It's your dream, Sheila, not ours

[Wally]

It's your dream, Sheila, not ours

Winnipeg Sun, By JOHN GLEESON, June 29, 2006

One word can make such a huge difference. In this space yesterday, in what was supposed to be a Canada Day column, Sheila Copps was writing about a "passionate Canadian nationalist" she knows who had lost heart for the good fight to keep Quebec in confederation.

"My friend," she wrote, "is a model Canadian, an immigrant from British Columbia who learned fluent French long ago as part of his commitment to the bigger dream."

The phrase, "an immigrant from British Columbia," jumped out at a number of Sun readers, including Winnipegger Gord Higham: "Anecdotes aside, there is no such thing as an immigrant from British Columbia except, it appears, to an ex-government minister from southern Ontario."

As a B.C. "immigrant" myself (I crossed the Rockies into Canada Proper almost 20 years ago, but still haven't lost my accent), I can understand why readers mistook Sheila's words. But, after checking with Linda Williamson, Sheila's editor in Toronto, I was assured that Sheila didn't mean precisely what she wrote.

What she really meant was that her friend was an immigrant in B.C.

So that settles that. But it doesn't let Sheila off the hook for displaying insufferable arrogance toward many of us who, by virtue of Canadian geography, obviously don't qualify as being model citizens in Sheila's world.

Why? Because, unlike her immigrant friend, we didn't learn "fluent French as part of our commitment to the bigger dream."

Ah, the bigger dream. The big Canadian dream, according to Sheila -- bacon and eggs and croissants in the morning, a lucrative federal contract over lunch, and a Liberal fundraiser to cap off the evening, complete with clever repartee in both official languages.

But how many of us can share in Sheila's "bigger dream" and how many of us want to?

Now, I don't know about Sheila's friend, but for most people who live in B.C. -- and for that matter, about half of the rest of the country -- learning "fluent French" is hardly an essential way to spend their limited time on this planet, unless of course they want to work for the federal government.

Guess that means they can't dream the "bigger dream," can they?

Of course it's a wonderful thing to learn French. Means you can read Baudelaire and Balzac in the original and you'll know what Edith Piaf is singing so beautifully about. Means you can travel in Quebec or France and order off the menu and talk to the locals. You can make new friends and watch great movies without having to read the subtitles. It's very civilized.

But to tie speaking French to being "a model Canadian" who dreams "the bigger dream" is to flatly marginalize half the population of Canada.

But that's what Sheila's privileged Liberal ilk does.

Rather than build bridges, their Bigger Bilingual Dream Canada actually relegates millions of us to second-class status. And laughably, this divisive and demeaning political game has been shoved down our throats in the interest of "keeping Canada together."

When the game got really mouldy, Sheila's former boss even used the fear of losing Quebec as the raison d'etre for the sponsorship program, which turned out to be nothing less than a criminal enterprise operated out of the office of the prime minister of Canada.

Sheila, we notice, didn't mention that in her column.

This Canada Day, I won't be worrying about whether Quebec stays or goes, now or later. Most of us are past that now. The way we see it, that's theirs to decide and yours, Sheila, to agonize over.

We've got better "bigger dreams" to dream about, thank you very much.

And yes, we are Canadians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gleeson is the editor of the Winnipeg Sun. He can be reached by e-mail at: jgleeson@wpgsun.com
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@wpgsun.com.

[styky]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=62448

[Neocon Recovery]

What can you say about Sheila Copps? It is a pathetic nationalism if you lose faith in your nation simply because bilingualism policy has failed. But what else should you expect? The whole idea of pride in your country because it provides social programmes is the cheapest excuse for nationalism in recent memory.

Either you love your country 'right or left', to quote Orwell, or you simply don't love your country. But again, what else can you expect from Liberals?

[kowalski]

To be fair one could see how Shiela Copps would be disenchanted after the big native showdown just outside of her headquarters in Hamilton.

[Wally]

That Winnipeg Sun's editorial calls a spade the spade.

Now, the question is: what is Harper's dream?

He hurriedly obliged to pass the PARTISAN Bill S-3 into law. (Bill S-3 is to amend the OLA; passed through and received Royal assent in an unusually speedy manner). Bloc Quebecois voted against it, so what's the Harper's aim in rushing this harmful to English Canada Bill?

Also, as I have always suspected, the FOUNDATIONS with BILLIONS of dollars have been set up by parliamentarians, not by personally Chretien or Martin, as I got the impression from the media. Those Foundations are the entities through which the implementation of Bill S-3 will be carried out. Josee Verner is specifically responsible for the Bill S-3 implementation.

In the new phase of OB, the old line "promotion of linguistic minority communities" would be upgraded. From now on, the official dat-tsi-bao will be "will promote linguistic duality", which is a pacifying name for disgraced Official Bilingualism.

As we know, 40% of all federal spending on arts goes to francophones. Now, they will get an even bigger piece of pie by funneling the money from Foundations to small companies, community radio stations, arts groups, placing federal advertising in small French community newspapers, etc. That's how they plan to make them profitable - with our taxdollars. They also coerce federal employees, taking French courses, to buy tickets to French cultural events. They expect and coerce us, anglophones, to promote and sustain their arts. THEY HAVE NO SHAME.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/comm ... omm_id=595

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, May 29, 2006

Senator Robichaud: It is even more positive to communicate with them in French. Often, these small companies, and community radio stations are another example, operate right at the profitability threshold and often beneath it. That is how we could help them offer a better service, serve more people and get some momentum. I think that that would be a way not only of informing them but also of helping them and making them profitable.

Senator Comeau: …has bill S-3 been enacted? Has everything been finalized?

Mr. Lussier (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Canadian Heritage): Yes, everything has been adopted, and it is now part of the Statutes of Canada. So the obligation exists.

Senator Comeau: Over the years, foundations have been set up and they are not subject to the Official Languages Act. Will that change with bill S-3? Will foundations be subject to the act?

Mr. Lussier: You are raising another interesting legal question. If I fully understand the purpose of your question, it is one of the areas that we are constantly called upon to explore: how far does the federal government want to go in exercising the obligation to take positive measures with respect, namely, to the entities through which its action will be carried out....

Senator Comeau: We as parliamentarians were the ones who authorized the creation of the foundations through legislation and budgets, etc. If governments want to create this kind of foundations, the plans have to be presented to parliamentarians. Our committee should take an interest the next time a new foundation is created. Perhaps we should ask the Senate to look at the bill to see if it meets its needs.

Senator Comeau: I want to quote you something one of the comments prepared by the Library of Parliament:

It should be borne in mind that since February 6, 2006, it is the Minister for Official Languages, the Honourable Josée Verner, who specifically exercises the Canadian Heritage responsibilities for implementation of part VII of the OLA.
Is that true?

Mr. Lussier: Yes.

Ms. MacDonald: I took care to use the word "promotion" on my briefing notes. Our aim, when we talk to federal representatives, is to make sure that they do as much as possible to promote French and English. In the suggestions by the various departments that we met with, we found that there are some interesting things being done. On page 22 of my deck — where it will now say "will promote linguistic duality" — you have all sorts of big things and small things being done by federal institutions that can be replicated by the huge number of government offices across the country to have a major and positive impact. Ways are indicated to help federal employees retain their second language. I have encouraged them to buy theatre tickets, since the cultural infrastructure is trying to get the critical mass it needs to help theatres and actors survive. I would have liked to buy them tickets, but I think it would be difficult to do so with the Accountability Act. When I was in Vancouver, however, I learned that a contract had been awarded to a firm to help employees keep up their French. Part of the contract involved having the employees attend five cultural events. This presumably means that tickets would be bought for a number of cultural events, which would support the cultural organizations as well as help the federal employees with their second language.

Mr. Lussier: …federal institutions advertising in weekly publications…

Senator Robichaud: It is even more positive to communicate with them in French. Often, these small companies, and community radio stations are another example, operate right at the profitability threshold and often beneath it. That is how we could help them offer a better service, serve more people and get some momentum. I think that that would be a way not only of informing them but also of helping them and making them profitable.

[doctorftf]

That Winnipeg Sun's editorial calls a spade the spade.

Now, the question is: what is Harper's dream?

He hurriedly obliged to pass the PARTISAN Bill S-3 into law. (Bill S-3 is to amend the OLA; passed through and received Royal assent in an unusually speedy manner). Bloc Quebecois voted against it, so what's the Harper's aim in rushing this harmful to English Canada Bill?

Also, as I have always suspected, the FOUNDATIONS with BILLIONS of dollars have been set up by parliamentarians, not by personally Chretien or Martin, as I got the impression from the media. Those Foundations are the entities through which the implementation of Bill S-3 will be carried out. Josee Verner is specifically responsible for the Bill S-3 implementation.

In the new phase of OB, the old line "promotion of linguistic minority communities" would be upgraded. From now on, the official dat-tsi-bao will be "will promote linguistic duality", which is a pacifying name for disgraced Official Bilingualism.

As we know, 40% of all federal spending on arts goes to francophones. Now, they will get an even bigger piece of pie by funneling the money from Foundations to small companies, community radio stations, arts groups, placing federal advertising in small French community newspapers, etc. That's how they plan to make them profitable - with our taxdollars. They also coerce federal employees, taking French courses, to buy tickets to French cultural events. They expect and coerce us, anglophones, to promote and sustain their arts. THEY HAVE NO SHAME.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/comm ... omm_id=595

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, May 29, 2006

Senator Robichaud: It is even more positive to communicate with them in French. Often, these small companies, and community radio stations are another example, operate right at the profitability threshold and often beneath it. That is how we could help them offer a better service, serve more people and get some momentum. I think that that would be a way not only of informing them but also of helping them and making them profitable.

Senator Comeau: …has bill S-3 been enacted? Has everything been finalized?

Mr. Lussier (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Canadian Heritage): Yes, everything has been adopted, and it is now part of the Statutes of Canada. So the obligation exists.

Senator Comeau: Over the years, foundations have been set up and they are not subject to the Official Languages Act. Will that change with bill S-3? Will foundations be subject to the act?

Mr. Lussier: You are raising another interesting legal question. If I fully understand the purpose of your question, it is one of the areas that we are constantly called upon to explore: how far does the federal government want to go in exercising the obligation to take positive measures with respect, namely, to the entities through which its action will be carried out....

Senator Comeau: We as parliamentarians were the ones who authorized the creation of the foundations through legislation and budgets, etc. If governments want to create this kind of foundations, the plans have to be presented to parliamentarians. Our committee should take an interest the next time a new foundation is created. Perhaps we should ask the Senate to look at the bill to see if it meets its needs.

Senator Comeau: I want to quote you something one of the comments prepared by the Library of Parliament:

It should be borne in mind that since February 6, 2006, it is the Minister for Official Languages, the Honourable Josée Verner, who specifically exercises the Canadian Heritage responsibilities for implementation of part VII of the OLA.
Is that true?

Mr. Lussier: Yes.

Ms. MacDonald: I took care to use the word "promotion" on my briefing notes. Our aim, when we talk to federal representatives, is to make sure that they do as much as possible to promote French and English. In the suggestions by the various departments that we met with, we found that there are some interesting things being done. On page 22 of my deck — where it will now say "will promote linguistic duality" — you have all sorts of big things and small things being done by federal institutions that can be replicated by the huge number of government offices across the country to have a major and positive impact. Ways are indicated to help federal employees retain their second language. I have encouraged them to buy theatre tickets, since the cultural infrastructure is trying to get the critical mass it needs to help theatres and actors survive. I would have liked to buy them tickets, but I think it would be difficult to do so with the Accountability Act. When I was in Vancouver, however, I learned that a contract had been awarded to a firm to help employees keep up their French. Part of the contract involved having the employees attend five cultural events. This presumably means that tickets would be bought for a number of cultural events, which would support the cultural organizations as well as help the federal employees with their second language.

Mr. Lussier: …federal institutions advertising in weekly publications…

Senator Robichaud: It is even more positive to communicate with them in French. Often, these small companies, and community radio stations are another example, operate right at the profitability threshold and often beneath it. That is how we could help them offer a better service, serve more people and get some momentum. I think that that would be a way not only of informing them but also of helping them and making them profitable.

What a mess.

[Wally]

doctorftf commented:

What a mess.

Indeed. And there is no end to it. Take Canada Day, for instance.

Quebec received half of the funding for Canada Day celebrations. Harper government reversed the previous Liberal government's decision to reduce funding for Quebec amid accusations of unfairness. This year, Quebec (7 million population) supposed to receive $3.1 mln., but Harper increased it (restored) to $3.7 mln.

Ontario received $1 (one) mln!!! It is a slap in the face to 12 million Ontarians.

Harper continues the corrupt tradition of post-Trudeau PMs of selling English Canada out to Quebec.

[doctorftf]

doctorftf commented:

What a mess.

Indeed. And there is no end to it. Take Canada Day, for instance.

Quebec received half of the funding for Canada Day celebrations. Harper government reversed the previous Liberal government's decision to reduce funding for Quebec amid accusations of unfairness. This year, Quebec (7 million population) supposed to receive $3.1 mln., but Harper increased it (restored) to $3.7 mln.

Ontario received $1 (one) mln!!! It is a slap in the face to 12 million Ontarians.

Harper continues the corrupt tradition of post-Trudeau PMs of selling English Canada out to Quebec.

Just beautiful.

[kowalski]

As if that was'nt enough. No sales reps from the Cuervo Corp. Ltd even bothered to show up in Canada on Canada Day and throw a coplimentary tequila party,even though we are signatorys to the NAFTA agreement.