management positions are held by the 8 per cent of Anglos, which gives them a ridiculously small systemic advantage. Thank God for the rebel CEOs of Air Canada, SNC-Lavalin, the Laurentian Bank, the Canadian National and Couche Tard, proud unilingual Anglos, who enable all their senior staff and secretaries to revel in English, whatever their linguistic background. That’s inclusion.

Language oppression is Quebec is particularly offensive in education. René Lévesque’s Bill 101 famously took away the linguistic choice for K-12 to all, except Anglos and immigrants going to English schools prior to 1977, who retain the right to choose and pass it to their descendants for all eternity, and any English-Canadian of any background schooled in English moving to Quebec anytime and their descendants, for all eternity. Appalling.

Granted, the 8 per cent of Anglos have access to 17 per cent of spots in colleges and 25 per cent of universities, with 30 per cent of research grants. The new law would actually cap the Anglo Cegeps at merely double the presence of Anglos in the population. Not only that. These institutions of higher learning used to properly shun Anglo high schoolers that had lesser grades and give their spots to French students bright enough and bilingual enough to enrol there. The anti-Anglo nationalist government now forces these colleges to give precedence to Anglo students in enrolment, thus forcing Anglo institutions into debasing themselves by catering to lesser Anglos. Shameful, really.

Now for the coup de grâce. The inward-looking Quebec government seems to have it in it’s head that Anglo kids should be proficient enough in French to succeed in a work environment where French is still, alas, unavoidable. By law, all Anglo high schoolers with diplomas in hand are deemed bilingual. So why bother asking them, in college, to hone this skill? This idea is so bonkers that when the Quebec Liberal party proposed that Anglo students attend three classes IN French, (alongside their French colleagues who follow ALL classes in English), the scandal was enormous.

The federation of colleges announced that a full third of Anglo students would fail. Not fare badly, but fail. Pretending that a bilingual person could actually read texts, attend lectures and render a paper in another language is of course nonsensical. One Anglo CEGEP director, Christian Corno, hit it on the nail by writing, in French, that this abomination was motivated by a willingness “to make Anglo students atone for the sins of their ancestors” (who may or may not have oppressed the French in the past, a debatable assertion).

The fallback position has been to increase the number of French classes that these poor students should take, from two to five. This, also, puts their grades in jeopardy. Forcing students to learn the language of the majority of the population where they live and will work is an unacceptable imposition, surely unheard of anywhere else in the world.

The relentlessness of Quebec’s assaults on minority and religious rights extracts a heavy toll on its international reputation and attractiveness. Last year, only 177,000 foreign temporary workers and students were in the province. Yes, it is triple the usual amount and an all-time high. But just think of those who didn’t come.

Foreign investment is repelled by the current intolerant climate. FDI in the Montreal area only jumped 69 per cent to a record high of $3.7 billion last year but this is only attributable to Quebec boasting a recent growth rate greater than that of any G7 countries, Canada included. The fact that these newcomers and investors came to Quebec after the controversy and adoption of the secularism bill and during the language bill controversy simply points to the paucity of information available to them.

Thankfully, for the first time in history, the number of Ontarians moving to Quebec outpaced the number or Quebecers moving to Ontario. It used to be that, each year, 3,000 to 9,000 more Quebecers would leave for Ontario than the other way around. But given the new toxic environment, the flow has flipped and, last year, almost a net 800 brave Ontarians crossed the Ottawa River to settle in Quebec. (In total, an astonishing 29,000 citizens moved from the Rest of Canada to Quebec in 2021.) Not for lower housing prices or better services or job outlook, but simply, surely, to contribute in defeating the eradication plan afoot. More will be needed.

Please, come in droves! Hurry, before the last English word is ever spoken in Quebec.

Jean-François Lisée is an author, a columnist for Le Devoir and a former head of the Parti Québécois. This text may contain traces of irony. One may find his rants at jflisee.org

The anti-feminist ad of March 8

Publié le par

By Jean-François Lisée
Le Devoir

Last week, as we marked International Women’s Day, how could we not reflect on the regression that has unfolded before our eyes since the departure of US forces from Afghanistan in September? You can blame the action of the allies, including Canada, all you want, but our presence will have at least given the Afghan women two decades of freedom. Since then, the Taliban forbid them to go out alone, run businesses, walk with their hair in the wind. In the neighboring Islamic Republic of Iran, the past year has been one of bravado. Regularly, social networks show us Iranian women removing their veil at the risk of being arrested by the guards of the local obscurantist prudishness. On the networks, the hashtags #ForcedHijab, accusatory, and #FreeFromHijab, liberator, have gained momentum, as well as #LetUsTalk, aimed at western muslim women.

Une des images utilisées pour la campagne du 8 mars 2018

What would these women have thought when they saw the official advertisement released last week by the Canadian Ministry of Women and Gender Equality? We see five women accompanied by the slogan « Feminine inspiration », one of whom wears the Islamic veil. Note: not just any veil. Not the one, colored, worn by activists and from which come out rebellious locks which attest, precisely, to a touch of impertinence. No. The stricter veil, with the headband that ensures that not a hair sticks out. The one preferred by rigorous imams.

In short, the Canadian ministry specializing in women’s rights, on the day we celebrate global women’s struggles, affirms that a strictly veiled woman represents « Feminine inspiration ». Invited by Le Devoir to comment on this ad, professor and feminist activist Nadia El-Mabrouk, of Tunisian origin, angrily states: « At a time when Afghan women have all their rights withdrawn and are condemned to circulate under a veil black, this pro-veil propaganda is indecent. »

A Canadian who embodies feminine inspiration is Yasmine Mohammed. Forced to wear the hijab at age 9, then forced into marriage at age 20, she now had to wear the niqab. She left her husband when he wanted to inflict genital mutilation on their daughter. This took place not in Baghdad, but in Vancouver. She now hosts the site Free Hearts, Free Minds, which helps women who are trying to leave a forced Islamic practice, in the world and in the country. “Leaving Islam, she writes, is punishable by death in 12 Muslim countries. In addition to state repression, apostatized people in the Muslim world risk social isolation, violence, imprisonment, torture, denial and murder”. Mohammed, author of the book Unveiled. How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam, which describes her own experience, promotes Forgotten Feminists, women of diverse backgrounds, but especially Muslims, who have broken free from religious patriarchy and who testify to their journey.

The constrained veil

In March 2021, a Montrealer was convicted of beating his four daughters, who refused to wear the veil. He threatened to kill them if they did not obey. An echo of the assassination of three young Montrealers (and their mother-in-law) in 2009 by their parents of Afghan origin, the Shafias, unhappy with the behavior of their daughters. In the continuum that goes from these cases, certainly extreme but local and contemporary, to perfectly free and autonomous women who choose to wear the veil proudly without the slightest constraint, there is a whole space difficult to gauge.

Dr. Sherif Emil, director of pediatric surgery at the Montreal Children’s Hospital, opened a small window into this reality this December. He was taken to task for having protested in a professional outlet against the use of a photo showing a child wearing a hijab. « Do not use an instrument of oppression as a symbol of diversity, » he wrote, before being showered with insults and threats.

Contrite, he then explained that he wanted to relay the experience of a doctor colleague who was forced to wear the hijab from childhood and who described to him « how this caused psychological suffering in her which lasted until adulthood « . Since the beginning of this controversy, Dr. Emil has received countless testimonials from women telling him their stories. All of these Canadian women, he writes, “cannot speak out publicly because they fear personal or professional reprisals.” This simple fact, he adds, “should trouble many.”

Since this dynamic of the forced veil exists in Quebec and in Canada, what should we think of the propensity of government and businesses — and last month, of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities — to choose the image of the veiled woman as the symbol par excellence of diversity ? This choice reinforces patriarchal Muslim narratives by stereotyping the good Muslim woman as a veiled Muslim and by marginalizing those who wants to free themselves from this religious norm.

A discriminatory choice

It also discriminates against other religious faiths. The third of Canadians who are non-believers can recognize themselves among the other people represented, the veiled woman being rarely alone. But two-thirds of Canadians claiming a religious attachment must note that the only religion on display is not that of Jesus, Yahweh or the supreme Sikh guru, but that of Allah. What did he do to obtain this precedence?

Religious-minded listeners to the CBC Newsworld are experiencing the same problem. At prime time, a veiled journalist explains their daily life to them. They will look in vain for a presenter displaying the majority religion, Christian, or other faiths. There is obviously a remedy to this problem of fairness: neutrality. A concept that seems to be in sharp decline in English Canada.

How to conclude? I asked Yasmine Mohammed for her reaction to the March 8 Canadian anti-feminist ad. Here is his response: “I am so tired, Jean-François. For me, it’s so personal. I do not know what to say. It breaks my heart. »

What is the real proportion of Canadian women veterans having worn the veil so far ? Probably not 25%
Canadian Tire, March 2022. The message: a good muslim family is a veiled family, including children !

The inconvenient truth about Quebec’s secularism law Trudeau doesn’t want to face: it’s popular

Publié le par

Quebec’s religious symbols ban should absolutely be an election issue, writes former PQ leader

Texte publié dans la section opinion de la CBC.

« Unthinkable. » That’s how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted when Quebec tabled a law that would ban religious symbols and clothing for its teachers, judges, police officers and other public sector workers.

He pledged to « defend the rights of Canadians » against the proposed ban. His minister of justice repeatedly called the bill « unacceptable » and alluded to « next steps » once it became law.

One should not doubt Trudeau’s inherent repulsion for the Quebec law and everything it embodies. This is the man who heralded a woman’s right to wear a niqab — the starkest symbol of oppression of women — to a citizenship ceremony at which she would pledge to adhere to a Constitution that specifically defends gender equality.

Trudeau the father only paid lip service to multiculturalism and the veneration of differences. Trudeau the son embodies it in his bones. It is certain that, if re-elected, he will act. How? More on this later.

But the bill became law in late June, and no action has been taken since. On the contrary, the Liberal government has evaded and procrastinated on the issue. Why?

There is an inconvenient bump on the road to squashing the Quebec law: public opinion. Quebec public opinion, certainly, but Canadian public opinion also. It can — and will — no doubt be disregarded the morning after the election, but not the mornings before.

Ban has support outside Quebec

In April, Léger Marketing carried out a country-wide online poll asking if voters would support the ban of religious symbols for teachers, police officers and judges in their province. The poll also asked respondents who they would vote for in the federal election.

Outside Quebec, fully 40 per cent of Canadians approved of such a ban in their own province. Except in Alberta, 50 per cent or more of Conservative voters were in favour.

Case closed.

Problem is, a sizable chunk of Liberal voters also embraced the ban. Here are the numbers: Atlantic Canada, 28 per cent; Alberta, 31 per cent; Ontario, 32 per cent; B.C., 34 per cent; Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan), 62 per cent. (Would you believe that the numbers are even higher for NDP voters!)

Liberal pollsters have seen these or similar numbers. And they know that 50 per cent of their Quebec voters support the ban, according to the Léger poll. Were they to make this one of the pivotal issues of the campaign, they would have to turn their backs on a third of their base — and give up any chance of forming a majority.

Tough luck.

An election is precisely the moment when truths must be told.

If Trudeau really thinks the ban is « unthinkable, » and I’m sure he does, he must tell voters exactly what he plans to do about it if re-elected.

Trudeau should reveal what he plans to do about the ban

Three options are available to him. The most extreme, let’s call it the nuclear option, is to use the old disallowance clause of the Constitution to simply squash the legislation. This option, promoted by pundits such as columnist Andrew Coyne, was last used in 1943 against an Alberta law that restricted the property rights of Hutterite colonies.

There is a deadline on that option: it can only be used within 12 months of the law being sanctioned, thus, no later than late June 2020.

The mid-range option is to refer the question of whether or not the law is constitutional directly to the Supreme Court. Constitutional scholars meeting in Toronto last April concluded that recent jurisprudence would lead the court to declare the law invalid — on its merits and despite the use of the notwithstanding clause. They said the court could also severely curtail the use of the notwithstanding clause itself and declare that Quebec really had no right to use it pre-emptively.

The milder option would be for Ottawa to join the ongoing legal challenge of the ban by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Council of Canadian Muslims and help bring it before the Supreme Court.

Are any of these options off the table for Trudeau? The election campaign should not end without a clear answer to that question.

Look to Europe, not Ottawa

Those who think Canadian multiculturalism is the only possible answer to the challenges of diverse societies will keep pushing hard against the ban. As did CBC’s Robyn Urback, who wrote recently that the Quebec law was a « national disgrace, » nothing short of « state-sponsored, systemic oppression » and called on Trudeau to denounce it as he had other « policy wrongs of the past, » such as the hanging of First Nations chiefs in the 19th century.

Proponents of this point of view are also present in the NDP — and to a lesser extent in the Conservative Party — and will want to know why their leaders seem indifferent in the face of Quebec’s perceived assault on equality rights.

Quebecers, on the other hand, know that the cradle of rights and freedoms is not in Ottawa but Europe. And that European courts have ruled that states have legitimate grounds to demand a clear separation of Church and state — including when it comes to the attire of civil servants — and to promote the rights of women by prohibiting misogynist religious garb.

So the question is, really, about tolerance. Will the Liberals and other federal parties tolerate the existence within Canada of a nation that disagrees with their brand of multiculturalism?

Trudeau claims he accepts the existence of Quebec as a nation within Canada. Will he say that doesn’t mean a thing when that nation veers from the Canadian norm?

He knows that no Quebec government to date has signed the current Constitution, and each one has rejected multiculturalism as a policy. Will he nonetheless use this unsigned Constitution as a hammer against a very popular Quebec law?

The Quebec government of François Legault played by the rules when it passed the law in June by invoking the notwithstanding clause to forestall any potential charter challenge. Will Ottawa now ask the Supreme Court to change the rules once the game is already underway?

Quebecers want to know; Canadians, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jean-François Lisée is a journalist, author and former leader of the Parti Québecois. He hosts a podcast on Quebec current affairs and history at laboitealisee.com.

Ne manquez pas la suite de cette affaire, ma balado:

La bande-annonce de ma dernière balado:
Comment Trudeau va contester la loi 21

Abonnez-vous ici

 

Op-ed in the Guardian: Well done, Britain, for a fair referendum – it’s a shame Canada didn’t manage it

Publié le par

(Voici le texte d’opinion que m’a demandé le quotidien The Guardian, de Londres. En ligne ici.)

Boy, would I have loved to have had the Scottish referendum before the one we had in Quebec in 1995, for which I was strategist for the yes campaign. I am sure those who are for an independent Scotland have lots to say against the tactics and arguments of Better Together, but we in Quebec would have given an arm and a leg for the fair play and adult behaviour displayed so far by the British government. This is why:

1. The UK recognised that it was for the Scottish parliament to decide on the referendum question, but both parties chose an independent, agreed upon third party to pass judgment on its fairness. Not so in Canada, where Ottawa refused the Quebec parliament’s legitimacy in the matter.

2. Britain implicitly accepts that if yes wins with 50%+1, the Scots will have a mandate for independence and that negotiations, though as they may be, will commence. You will find it hard to believe, but if yes had won in Quebec in 1995, the head of the no camp admitted that even “with 52% or 53% we would not have accepted”. Current Canadian law stipulates that even if the Canadian parliament were to agree to the question, it would sit again after a majority yes vote to “evaluate” whether or not it is sufficient. No threshold is given. Kafka lives in Canadian law.

The only plan contemplated in Ottawa in case of a yes vote in 1995 was to try to organise another Ottawa-led referendum, two months hence, to try and reverse the vote. Markets would have had a field day with the Canadian dollar over this attempt.

3. No one of importance in Britain has tried to put at risk the territorial integrity of Scotland in case of independence. In Canada, the prime minister, Jean Chrétien, was eager to play this card – although the international reaction would have been brutal.

4. The British Treasury took pains in reassuring international borrowers that it would honour the entirety of the British debt, whatever the outcome of future negotiations on debt repartition with an independent Scotland. In Canada, the Central Bank was barred from making any such preparations or comments, for fear that it would legitimise the possibility of a yes victory. “We were very vulnerable,” the Canadian finance minister admitted later, talking about the debt refinancing schedule.

5. The UK agreed to play by the rules of Scotland as far as campaign spending is concerned. I wouldn’t be surprised if we ultimately find some infractions to this rule, but never on the scale of the Canadian government’s efforts to at least triple the funding of the no side, without any inhibition. “When you go to war,” the prime minister’s chief of staff said, “you don’t ask if the bullets are legally paid-for, you simply shoot them”.

Voters have decided on giving Britain – and the world – a cliffhanger for the referendum finale, exactly like the one we had in Quebec in 1995. Then, a late yes surge brought elation to our camp; panic and last minute promises of change in the no camp. On voting day, we knew that if participation reached 80% that the youth vote was out, and that was good for us. If it went to 85%, better yet. But 90% was uncharted territory; we didn’t know what to think. It reached 94%. The results were 49.42% voting yes and 50.58% no: half a percentage would give no the last word. Promises for significant recognition of the Quebec nation and of further devolution were not kept.

It Scots choose a different path than that of Quebecers, even with the slimmest of margins, the world needs the UK to keep cool in case of a yes vote. Nations that have been through this wrenching debate recently or who, especially in Catalonia, will navigate these waters soon, need the British government to keep offering a template of fair play and respect for democracy.

If yes wins, it means recognising immediately the political fact that Scots have chosen independence. It means having quick meetings of officials to send reassuring signals to both markets and workers that an orderly, negotiated process will begin to examine every outstanding issue.

It would not be an pleasant time for Britain. Divorce is never easy. It is often messy, nasty, petty. That’s when we need Britain to rise to the occasion, keep cool, and be, again, an example to the world.

If I were Anglo, I’d worry about this guy Couillard

Publié le par

I know most Anglo-Quebecers look at this election with a measure of unease with some of the policies of my party, the Parti québécois. I get that.

But I’ve talked with enough Anglo-Quebecers these past 18 months to know that they often give credit to the PQ for good government and that they resent being taken for granted by the Liberal Party. I know, also, that they loathed the climate of corruption and collusion that was prevalent under the previous Liberal government. And they surely don’t want it to come back.

These past weeks, a lot of allegations have been thrown around. a Tax haven for Couillard, leadership financing for Marois. Shadows of facts.

But this should not mean that integrity is not a foremost issue at this point of Québec’s political history. So let’s focus on the absolute certainties we have and ask this question:

Who should they trust to keep Québec on the straight and narrow in terms of integrity?

The case for the PQ is crystal clear. We asked for the commission of inquiry that the PLQ opposed. We voted bill 1 to force every company in Quebec wanting to contract with the public sector to get an integrity certificate. We stood up to giants like Dessau and SNC-Lavalin and barred them from all public contracts for over a year untill they proved they had changed their ways — and they are still under scrutiny.

We made fake-name contributions to parties disappear by reforming both Quebec and municipal party financing. We got a law in place that enables citizens to get rid of mayors under accusations for fraud. We lenghtened the mandate of the Charbonneau commission and gave all necessary resources to the police to follow every lead. And they went all the way to the man the Liberals protected all these years, Mayor of Laval Gilles Vaillancourt, now accused of gangsterism.

It is hard to find, anywhere in the world, a government that made so much, so quickly, to cleanse its political and corporate stables.

So that’s our track record. We are immensely proud of it, and determined to go even further. Determined to make Quebec a modern example of how best to fight corruption.

What about Philippe Couillard’s record ?

His friendship with indicted fraudster Arthur Porter might well have been benign. His negociating his job with a private health care provider while he was minister of Health and in position to help his future boss is, at best, borderline, and no longer allowed.

Beyond that, has he shown that he is up to the task of turning the page on his party’s bleak past ? Let’s look at his record before and since he became leader.

The silent minister and citizen

Couillard had made no gesture to distance himself from Charest

Couillard had made no gesture to distance himself from Charest

While he was in Jean Charest’s cabinet, he was asked to rake-in 100 000$ a year for the PLQ, which put him, and his colleagues, on very treacherous ethical grounds. Did he ever refuse, even denounce the practice ? No. He was silent. Acquiescing. When it came to light that Charest took in 75 000$ a year from these donations to line his own pockets and that he never admitted it in public, what did Couillard say ? Nothing.He left office and regained his freedom of speech in 2008. How did he use it when it became public that the PLQ chose judges by affixing partisan post-it’s on their resumés ? What did he say when his former colleagues voted 11 times against the creation of a public inquiry on construction ? Nothing. He remained completely silent. From 2009 to 2011, every public figure in Québec was called upon to take a stand and pressure the Charest government into setting up a Commission of inquiry. Other Liberals, such as former PLQ president Robert Benoît, had the courage to stand up. In the end, even the FTQ was compelled to publicly ask for a commission.

So where was Couillard when 80% of Quebecers asked for the commission ? When even a lone PLQ member had the guts to go to the mike at a PLQ gathering to ask for one ?

Philippe Couillard was simply missing in action.

The failed leadership test of integrity

When he became leader, everyone expected Philippe Couillard to make a clean sweep, to distance himself from the Charest years of denial and obfuscation. I certainly did. Claude Ryan did that when he replaced Robert Bourassa in 1977.

But we never heard of any internal inquiry by Couillard, any distribution of a new set of rules, any statement that this was then and this is now. Granted, there was an attempt at adopting an ethics code. But it failed. Couillard was unable to garner a majority for an ethics code at the PLQ, a notoriously disciplined party. Unbelievable.

Couillard took four deliberate actions on the integrity front. First, when the UPAC came down to look for proof of wrongdoing in the PLQ headquarters last summer, Couillard decided to hide this fact from the public for two long months. Then, when the Charbonneau commission wanted to use tape recordings pertaining to the financing of the Charest campaign in Sherbrooke, Couillard instructed the Liberal lawyer to stop the release of the tape. It failed.

When the information was released, Jean Charest issued a statement saying he was beyond reproach. What did Couillard do ? Ignore it and say Mr Charest is old enough to answer for himself, thus putting much needed distance between him and the former leader ? No. He held a press conference and fully supported Mr Charest’s stance and reputation. Very risqué, if you ask me.

He made another important political call. The PQ feels much needs to be mended to build back public confidence towards politicians. One way is to punish politicians who break their moral contract with voters in their ridings when they resign, for no good reason, and trigger a costly byelection. Let the selfish MNA resign, we say, but without the severance pay. The measure is very popular. We could have adopted it. Couillard said no. The reason ? He was protecting the pocketbook of two of his own: soon to resign Raymond Bachand in Outremont and Emmanuel Dubourg in Viau.

The pocketbook of a rival (Bachand) and of a minor figure (Dubourg) were more important for him that taking a further step to reestablish public trust. Sad.

What if he’s elected ?

The Couillard record is clear. He is no Eliot Ness. He is no crusader for integrity. He’s trying to shun the issue, to hide it, not to fight it.

In the unlikely and unfortunate event of a Couillard-led PLQ government, what is bound to happen ? Court documents show that the UPAC is closing in on 11 Liberal operatives involved in a scheme of illegal financing involving millions of dollars. We see on TV policemen trying to link Jean Charest’s friend, adviser and bagman Marc Bibeau to alledged fraud in the Train de l’Est construction, rife with cost overruns under Liberal management.

The UPAC is one heartbeat away from exposing the Liberal system. Il would probably do that in the first year of a Couillard government. [So it took a bit longer.] The scandal could render it catatonic.

How would Philippe Couillard manage it ? There are only two things Mr Couillard managed in public life. He set up the CHUM and the CUSM. Of the two directors he left behind, one is now indicted, the other was shown the door. Scandal and cost overruns tarnished both nascent institutions. That is his managerial legacy. As a leader, he clearly failed to show strenght and purpose on the integrity issue.

My Anglo friends may disagree with Pauline Marois and the PQ on many issues. There will be democratic debates and votes on important matters. But for those who feel integrity in politics is paramount, the choice is clear.

—

A shortened version of this article was published in The Suburban

The Economist: Canada « Uncool »? Québec « Cool »!

Publié le par

L’influent magazine britannique The Economist écrivait cet automne que le Canada devenait assurément, « Uncool ».

Soucieux de ne pas faire souffrir le Québec de cette mauvaise presse anti-canadienne, j’ai envoyé une brève lettre au magazine pour souligner notre différence.

Et en voici la traduction :

Gens du pays, c’est votre tour

SIR – Si The Economist estime que le Canada est moins « cool » (« Uncool Canada », The World In 2014), ne devrait-il pas estimer que le Québec, lui, est « cool »? Là où Ottawa promeut les sables bitumineux, Québec lance le premier marché du carbone du continent (avec la Californie) et fait de l’électrification des transports le cœur de sa politique industrielle. Là où Ottawa détruit son registre des armes à feu, Québec porte l’affaire devant les tribunaux afin de maintenir le registre en place, du moins sur son territoire. Là où Ottawa dépense davantage sur les prisons, Québec met en œuvre un système universel de garderie et l’équité salariale entre les hommes et les femmes. Là où Ottawa recule sur les questions autochtones, Québec multiplie ses propres ententes. Là où Ottawa réduit l’aide envoyée à l’étranger, Québec planifie mettre sur pied son propre organisme d’aide internationale.

Pour couronner le tout, le Québec a l’un des plus faibles déficits budgétaires parmi les membres de l’OCDE. Sur le plan des échanges commerciaux, le Québec est celui qui est à l’origine de l’accord commercial signé récemment par le Canada et l’Union européenne, et qui sert maintenant de modèle pour un accord entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis.

Il est vrai qu’un parti indépendantiste, le Parti Québécois, assure actuellement la gouvernance. Mais avec tout ce qui vous estimez moins « cool » à propos du Canada et, inversement, ce que vous estimez « cool » à propos du Québec, peut-être comprendrez-vous pourquoi tant de Québécois préféreraient quitter la fédération canadienne.

Jean-François Lisée
Ministre des Relations internationales, de la Francophonie et du Commerce extérieur et ministre responsable de la région de Montréal

«Notre Home» : Renforcer l’identité québécoise des anglophones

Publié le par

Le 5 octobre dernier, je vous faisais part de mon grand intérêt pour l’aperçu du clip «Notre Home», vidéo de promotion à venir d’un projet éponyme qui vise à « promouvoir le sentiment d’appartenance auprès des jeunes Québécois d’expression anglaise et tisser des liens avec leurs homologues francophones.

Aujourd’hui, le Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) lance la version complète du vidéo:

J’en profite aussi pour annoncer que le Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) recevra une aide financière de 20 000$ du Gouvernement du Québec pour financer la Tournée de sensibilisation « Notre Home » qui sera menée par l’artiste montréalais David Hodges qui ira à la rencontre des jeunes Québécois anglophones pour favoriser leur sentiment d’attachement au Québec.

Notre Home: Bilingual hip-hop anthem and provincial tour to foster a sense of belonging among young Anglo-Quebecers

Publié le par

Press release from Notre Home :

The Government of Quebec is contributing $20,000 to this innovative approach towards building bridges between French and English-speaking Quebecers.

Montreal, January 17, 2013 – Over the next few months, Montreal singer-songwriter David Hodges will be touring the province to meet young people and promote bridge building between French- and English-speaking Quebecers through his song Notre Home.

Written by David Hodges and performed by The Honest Family, a collective of Montreal artists fusing hip-hop, rock and soul, Notre Home nurtures Quebec’s social fabric by conveying themes of engagement, leadership, as well as cultural and linguistic identity.

“When QCGN approached me in February 2012 to compose and perform the song, I was immediately taken by the social aspect of the project,” enthused David Hodges. “I believe that the younger generation, whatever their origins, are ready to move on to other things and invest in their future.”

As a socially committed artist, Hodges runs workshops for young people, using music as a way to talk about the issues facing youth. He also advocates for the importance of being honest and collaborates on Kids Help Phone projects which aim to raise awareness about bullying and intimidation in schools.

Following a provincial youth consultation in 2008, and arising from the strategic orientations contained in the report Creating Spaces for Young Quebecers, the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) commissioned the bilingual anthem Notre Home to foster a sense of belonging among young Quebecers. Given the popularity of the song and its accompanying video, the QCGN undertook to create a new version of the song as a means of reaching out to the Francophone majority.

“The QCGN proposed that we help finance a provincial tour to promote the message of inclusion that is conveyed in the song and in the video. As we fully endorse the objective of this campaign, it is with pleasure that I will support this project by contributing the sum of $20, 000,” said Jean-François Lisée, minister responsible for Montreal and the English-speaking community. “We were delighted by the community’s desire to build bridges and by the spirit of the song that was the end result.”

“Innovative and inclusive, this bilingual anthem is a call to action to a new generation of Quebecers eager to find their place in Quebec, to embody change, come together and make their mark,” said Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General of the QCGN.

Hodges begins his provincial tour in February, travelling from the Gaspé to Quebec City via the Outaouais and the Montreal metropolitain area. Over the coming months, his calendar of regional events will be updated regularly at www.NotreHome.ca.

For more information and to watch the music video, go to www.NotreHome.ca

The Quebec Community Groups Network (www.qcgn.ca) is a not-for-profit organization bringing together 41 English-language community organizations across Quebec. Its mission is to identify, explore and address strategic issues affecting the development and vitality of English-speaking Quebec and to encourage dialogue and collaboration among its member organizations, individuals, community groups, institutions and leaders.

Francophones, anglophones have much on which to agree

Publié le par

My answer to Celine Cooper’s Monday open letter, published this Wednesday, December 19, 2012, p. A21

Dear Celine Cooper, I read with interest your piece in Monday’s Gazette (Opinion, Dec. 17, « Minister Lisée: I share your optimism about the future of Montreal, but not your vision of how to get there »).

I wholeheartedly agree with every point on which you agree with me, including what you wrote about my recent speech to the Jeune Chambre de commerce de Montréal: « Lisée’s approach was both grounded and exhilarating. His argument that we are witnessing the dawn of a golden era for our city showed how he acquired his reputation as a political visionary and master elocutionist. »

Thanks for that. But then I must disagree with the fact that you claim to disagree with me on the part about « how to get there. »

For instance, you write that « Montreal should be approached as the beacon of where we could go, not what is holding us back from getting there. »

Funny, I specifically used the word beacon and stated in my speech: « We want the best and the brightest, from everywhere, to come and participate with us in the laboratory of the 21st century » that we want Montreal to become. That seems inclusive to me.

You also wrote that you were on board with me and my speech until I « started talking about demographics and the pressing need to staunch the exodus of francophone families from the island of Montreal in order for the city to truly reach its full potential. » You said: « He was talking not about families in general, but certain kinds of families. »

Not so. Here is the full quote: « Montreal will never be able to retain all those who come here temporarily to get diplomas for first jobs, and who leave later to settle elsewhere. … But it can and should retain more people. The key lies in retention of families. Every year, 20,000 children aged 15 and under cross the bridges (leaving Montreal Island) to live elsewhere. One can imagine that they are accompanied by one or two parents who have climbed the socio-economic ladder and are ready to invest, elsewhere, the savings that they accumulated on the island. To invest, elsewhere, some of the knowledge that they acquired on the island. As the majority of these parents are francophone, their departures contribute to the marginalization of the francophone population on the island. It is imperative to retain a greater number. »

As I have said on other occasions, retaining anglo-phone families on the island will help stem the decline in enrolment in English public schools. But since the majority of families leaving are primarily French-speaking, retaining families will have, overall, a positive impact on the linguistic equilibrium of the island. It’s a win-win.

As for the impact of my government’s new language proposals, I have qualified as « unacceptable » the high unemployment levels within immigrant populations and have insisted on new funding to improve francisation and integration of current and future immigrants – all with a view to ensuring greater success in Quebec life.

You write, quite correctly, that « one of the things that sets Montreal apart from every emerging North American city of innovation – and there is plenty of competition in that area from cities like Boston, Toronto, Austin and San Francisco – is the French language and culture. Lisée and I share this view. »

So being a beacon of talent for people from outside of Quebec, and helping newcomers to succeed in the language that sets Montreal apart, does seem to me to be precisely the right mix, no?

The proposition that newcomers should be able find a critical mass of French speakers on the island, who help anchor that reality, should be non-controversial, I think.

Let me use this opportunity to draw attention to the part of my speech that specifically dealt with anglo-Quebecers. Here it is:

« I have had many meetings, since September, with anglo-Quebecers from all walks of life and I sensed an enormous thirst. First of all, a thirst for recognition of their contribution to the life of Montreal, and also a thirst to participate fully, as engaged partners, in the development of the metropolis and of Quebec. I have even met anglophones, like the executive director of the Jewish General Hospital, Hartley Stern, or the new president of Concordia University, Alan Shephard, who left Ontario to come and participate in the Montreal experience that they had judged to be more exciting and promising that what they saw elsewhere.

« I asked them: ‘But where did you learn about this – in the Toronto media?’ No, they had not read about it in the Toronto papers. They had heard it through their own networks, this refrain about Montreal being a laboratory of ideas and innovation and, in the case of Hartley, from his own daughters who had studied at McGill University and had become very pro-Montreal. Hartley and Alan are telling us something about ourselves that we should know, and make known. The future of Montreal without doubt rests in its quality of life, its sounds, its seasons, its joie de vivre. Even more so, it is connected to its creative potential. »

Celine, you conclude that I am at odds with your view that Quebec should be « a society in which all kinds of families are valued as equal citizens of Montreal as it moves into the 21st century. »

I respectfully disagree that we disagree.

All the best for the holidays, Jean-François Lisée

Read the Dec. 17 column by Celine Cooper that Jean-François Lisée is referring to in this open letter.

Watch and listen to the speech by Lisée that prompted Cooper’s commentary.