[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Are you suggesting the Charter does not apply to new immigrants?

[Oexmelin]

I think quebec has to come to grips with the fact this is no longer the 19th century.

See above for my comment re: vaguely insulting suggestions.

But to force people into only speaking French is akin to forcing Chinese immigrants in B.C. or Ontario to only speak English in six months.

A reminder that this is not to have them "only speak French in six months", but that they can't choose to get government communication in English (or other languages) within six months.

FWIW, this is the part of the law I find ungenerous, and dangerously stoking anxieties re: immigrants from the CAQ, rather than doing something of substance on the issue (which would involve increasing funding to French-learning initiatives).

[viper37]

Well, I guess we could simply reduce funding to the English system, that would be perfectly constitutional, since it's what most provinces do to the French system.

Access to the English schooling system is no more limited than it was before.  Only citizens of a Commonwealth country who had attended an English school could send their children to an English school in Quebec before bill 96.  Nothing has changed.

[viper37]

Zoupa, looks like there's two schools near where you're at right now.

Indeed. Now I just need kids. 

You got two mère-patrie counting on you! 

[crazy canuck]

Well, I guess we could simply reduce funding to the English system, that would be perfectly constitutional, since it's what most provinces do to the French system.

Access to the English schooling system is no more limited than it was before.  Only citizens of a Commonwealth country who had attended an English school could send their children to an English school in Quebec before bill 96.  Nothing has changed.

You may have read my post indicating that is the very thing found to to unconstitutional in BC.

[Zoupa]

No offence cc but I don't think anyone in Qc cares about the constitutionality of this bill (or of anything else, really). It's totally absent from public discourse and from the general public's mind.

[Jacob]

Indeed. Now I just need kids. 

 

[crazy canuck]

No offence cc but I don't think anyone in Qc cares about the constitutionality of this bill (or of anything else, really). It's totally absent from public discourse and from the general public's mind.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think they should.  As I mentioned up thread, I think this is one of those occasions the drafters of the Notwithstanding clause had in mind.

The reason I mentioned it is to point out the rather obvious, that historically French has been treated in the rest of the country (with some exceptions that prove the rule) the same way the Quebec legislation is treating English.  The only thing that has changed that is very recent court proceedings.  But I still think it is important to acknowledge both that the legislation is contrary to the Charter and is an appropriate circumstance for the use of the Notwithstanding Clause.

[Valmy]

Zoupa, looks like there's two schools near where you're at right now.

Indeed. Now I just need kids. 

We will soon have many in America you can adopt.

[Zoupa]

historically French has been treated in the rest of the country (with some exceptions that prove the rule) the same way the Quebec legislation is treating English.

huh, what?

Paging Dr Oex, paging Dr Oex!

[crazy canuck]

historically French has been treated in the rest of the country (with some exceptions that prove the rule) the same way the Quebec legislation is treating English.

huh, what?

Paging Dr Oex, paging Dr Oex!

I am not sure what you are reacting to.  Under the legislation new immigrants will not be able to access public services in English after six months.  That is not all that different from French speakers not being able to obtain services, really at all, in other parts of the country - or where they are obtained, they are inferior.

[crazy canuck]

Reformers 2.0 giving the Liberals a free hand at governing - again?

Respected voices inside the federal Conservative Party of Canada are hinting at serious internal problems that portend a bleak future.

In fact, it doesn't take much divining to see seismic fractures are beginning to emerge, ones serious enough to spell doom to a coalition masterfully held together by Stephen Harper but now teetering.

Last week, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner wrote a long screed outlining her reasons for deciding not to pursue the leadership of Alberta's United Conservative Party, chief among them being a divided and dysfunctional caucus. She took the opportunity to point out her federal Tory caucus is plagued with the same problems.

This paragraph stood out: " ... in both parties there have also been squabbles that have erupted in the pages of national media, public meltdowns, nearly missed physical fights, coups, smear jobs, leaked recordings and confidential emails, lack of consensus on critical issues, caucus turfings, people harassed to the point where they resign roles and hours long meetings where members have been subjected to hours of public castigation."

Rarely do you see a federal MP air their party's dirty laundry in such a manner. Ms. Rempel Garner seems like someone who has had enough and is not afraid of incurring the wrath of the power figures (she would say bullies) inside the federal caucus today. She said this dysfunction led to the demise of former leaders Andrew Scheer and Erin O'Toole. "Knives were openly out for both of them from day one."

Since her letter went public, The Toronto Star reported on efforts to see her expelled from caucus. It's a mess.

More recently, Marjory LeBreton, the respected former Tory Senator, gave an interview to Global News in which she expressed concern that her party is "fracturing beyond repair." She also conveyed her clear contempt for the support some Tory MPs, including leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre, offered the so-called Freedom Convoy that shut down downtown Ottawa for weeks and blockaded borders.

She was doubtlessly appalled that two dozen Tory MPs, including leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis, met with three central leaders of the Freedom Convoy recently in Ottawa. The trio gave speeches that contained anti-vaccine, anti-vaccine mandate messages. They promoted a newly formed organization called the Canadian Citizen Coalition, whose mission is to return the country to a "free, fair and just society." Saskatchewan MP Jeremy Patzer said the convoy leaders had "allies" in the Conservative party.

If Ms. LeBreton and Ms. Rempel Garner are worried about the direction the party is heading who can blame them? The CPC caucus has become toxic, with those holding the most extreme views of conservatism exerting greater control over the direction of the party.

And their views are very much being embodied in the candidacy of Pierre Poilievre.

Even Mr. O'Toole has decided to speak out recently, with his first public comments about the state of his party and conservatism in Canada since he was dumped as leader in February. Speaking on CBC Radio's The House, he said the next leader of the party needed to strike the right balance between traditional conservatism and populism.

He warned about adding "fuel to the fire," of public frustration, instead of advocating for positive change. Who in the world might he be talking about?

Mr. O'Toole earlier made an appearance on a podcast hosted by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. He lamented the direction in which he saw some politicians heading. "But what I worry about is with the populism of anger or frustration or dislocation ... that can undermine institutions, it can undermine national unity. And so I think this is something all candidates have to be aware of."

He added: " ... you have to be very careful, not presenting some bogeyman as the reason why you're having trouble paying the bills or something with inflation."

Is there a Tory leadership candidate engaging in such activity? Yes, one: Mr. Poilievre.

There will be many Conservative MPs and party supporters who will dismiss the warnings of Ms. LeBreton, Ms. Rempel Garner and Mr. O'Toole as the bleatings of disgruntled losers, a small rump that represents the out-of-touch moderate old guard.

Anyone who holds that view is deeply misguided.

Mr. Poilievre is taking the Conservatives in a radically different direction, one in which it has never been. It is a deeply divisive and corrosive path as well, one along which not all party members and elected representatives will be comfortable travelling.

When the party ruptures, as it surely will, Mr. Poilievre can't say he wasn't warned.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-are-the-federal-conservatives-heading-for-a-cataclysmic-rupture/

[Zoupa]

historically French has been treated in the rest of the country (with some exceptions that prove the rule) the same way the Quebec legislation is treating English.

huh, what?

Paging Dr Oex, paging Dr Oex!

I am not sure what you are reacting to.  Under the legislation new immigrants will not be able to access public services in English after six months.  That is not all that different from French speakers not being able to obtain services, really at all, in other parts of the country - or where they are obtained, they are inferior.

So 2 things:
1- your qualifier of historically, which is just wrong. Could I get services in French in Vancouver in 1922? Because you sure could get services in English in Montreal back then.
2- you're focusing on new immigrants only. What about the anglophones in Quebec that do not qualify as new immigrants? They can live their whole life without speaking a lick of French if they so choose, thanks to the protections given to them by the Qc government. Can you say the same about Francophones anywhere else in Canada, Qc and NB excepted?

[viper37]

Well, I guess we could simply reduce funding to the English system, that would be perfectly constitutional, since it's what most provinces do to the French system.

Access to the English schooling system is no more limited than it was before.  Only citizens of a Commonwealth country who had attended an English school could send their children to an English school in Quebec before bill 96.  Nothing has changed.

You may have read my post indicating that is the very thing found to to unconstitutional in BC.

The difference in financing was found unconstitutional.  I don't see how that applies to Quebec since English schools were never underfounded.

[Oexmelin]

I am not sure what you are reacting to.  Under the legislation new immigrants will not be able to access public services in English after six months.  That is not all that different from French speakers not being able to obtain services, really at all, in other parts of the country - or where they are obtained, they are inferior.

Well, not really.

The law simply states that official correspondance is going to be by default in French. Medical services, emergency services, justice, education correspondance - all of those, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of services one gets from the government, can still be conducted in English, as well as even ordinary communication, "if the volume of such communication warrants it" (i.e., if there's some problem that needs solving), or if "matters of health and safety are concerned".

People who have been using English to communicate with the government until now can continue to do so, and will obtain, I am pretty sure, quite adequate services in English, in no time at all. So, it certainly sucks when one wants to call Revenu Québec, but newcomers can safely assume that they will have trials in English, doctors who speak English, school communications in English, driving examinations in English, access to excellent higher education in English, comforted by the fact that the widespread bilingualism in these sorts of position will allow them to have services quickly and efficiently.   

The issue elsewhere in Canada is precisely the difficulty of obtaining these sorts of crucial government services in French. If the Quebec government wanted to treat anglophones the same way, they'd simply say that they will continue to offer English service, but only hire a couple of bilingual people, and let those who ask for such service pray  that their request falls within one of the days these bilingual people work (as well as hope that one of these people is actually able to construct complex sentences - not a given).