Harper suggests turning Canada into Belgium
Mon, 2004-10-18 20:10
#1
Harper suggests turning Canada into Belgium
Mon, 2004-10-18 20:10
#2
This speech is, according to Paul Wells, curiously missing from their website.
quote:
QUEBEC (CP) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is proposing to make Canada more like Belgium, saying he would like to split some federal authority between Canada's two main language groups.In a speech to party supporters Friday, Harper suggested he would like a future Conservative government to give some federal power to new community institutions set up by English-and French-speaking Canadians.
Instead of the provinces getting more power, the linguistic groups could have some jurisdiction over communications, broadcasting and international relations, he said.
"In Belgium, for example, federal authority is shared not only by geographical regions, but also according to linguistic communities," Harper said.
"Instead of giving more authority to provinces in areas like culture or international relations, the federal government could, in concert with the provinces and especially Quebec, establish francophone and anglophone community institutions in areas of jurisdiction like telecommunications and broadcasting."
Before his speech, Harper also showed some interest in a recent proposal by the Action democratique du Quebec to turn Quebec into an "autonomous state" within Canada.
"We'll take a look at the latest proposals from the ADQ," he said. "For the most part, they're all within the existing constitutional framework of the country.
[url=http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/041015/n1015118A.html]http://www.reco...
[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
Mon, 2004-10-18 20:15
#3
radiorahim
Harper wants to turn Canada into Belgium eh?
I'd like to turn Harper into a toad [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2004-10-18 20:16
#4
Interesting, though i really think he should be careful of getting too chummy with the ADQ, a party who's time hasn't come, and isn't gonna.
Also, we'll see how this goes at their Montreal policy convention next winter. And if it's passed, how their 'base' takes it.
Mon, 2004-10-18 20:19
#5
Hmmm. I guess Harper has his eye on more than just eliminating the federal government, except for defense of course. Sounds as though he has his eye of provincial governments as well. I'm sure he also envisions churches eventually administering Medicare. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2004-10-18 20:43
#6
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
[b]Harper wants to turn Canada into Belgium eh?I'd like to turn Harper into a toad [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Turning Harper into a toad would be like turning Paul Martin into the prime minister or Jack Layton into the NDP leader.
Which reminds me of two weeks ago on "22 Minutes" where Gavin Crawford's fashion designer character asked Peter Mackay if his jacket was genuine weasel. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2004-10-19 00:04
#7
This is actually huge. Harper is going way farther down the "two nations" road than Joe Clark, Bob Stanfield and Brian Mulroney ever dared to go.
His alliance with the Bloc on the throne speech amendments was not an accident, apparently. And those who said "he'll have to back off, the West won't stand for him cosying up to Quebec nationalists" were underestimating him.
And I thought he was so American-oriented (as his economic policies are) that he didn't understand Canadian history. Wrong. Never underestimate a conservative. Joe Clark was full of surprises. So, it seems, is Harper.
Tue, 2004-10-19 00:27
#8
All a Bloc-Tory alliance will be able to focus on is defederalisation and electoral reform.
Beyond that, the Bloc is a socialist party led by a reformed Marxist, whereas the Reformatories are a party of retrograde garbage led by a neoconservative GOP ass piece.
[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]
Tue, 2004-10-19 05:52
#9
We'd have better chocolate, I suppose.
Tue, 2004-10-19 09:52
#10
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
[b]This speech is, according to Paul Wells, curiously missing from their website.
[/b]
It's [url=http://www.conservative.ca/english/speeches.asp]there now[/url]. No need to tell Paul Wells. That's how I found out.
Tue, 2004-10-19 10:00
#11
You'd be amazed how infrequently Paul and I talk these days. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2004-10-19 12:00
#12
Harper’s sneakiness at its best. What a wimp. If you’d recall, that is almost what Jack was saying during the election, and he was highly criticised for this remarks. What is it with all those parties? Liberals adopting NDP’s strategies as their own, and now Harper. Though Harper doing it for the egoistic purposes it seems. I always saw him as an opportunistic career-builder with one goal in mind-getting into power. Now he is seeking Quebec support since coalition with Bloc didn’t really worked out. I wouldn’t believe a word this man saying, for, after all, he openly supported and praised Harris, a public enemy number 1, a dark, sneaky and hateful creature.
Tue, 2004-10-19 12:05
#13
This has hit the National Post now, under the headline: Harper's Canada: Belgium
It's subscriber-only content, but Warren Kinsella quotes extensively from the article over here: [url=http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm]http://www.warrenkinsella.com/...
Tue, 2004-10-19 12:25
#14
Good link, RealityBites.
"There is not a single active federal politician now willing to say "I speak for Canada." I would add, nor for Canadians.
Belgium, eh? Like our pollution isn't bad enough already?
[url=http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/erde/0,1518,grossbild-398129-322892,0...
Sorry, I can't post the picture.
Tue, 2004-10-19 13:36
#15
Well, if by like Belgium he'd meant a country with good social programs and little poverty I could have gone for that. And, yeah, the chocolate. Although there's a Callebaut making chocolate in, I believe, Calgary of all places. They had a shop in Vancouver as well, on Granville and 12th or so, but it shut down (sniff). But, les chocolats Belges Daniel on Robson near Burrard uses Callebaut chocolate to make their chocolates, and their flavours are slightly better. So we've got some too.
Mmmm . . . chocolate.
Oh . . . uh . . . I've been informed that this thread was supposed to be about politics. Carry on.
Tue, 2004-10-19 13:39
#16
Yes there is a Callebaut chocolate-making place in Calgary; it has pointy stained glass windows that look quite churchy. I used to live a block away from a Callebaut store... Mmmmmmm....
Tue, 2004-10-19 13:43
#17
would we have to apologise for being boring
Tue, 2004-10-19 13:51
#18
Nothing new in that.
Tue, 2004-10-19 13:52
#19
scott
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
[b]We'd have better chocolate, I suppose.[/b]
And beer [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2004-10-19 13:54
#20
Erstwhile
Actually, this could be very beneficial to the NDP. The radical wing of the party could be called the "Belgian Waffle".
*scurries for cover*
Tue, 2004-10-19 15:33
#21
More on this in the National Post from John Ivison (available to non-subscribers)
[url=http://tinyurl.com/56gj4]http://tinyurl.com/56gj4[/url]
(that article also has a great bit on the ongoing grudge match between Peter Mackay and Scott Brison)
Martin, meanwhile, has responded that "I think the role of the prime minister of Canada is not to build a better Belgium, it's to build a stronger Canada,"
[url=http://tinyurl.com/4x9ne]http://tinyurl.com/4x9ne[/url]
Anyone care to join me in a pool on how many months it is before the Conservatives drop below the NDP in the polls? (And no, I'm not predicting an NDP surge to the high 20s)
Tue, 2004-10-19 16:18
#22
Brison called Harper the "Belgian waffler" today. I thought that was cute. But the NDP is pretty far gone on the special status route as well. Look at the last platform:
"Jack Layton and Canada’s NDP will build trust
through commitment and flexibility by... recognizing the fundamental differences that constitute Quebec being a nation within Canada and working with Quebec to obtain common objectives with equitable outcomes, with the option of Quebec opting out of new federal programs with compensation to pursue common objectives and standards in a provincial program."
I know the NDP have historically supported deux nations / special status, but isn't there an opportunity here with the Liberals embracing "asymmetrical federalism", the Tories embracing decentralization and the "Belgian waffle", and the Bloc supporting outright separation for the NDP to appeal to the Trudeau wing of the Liberal Party by speaking out for a strong national government?
If we would just write off the pipe dream of a breakthrough in Quebec we could win tonnes of Sheila Copps-Lloyd Axworthy style Liberals over to our side in English Canada.
Tue, 2004-10-19 17:22
#23
quote:
Originally posted by andalusia:
[b]If we would just write off the pipe dream of a breakthrough in Quebec we could win tonnes of Sheila Copps-Lloyd Axworthy style Liberals over to our side in English Canada.[/b]
It's always baffled the hell out of me that the NDP doesn't do just that.
Tue, 2004-10-19 17:34
#24
Me thinks Harper will regret this absurd suggestion... Canadian Provinces already have more autonomy than your average EU member, let alone Flemish/French Belgium, the heart and soul (Luxembourg) of the EU beast.
Tue, 2004-10-19 17:49
#25
People seem to not be noticing that he's not just talking about additional autonomy for Quebec, but another layer of government based on language, not geography.
I don't see this as having much appeal to Quebec nationalists or really, anyone else in the country.
Tue, 2004-10-19 17:58
#26
quote:
Originally posted by andalusia:
[b]I know the NDP have historically supported deux nations / special status, but isn't there an opportunity here with the Liberals embracing "asymmetrical federalism", the Tories embracing decentralization and the "Belgian waffle", and the Bloc supporting outright separation for the NDP to appeal to the Trudeau wing of the Liberal Party by speaking out for a strong national government?
[/b]
If we have traditionally supported such a position, it is with good reason. I, for one, have no desire to be the "Ottawa uber alles" party. Quebec is a distinct part of Canada; it is a nation within confederation. That is important to remember, no matter where the political opening may lie.
Tue, 2004-10-19 18:02
#27
Quebec separatists and Alberta rightwingers share the same goal and have done for years; to decentralize Canada so they can have more power.
Tue, 2004-10-19 18:13
#28
remind
According to Reality Bites link, Belgium has 102% debt servicing from the GDP as opposed to Canada's 77%, yep we surely need to model ourselves after them.
There also would be every ethnicity being self determining. That ought to make things function very well, eh.
Tue, 2004-10-19 18:15
#29
quote:
Originally posted by andalusia:
[b]. . . the option of Quebec opting out of new federal programs with compensation to pursue common objectives and standards in a provincial program.[/b]
Out of [i][b]NEW[/b][/i] federal programs, is the NDP position. That's asymetical federalism.
Harper has gone a big step further, to the "associated states" model. He cites several nationalist or autonomist but non-separatist proposals, and says
quote:
Our challenge as Conservatives is to develop new proposals for addressing Quebec's unique concerns . . .In Belgium, for example, federal authority has been divided not just with geographically based regions, but also with lingusitic communities as well.
I want my party to consider how this model could be adapted to Canada.
Rather than devolving more power to the provinces in areas like cultural affairs and international relations, perhaps the federal government, working with the provinces and particularly with Quebec, could establish Francophone and Anglophone Community institutions for jurisdictions in areas like the CRTC and the CBC, or the Francophonie, the Commonwealth and UNESCO.
The Belgian model and the experience of other countries could guide us. . .
. . . this kind of devolution would allow/recognize arrangements tailored more to Quebec's needs, but in ways that strengthen the relationship between French-speaking Canadians across the country. . . it also provides some meaningful recognition of/ voice to English Canada . . . without devolving authority that few in Anglophone provincial capitals are actually seeking.
In Belgium, as a result of the 1993 constitutional revision that furthered devolution, there are now four levels of government (federal, 3 linguistic communities, 3 regions, and 10 provinces) with a complex division of responsibilities. Not to mention 589 communal (municipal) administrations.
The 3 linguistic communities aren't the same as the 3 regions.
The capital is one bilingual region, Flanders (Flemish-speaking) is a second, and Wallonia (mostly French-speaking, but with a German-speaking province) is the third. The 3 regions have largely economic competences.
The three linguistic Communities each have their own parliaments and ministries.
[url=http://www.cfwb.be/gb/presentation/communaute/pg001.html]The French Community manages:[/url]
quote:
all of the matters allocated to it by the Constitution and the institutional reform laws, i.e. in short, matters related to the individual and using the language.These matters currently come under the sectors of culture, education, research and training, health (exclusively preventative medicine), assistance to young people, infrastructures, sport and international relations.
Culture:
The performing arts (theatre - music - dance), Cultural heritage, the Visual arts, Literature, Books and Languages, Libraries, Continuing education and policies related to Young People, Audiovisual and Multimedia matters.
Education, research and training:
Education (primary, basic, secondary, special, university and non-university higher, social promotion, distance, artistic), PMS (Psycho-Medico-Social) Centres and maintenance allowances, Basic scientific research developed in universities, FNRS (National Fund for Scientific Research) and associated Funds (FRSM (Fund for Medical Scientific Research), IISN (Inter-University Institute for Nuclear Sciences), FRIA (Fund for Training in Research in Industry and Agriculture)), Concerted Research Action, Special Funds for Research in universities and Funds for joint basic scientific research.
Individual matters:
Assistance to Young People and Children, Health (school medical examination, health promotion, early childhood policy, university hospitals, disabled policy) and Sport (support for the practice and promotion of sport, ADEPS (Authority for Physical Education and Sport)).
Intra-Belgian relations and international relations:
Co-operation with the Communities and Regions and international co-operation.
[url=http://www.cfwb.be/gb/presentation/communaute/pg007.html]The French Community has 94 Members of Parliament:[/url]
quote:
with a 5 year mandate. The unique thing about them is that they are not elected directly. As a matter of fact, the Wallonia-Brussels French Community Parliament is made up of the 75 members of the Wallonia Regional Council and 19 members from the Brussels-Capital Regional Council, who are delegated by it.The current political majority in the French Community Parliament is made up of the PRL (Liberal Reform Party) - FDF (French Speakers' Democratic Front) - MCC (Movement of Citizens for Change), the Parti socialiste (Belgian Socialist Party) and the Parti Ecolo (Belgian Green Party), whereas the Sociaux-chrйtiens (Social Christian Party) sit on the opposition benches. This majority gives the Government of the French Community, which is made up of 7 ministers, its political confidence.
Way, way beyond asymetrical federalism.
Tue, 2004-10-19 18:34
#30
Reality Bites' Kinsella link above will now also take you to (future leadership hopeful) Maurizio Bevilacqua's response to Harper's plan. Here's a taste:
quote:
Canadians are left wondering why you, who have spent the past decade fueling the fires of western alienation, are handing Separatists all they desire? Canadians are left wondering what is quid pro quo? What will the west demand from Quebec in return for a Quebec constitution? What is the real end game in this Harper-Landry alliance?
Tue, 2004-10-19 18:53
#31
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]There also would be every ethnicity being self determining. That ought to make things function very well, eh.[/b]
Surely not... [i]race-based[/i]????!!?!?!?!
Good heavens, is Stephen Harper on crack?
Does his caucus know he's been replaced by an alien?
Tue, 2004-10-19 18:57
#32
Bevilacqua is right on.
quote:
...Mr. Harper you talk about the "new Canadian reality" but in truth if you and Mr. Landry continue down this road Canada simply wont be a reality...
Wed, 2004-10-20 00:51
#33
Harper's plan won't have a big appeal in my opinion. Not only it proposes a huge decentralization that might get centralists or statuquoists unhappy, but its decentralization would break Canada and Quйbec in ethno-linguistic blocs. It's clear that beneath the appearance of appealing to nationalists, its plan seek to undermine Quйbec as a nation by cutting it into two separate communities, the franco and the anglo. Quйbec nationalists I've seen have very badly reacted to the plan.
In short, this was a compromise between the 10-equal-provinces dogma and the two-peoples one that would appeal to neither side. Like I say, if you make too many compromises, at one time, you compromise yourself... works better in French "а force de faire des compromis, on finit par se compromettre". Just another example of the stupidity of the "let's aim at the average in a very polarized debate to get the maximum of votes" school of thought.
BTW, don't give up on Quйbec, in the last environics poll, the NDP's at 16% in Quйbec.
[url=http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=563]http://erg.environics...
[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: simonvallee ]
Wed, 2004-10-20 10:25
#34
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
[b]Quebec separatists and Alberta rightwingers share the same goal and have done for years; to decentralize Canada so they can have more power.[/b]
Here's where Contratrian and I agree. Indeed, these two groups backed Bay Street to sell us out with the FTA. Any further enfeebling of Canada is always a good thing to these folks.
Wed, 2004-10-20 14:50
#35
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:
[b]BTW, don't give up on Quйbec, in the last environics poll, the NDP's at 16% in Quйbec.
[url=http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=563]http://erg.environics...[/b]
And?
Wed, 2004-10-20 16:07
#36
remind
You know when considering the break up of Canada from a fundamentalist's "want to do" point view, perhaps we should look for a prophecy concerning us too? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2004-10-20 17:08
#37
No Yards
I'm all for decentralization. Queens Park must go!
Wed, 2004-10-20 17:36
#38
quote:
Here's where Contratrian and I agree. Indeed, these two groups backed Bay Street to sell us out with the FTA. Any further enfeebling of Canada is always a good thing to these folks.
If you were better informed on the Quйbec movement, you'd know that the financial elite in Canada and in Quйbec backs the federalist Liberals and not the sovereignist movement. Our goal isn't to "weaken" Canada, it's to establish Quйbec sovereignty, if you want to have a province-less Canada, no problem, as long as you don't touch to Quйbec. For example, Duceppe isn't actually in favor of decentralization like Harper is, he simply supports the "special status" idea that Quйbec should be apart and more autonomous.
If the Bloc and the CPC ever were to agree on a common front to decentralize Canada and that they had the power to pass it, the best way to stop it would be to offer to the Bloc an asymetrical federalism allowing Quйbec to become more autonomous and transfer taxes to the Quйbec provincial government. Only ask in return to stop the front with the CPC and Duceppe would surely accept.
Wed, 2004-10-20 18:08
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
[b]Quebec separatists and Alberta rightwingers share the same goal and have done for years; to decentralize Canada so they can have more power.[/b]
Let it be noted that one can be a "proud Canadian" and a right-wing knob-end.
[url=http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:LiuQJRPikE4J:www.stephenharpersaid.c... Bevilacqua proposes merging currencies with the U.S.[/url] He's a shit-sucking weasel.
Wed, 2004-10-20 18:13
#40
Disillusion sigh. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] Now the dollar is rising, we are not hearing such talk anymore; are we?
Wed, 2004-10-20 19:09
#41
The problem with assymetrical federalism is that Quebec because of its population has 1/4 of the federal seats and up until the 1990s was able to pick the winner of the federal election by delivering 70 or so seats. Assymetrical federalism allows Quebec to influence federal policy across the country but at the same time exempt itself from this policy.
Quebec already does this to an extent. It essentially ignores the Canada Health Act.
If we are going to have assymmetrical federalism we have to change the way we chose the government.
The other question is whether Quebec would accept other provinces getting the same powers it has or wants. Saskatchewan as a distinct society?
Wed, 2004-10-20 19:35
#42
quote:
The problem with assymetrical federalism is that Quebec because of its population has 1/4 of the federal seats and up until the 1990s was able to pick the winner of the federal election by delivering 70 or so seats. Assymetrical federalism allows Quebec to influence federal policy across the country but at the same time exempt itself from this policy.
I see how that could annoy some people. But the present situation also annoys a lot of people. The best solution would be sovereignty, everybody's happy on their side of the frontier, able to do as they please. Still, very few takers in Canada.
quote:
Quebec already does this to an extent. It essentially ignores the Canada Health Act.
We don't, at least not more than Ontario or Alberta. At least I assume you're talking about private health care, well let me tell you this little secret: the parallel system is already present throughout Canada, it's not specific to Quйbec.
quote:
The other question is whether Quebec would accept other provinces getting the same powers it has or wants. Saskatchewan as a distinct society?
First, I don't believe Saskatchewan is a distinct society, it shares too much of its culture, media, etc... with the surrounding provinces. Second, the reaction would pretty much be: if they want to, why not? What matters is that Quйbec be more autonomous, Canada can decide for itself what it is outside Quйbec.
Wed, 2004-10-20 21:23
#43
quote:
But the present situation also annoys a lot of people.
What part of the present situation annoys people?
1. The unwritten requirement that every other Prime Minister (at least Liberal ones) must be from Quebec?
2. That every other governor general must be from Quebec?
3. That 1/3 of the Supreme Court have to come from Quebec?
4. The dismissal as a viable Prime Minister of any English Canadian politician who is not completely fluent in French?
Wed, 2004-10-20 22:12
#44
Three SC justices must come from Quebec in order to be able to have a panel that can rule on Civil Code cases.
Joe Clark was not fluent in French when he was PM. Paul Martin, while quite good, is quite obviously speaking a second language.
The failure of Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper (who is pretty good in French) to become Prime Minister have little to do with their French and much to do with their utterly repugnant beliefs and policies.
Wed, 2004-10-20 22:35
#45
quote:
1. The unwritten requirement that every other Prime Minister (at least Liberal ones) must be from Quebec?
It's no requirement. It just so happens, not our fault really if we're better politicians [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] .
quote:
2. That every other governor general must be from Quebec?
People still care enough about the GG to be annoyed by the GG? I mean except its uselessness and its cost.
quote:
3. That 1/3 of the Supreme Court have to come from Quebec?
Our demographic weight would "ask" for 2.25 judges, one more or less.
quote:
4. The dismissal as a viable Prime Minister of any English Canadian politician who is not completely fluent in French?
Tell me, what would be the chances of an unilingual francophone aspirant to the PM post? So don't whine about the fact that francos hesitate to vote for people who don't respect them enough to learn French.
But I'm more considering these factors:
1- That the federal keeps Quйbec cash-strapped.
2- That assimilation of francophones is at an all-time high.
3- That Quйbec's popular will is subjected to the veto of another nation.
4- That Quйbec's autonomy is not respected enough while the RoC thinks it's too respected.
5- That Quйbec controls directly less than half the money it generates while the RoC thinks that Quйbec has too much control over too much money.
Wed, 2004-10-20 23:29
#46
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:
[b]1- That the federal keeps Quйbec cash-strapped.
2- That assimilation of francophones is at an all-time high.
3- That Quйbec's popular will is subjected to the veto of another nation.
4- That Quйbec's autonomy is not respected enough while the RoC thinks it's too respected.
5- That Quйbec controls directly less than half the money it generates while the RoC thinks that Quйbec has too much control over too much money. [/b]
1 through 5 are all myths.
I have never heard ANYONE in RoC complain about 5. In any event, EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE, is Quebec noticeably different from any other province in this regard?
Ditto #4? Is SK's "autonomy" dealt with differently from Quebec's?
Assimilation: look at the census. Quebec's francophone character is doing very, very good, and the language is very healthy.
Quebec's popular will is not subject to anyone's veto (nor is any other province's) simply by virtue of the other nine provinces, three territories, and the federal government standing up for its side in any highly hypothetical separation vote.
Cash-strapped? What a crock. Quebec is better off than a good many province. (And if you want to complain about cash-strapped, send some of your Labrador hydro money back to Labrador, while you're at it, especially si, selon sa fameuse "revendication territoriale", le Labrador appartient au Quйbec...)
Wed, 2004-10-20 23:30
#47
Thread drift alert.
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
[b]Joe Clark was not fluent in French when he was PM.[/b]
Our standards have improved. Joe's French was better than either Mike Pearson or John Diefenbaker.
Meanwhile, on the topic - - I heard someone on CBC today saying that the general reaction to Harper's "Dоner Bleu" proposal, both in Quebec and Ottawa, had been very guarded. No wonder. Did he mean it? Did he realize what a radical proposal this is? My suspicion is he did. Perhaps he'll have to repeat it in Ottawa before the press believes he means it.
Wed, 2004-10-20 23:33
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
[b]Our standards have improved. Joe's French was better than either Mike Pearson or John Diefenbaker. [/b]
They didn't speak it, period. But Clark came after Trudeau, which is the period I presume BleedingHeart is talking about.
Wed, 2004-10-20 23:50
#49
I think Clark's mother taught French in school. My own experience, later than Joe's, was that some French teachers were better than others; some had been trained mostly in other subjects.
Probably Joe learned French but did not have the chance to use it enough to be really comfortable.
Wed, 2004-10-20 23:54
#50
I knew a guy who took French in high school in Dallas.
I had a hard time convincing him that the number between sept and neuf is not pronounced "reet," because that's what his teacher taught them.
"I know it's spelled 'huit' but it's pronounced 'reet.'"
Thu, 2004-10-21 00:08
#51
A few things:
1) People, it's spelled a-s-y-m-m-etric. As in, "there's no ass in asymmetric."
2) Simonvallee, you say that "Quйbec nationalists I've seen have very badly reacted to the plan." I think that's the idea. This seems to be aimed at federalists (as you say, it undermines Quebec as a nation), and it sure seems a hell of a lot more federalist than Martin sending Quebec to represent Canada at UNESCO meetings. It's also much more federalist than Chretien's trying to buy Quebec's loyalty with its own money in the sponsorship/ad scandals.
3) It seems Babblers are no less divided on how to handle Quebec than Conservatives. That's much more realistic than the beginning of this thread, which was just silly cheap shots at Harper and Belgium. I don't think much of his "trial Walloon" but it's at least worth discussing.