« Notre Home » Une célébration musicale de la jeunesse anglo québécoise

Lors de mon passage aux bureaux du Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), mes hôtes m’ont présenté la vidéo de « Notre Home ». C’est le clip de promotion du 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 ». Regardez plutôt:

Voici ce qu’en dit le QCGN:

Sur la base de notre initiative, David Hodges, jeune chanteur hip-hop très talentueux, a réuni a réuni huit autres artistes pour composer une hymne bilingue illustrant que les jeunes d’expression anglaise considèrent le Québec comme leur maison.

Un rapport du QCGN datant de 2009, intitulé Créer des espaces pour les jeunes Québécois et Québécoises et issu d’une consultation jeunesse provinciale établissait que le processus leur avait permis de discuter de leurs racines québécoises, de leur désir de demeurer dans la province et de leur volonté à passer outre les tensions linguistiques des générations antérieures.

« Nous ne voulons pas seulement vivre ici. Nous voulons nous épanouir », affirme le Président du QCGN Dan Lamoureux, en expliquant le besoin d’avoir un tell hymne pour rassembler les communautés et s’épanouir.

Bravo !

Opinion: My language plan – shoe sharing

My answer to Jack Jedwab’s Saturday Open letter. Published this Tuesday in The Gazette.

Dear Jack,

Thanks for your open letter to me published in Saturday’s Gazette (Opinion, “Lisée will need to empathize,” by Jack Jedwab). In your letter, you urge me to try to put myself in the place of an anglophone in Quebec. It’s a message in keeping with the one that I personally have been trying to convey to both anglophone and francophone audiences: to try to put yourself in the other’s shoes. Let’s all try to think outside the box.

Photograph by: Phil Carpenter , Montreal Gazette

In your letter, you state: “It would have been helpful had you shared your winning conditions with us much earlier.” Let’s see. I started on this line of thinking back in 1996, while writing former premier Lucien Bouchard’s Centaur speech. That’s when I introduced the notion of the “double insecurity” of anglos and francos. I then fleshed it out and described it in full in my 2000 book Sortie de secours(1), and restated these views in 2001 in my brief and testimony to the Larose commission on the future of the French language.

I came back to them in the second chapter of my 2007 book Nous(2), and touched on the issue a few times on my blog between 2009 and 2012 (and got real heat for it in some nationalist circles). I  explained it again in a text  in The Gazette last March (answering your op-ed), repeated it in an interview with Bernie Saint-Laurent at the CBC in May, then just after announcing my candidacy in Rosemont in a Homerun Interview,  and again late in the campaign at CJAD.

So, Jack, when you surmise that I “didn’t want to share the secret” of my views before the recent election campaign, you make the case that I am very bad at keeping secrets.

I see my primary task in the new Marois government as one of changing the tone of the debate and opening minds. This past Thursday on the much-watched TVA noon telecast, I

Cher Journal: Mon Anglo listening day

Cher Journal,

Aujourd’hui j’ai beaucoup écouté. Avec mon chapeau de ministre de la métropole et responsable du dialogue avec les Anglos, j’ai fait quatre arrêts importants:

7:15 à la radio de CBC, Mike Finnerty voulait savoir ce que je pensais de la commission Charbonneau, de la rétroactivité et des Cégeps. « I’m in listening mode » ai-je répondu, mais il me voulait vraiment en « answering mode », alors j’ai fait mon possible, ici.

Ce qui est bien, en politique, contrairement au théâtre, c’est qu’on a pas à attendre les journaux du lendemain pour lire la critique. Juste après moi, Bernie Saint-Laurent a commenté mon intervention en affirmant que c’était « one of the most humble presentations I’ve heard from Jean-François Lisée« . (Une de mes prestations les plus humbles).  Il faut croire que je m’améliore ! Merci Bernie !

Lisée: M le maire, vous avez les Muffins?
Peter: Oui, encore chauds, dans mon sac!

Puis, zip, tout de suite à l’Hôtel de ville de Westmount, pour rencontre le maire Peter Trent, l’irréductible pourfendeur des fusions municipales (avec raison, à mon avis, pour ce qui était des villes bilingues comme la sienne, porteuse d’une importante charge identitaire pour la communauté anglophone et dont il fallait préserver l’existence).

Son épouse m’avait préparé des English Muffins. (Délicieux ! J’en veux une autre livraison !)

Le plaisir avec Peter, c’est son mélange de courtoisie et de franchise. Comme à tous ceux que je rencontre depuis ma nomination, je demande ce qu’ils feraient à ma place. Ce ne sont pas les réponses qui manquent: se méfier de celui-ci, faire débloquer cette embuche-là, se presser sur tel dossier, ne pas toucher à tel autre…

Sur les questions linguistiques, Peter soulève les objections habituelles,

CTV Montreal Newsmaker: Lisée

Ma première entrevue comme ministre, avec Mutsumi Takahashi, de CTV. (Note mentale: la prochaine fois, JF, tu diras sKeptic, avec un K. Pas septic ! Misère !)

Voici le résumé de CTV:

CTV Montreal
Published Monday, Sep. 24, 2012 6:37PM EDT
Last Updated Monday, Sep. 24, 2012 7:35PM EDT

Parti Quebecois cabinet minister Jean-Francois Lisee sat down with Mutsumi Takahashi to speak about his new role reaching out to the English community in Quebec.

“I’m not your typical Pequiste,” said Lisee, MNA for Rosemont, who told Takahashi he was not surprised to be given the role by Premier Pauline Marois, because he has been a vocal defender of Anglophones.

Lisee said that being a staunch supporter of the independence

La Presse et la Gazette donnent sa chance au coureur

Ce n’est pas une lune de miel, mais une ouverture d’esprit, de la part de deux signatures respectées.

François Cardinal, éditorialiste à la Presse
Conseil des ministres: Changement de cap pour Montréal

Extrait:

Mais la composition de son conseil, à l’inverse, annonce une nouvelle approche, plus sensible, plus à l’écoute. Ce qui traduit une compréhension plus fine de Montréal de la part de la première ministre et de son équipe, à mon avis.

J’en veux pour preuve trois choses.

D’abord, elle a décidé de nommer un responsable de la «métropole», non pas un responsable de «la région de Montréal». Cela distingue clairement la métropole des autres régions du Québec (MISE À JOUR: il y a une différence entre le titre exact de JF Lisée tel qu’indiqué ici, et le titre cité dans le discours de Pauline Marois, ici. Je reviendrai sur la question après avoir fait quelques vérifications… Merci à Paul Lewis). D’autant que le PQ crée un nécessaire «comité ministériel permanent» pour assurer une cohésion entre les différents ministères qui transigent avec Montréal et la CMM.

Ajoutez à cela, ensuite, le fait qu’elle donne à JF Lisée à la fois l’international, le commerce extérieur et la métropole, trois dossiers qui se marient à merveille, étant donné l’importance économique de Montréal et son rayonnement à l’étranger. Sur son blogue, d’ailleurs, le ministre explique son mandat (on espère d’ailleurs qu’il continuera d’y écrire et de faire preuve d’une aussi belle transparence…).

Enfin, elle a accordé à Sylvain Gaudreault le double mandat du transport et des municipalités. Cela pourrait être trop pour un même homme (il faudra aussi voir comment un député du Saguenay réussit à bien saisir les problèmes de congestion de Montréal), mais cela pourrait, aussi, être le début d’un plus grand maillage entre le transport routier, le transport collectif et l’aménagement du territoire. Et Dieu sait qu’une telle vision intégrée fait défaut à Montréal…

Henry Aubin, chroniqueur à la Gazette:
Jean-François Lisée deserves chance to perform

Extrait:
Yes, anglos should be wary of the would-be Weaver’s declarations of love. Lisée is no Gérald Godin, the open-hearted poet MNA who was the Lévesque government’s outreach guy. But being aloof toward him would be to blow an opportunity to help Montreal Island.

One reason that the island is in decline is that successive provincial governments have all but ignored it.

But now a minister who is bright and vigorously articulate has become its advocate. It makes sense for Montrealers — regardless of their linguistic background — to work with him.

Lisée for « reciprocal empathy »

Here is the Gazette Kevin Dougherty’s take on my answers on Francos/Anglos relations, this Thursday, Original source article.

QUEBEC — Jean-François Lisée, who is Quebec’s international relations minister and also has a mandate to establish better relations with the province’s English minority, described his approach Thursday as « reciprocal empathy. »

« I think we have to get out of this idea that if one community in Quebec takes a step forward, it means that others have to take a step backward, » Lisée said, emerging from his first meeting of the new Parti Québécois cabinet.

« The joke now is that I want every anglo to know Marie-Mai and I can live with that, » he added, referring to an article he wrote in L’actualité magazine in the spring, lamenting that 74 per cent of Quebec anglophones do not know the pop singer Marie-Mai.

In an interview with The Gazette this week to promote her new album, Miroir, Marie-Mai said she is not surprised English Quebecers do not know her.

« If I was anglophone and I didn’t speak French at all, I probably wouldn’t listen to French music either, » Marie-Mai told The Gazette.

« I’d like every franco to know Leonard Cohen and many more, » Lisée said Thursday. « I think we should start building on reciprocal empathy.

« I think francophones should have empathy for the fact that the English community in Quebec has to stay strong and vibrant; and the English community has to have empathy for the fact that the French majority has to stay strong and vibrant, » he said, speaking in English.

« So we share some linguistic anxiety for the future and if we start seeing that as a shared goal, to stay here for generations to come with a strong and vibrant English minority and a vibrant French majority and say, ‘Hey. There’s some trouble here for the English minority. We should do something.’

« And, ‘Hey, maybe it’s the case that if you don’t have a majority of French speakers on the island of Montreal, it’s a worry, » Lisée, touching on a PQ campaign theme, used to justify the party’s proposal to bar non-anglophones from studying in English CÉGEPs.

« There was a time in 1970s when 60 per cent of the people on the island of Montreal were French speakers at home. It didn’t take any thing out of the English community.

« It was just a more prudent equilibrium for the future.

« So my first task I think is to try to make all Quebecers on these linguistic issues think out of the box, » Lisée said. « We’re not in a box. We’re in the Quebec garden and if everyone grows, that’s fine.

« And that’s my pitch. »

Lisée, a former journalist, was asked his view of CJAD running a brief excerpt of an interview with Richard Henry Bain, who is facing a first-degree murder charge in the death of lighting technician Denis Blanchette.

« I am always in favour of freedom of the press, » Lisée said. « It is up to them to decide. »

Told of the concerns of his cabinet colleague, Public Security Minister Stéphane Bergeron, that CJAD had given Bain a platform, Lisée replied, « Everyone has their sensitivity. I have confidence in the press. » […]

One can read some reactions to my appointment, including Graham Fraser’s, here in Le Devoir.

And now, a word for our Anglo friends

The other day, I read in the Globe and Mail that « The few words [Pauline Marois] uttered in halting English during her victory speech were the first in a month ». I also read and heard that elsewhere.

That would be entirely right, of course, except for the fact that she answered questions in English from English-speaking reporters every day of the campaign. Also, she gave a pretty substantive interview to CBC’s Daybreak, with Mike Finnerty during the campaign. Now that she’s Premier, it’s worth a listen.

Also, as an antidote to many wild post-electoral columns here is a must-read: Bernard Taylor’s column in the Calgary Herald. Read it in full here. Excerpts:

In her Sept. 6 column, Licia Corbella asks: “Are one-third of Quebec voters bigots?” As an Anglo living in Quebec, I can categorically answer “No.”

The reason why so many Quebecers, including myself, support the Parti Quebecois is simple. It’s a centre-left party with progressive policies that would appeal tomany Canadians.

If U.S. won’t prosecute Bush, at least 145 other countries should

12 novembre 2010, WorldsMeetUS.com

 

« Former President George W. Bush not only admits – he boasts – of having authorized the practice known as waterboarding. A total of 145 other countries are signatories to the U.N. Convention Against Torture. And all have committed to enforcing its provisions, even against offenders residing in other territories. … If the Spain tribunal were to condemn him, even in absentia, he would then be subject to the mutual extradition treaty in force among 24 European countries. »

By Jean-François Lisée

Translated By Sandrine Ageorges

November 10, 2010

President Bush is back – as are those who want him arrested for torture.

One can’t blame him for dodging his responsibility. In his autobiographical book Decision Points, which was released this week in the United States, former President George W. Bush not only admits – he boasts – of having authorized the practice known as waterboarding during interrogations of suspected members of al-Qaeda by the CIA.

The problem ? Bush doesn’t believe this method of “enhanced interrogation” to be torture. But the American administration – those that came before and after Bush’s – as well as international experts and foreign tribunals, believe the contrary.

Has he then, with this confession, rendered himself vulnerable to criminal charges (and former Vice President Cheney as well, who said during an interview last February that he was a « staunch supporter of waterboarding”) ?

For the moment, the Obama Administration has refused to open the issue of the responsibility of Bush Administration officials for the use of torture, and the current president has specifically indicated that he will not pursue CIA staff who practiced torture, under the pretense they were operating with the authorization of the Justice Department, which had fallaciously told them that simulated drowning, among other things, was not torture.

The former president’s statements have rekindled the debate and raise the pressure on the current president.

The organization Human Rights Watch, which counts 350 cases of torture and cruel treatment of detainees committed by 600 American troops and civilians, noted this Wednesday that the U.N. Convention Against Torture obliges its signatories, one of which is the United States, to prosecute persons responsible of torture, and is pressing the Obama Administration to initiate proceedings.

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, which is comprised of 290 churches, has called for a commission of inquiry to investigate the matter and accuses the former president of having “violated American and International law.”

BUSH INDICTED … IN SPAIN ?

But if no action is taken against Bush in his home country, that opens the possibility of indictment in a third country.

A total of 145 other countries, including Canada, are signatories to the U.N. Convention Against Torture. And all signatories have committed to enforcing its provisions, even against offenders residing in other territories.

Therefore, with varying degrees of success, proceedings have been initiated in Spain and Belgium against foreign heads of state, notably the Chilean Pinochet. Water boarding is now considered a form of torture worldwide, and those responsible must be prosecuted.

Last week, The Washington Post quoted one of the authors of the U.N. convention, lawyer M. Cherif Boussiani of DePaul University, who is of the opinion that the former President’s confession opens him up to such charges.

In fact, a court in Madrid last January opened proceedings against Bush advisors who wrote memos illegally authorizing the use of torture. The case is pending, but the issue was pursued precisely because no American authority took action against the officials responsible.

It’s a safe bet that George W. Bush is now in the crosshairs of the Spain tribunal. If it were to condemn him, even in absentia, he would then be subject to the mutual extradition treaty in force among 24 European countries.

In other words, Bush couldn’t travel to any of these countries without incurring the risk of being deported to Spain to serve out his sentence.

To be continued, and pursued ! …

It’s Official : Canada No Longer Counts

18 octobre 2010, Americas Quarterly

 

The withdrawal of Canada’s candidacy to the UN Security Council on October 12 is an earthquake in the history of Canadian diplomacy. Who would have thought this possible ? Is Portugal, the country who will take the seat in Canada’s place, really a more influential country ? This would not have happened if it hadn’t been for Canada’s leadership, which has left the country’s previously enviable international reputation in tatters.

 

A Turning Point : Copenhagen

 

Tremors generally precede an earthquake. In Canada’s case, the rumblings began in 2008 when the British Foreign Office put together a list of the most important G20 countries. Canada did not make the cut.

 

This foreboding became a reality in December 2009 in Copenhagen when the Danish government brought together the 27 countries that have the clout to negotiate global agreements. No seat was reserved for Canada. Better yet, Canada did not complain about not being there. Canada no longer counts, and does not really care to be counted.

 

Is there a scenario when this voluntary global withdrawal would effectively remove Canada from multilateral institutions such as the G30 ? There is one. And if it were to happen, we would have to go back to Copenhagen to find the time and the place where the conditions that facilitated this downgrade materialized.

 

Canada clearly showed its futility at Copenhagen. It did not help its G8 counterparts to reach an agreement nor did it help any of the new G20 powers—Brazil, India, China, and South Africa—that were trying to gain more financial leverage from the North in order to go green. Canada was in that restrained group of countries who didn’t want anything.

 

Canada, a Result of G7

 

First, some history. When the first group of leaders was convened by French President Giscard d’Estaing in 1975, Canada was not among them. Giscard D’Estaing had no respect for Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and thought that the U.S. amply represented North America. It was U.S. Gerald Ford who, in 1976, made Canada the smallest member country of the G8 in terms of both population and economy.

 

In spite of Canada’s size, its prime ministers have since been able to justify the country’s seat at the table. Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter agreed on all the major international issues. And Brian Mulroney was an important intermediary between Ronald Reagan and François Mitterand, as well as a strong voice on the then-thorny issue that was South Africa. Jean Chrétien got along with Bill Clinton—but, above all, his minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, drove an activist international agenda : anti-personnel mines, the International Criminal Court, the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, and so on. Canada’s participation in the intervention in Afghanistan, initiated by Paul Martin, was disproportionate to its real weight in the world and has helped maintain a high profile for a medium-sized country.

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper leaves much to be desired in regard to his ability to navigate international policy circles. When Canadian troops leave Afghanistan, Canada’s international voice will be the weakest it has ever been. However, this will not be enough to change the G20 inclusion rules so that Canada is excluded. A much larger dynamic will have to be in place for that.

 

The G20 Composition

 

Another force challenging the composition of the G20 was present in Copenhagen. The Group of 77, which unites the poorest countries in the world, has reason to claim that its representation among the deciders is weak. And they are furious. They have the support of a committee of experts, chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, who presented the committee’s report to the president of the UN General Assembly in 2009.

 

G20 constitutes an historic step forward, effectively grouping together 65 percent of humanity and 90 percent of its economy. But 172 countries have no official way of making their voices heard, while one region is outrageously over-represented : North America. Three of its countries are members : Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

 

For over a year, a group of academics has been circulating an intellectually grand recommendation that would solve these problems. They are proposing that members should be every country that represents 2 percent of the world’s population or that comprise at least 2 percent of the world’s GDP.

 

This first triage would comprise 15 countries—all the important G20 players today—that also represent 60 percent of the population. Five slots would remain to be distributed. The authors suggest dividing the world in five regions, the members of which would decide, by election or by rotation, who would be seated at the G20 for how long and, if they so wish, with which type of negotiating mandate. This way membership criteria would be clear, equitable and predictable for the permanent members (chosen for their demographic and economic importance) as well as for the other members and would guarantee global representation.

 

Let’s come back to Canada. In 2008, its economy represented 2.4 percent of the world’s GDP and would therefore be among the invited countries. But, according to the authors of the study, as of 2016, Canada would fall below the 2 percent share because the rest of the world’s growth is expected to be more significant. Canada would thus be relegated to the second category, having to be elected or wait its turn among the other countries in the Americas, except Brazil and the United States.

 

It is far from certain that these reforms will ever see the light of day. Nothing is more difficult than getting a country to abandon its membership in a decision-making group. Hence, the enormous difficulty of reforming the UN Security Council, where those who have veto powers (U.S., Russia, France, Great Britain, and China) refuse to give up the privileges received after World War II.

 

However, if powerful actors (China, Brazil and certain European countries) began to recognize the need for more adequate representation of poor countries, the dethroning of Canada will not be a major point of contention. And we would remember Copenhagen.