Asking all English Canadians

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Asher
Calgary competes very well for corporate jobs.

It's second only to Toronto in terms of corporate HQ counts in Canada, and it's the 5th(?) largest city in terms of population. That's a good ratio.

Not really. Those statistics are always trotted out to make it seem better than it is. You wouldn't really see it until you are immersed in the corporate world with a broad view of how things work. For example, Calgary likes to tout itself as a major Canadian banking centre. True, it's probably the second largest one in the country, but all the major banks have relatively small divisional operations out there, almost exclusively based on the oil industry, and the volume of work (and corresponding work force) is barely a blip on the radar when compared to that done in Toronto.

So yeah, Calgary has the "second largest concentration of corporate head offices in Canada", but that's not saying much. The general bredth and depth of opportunities, along with the opportunities for advancement, are almost immesurably higher in Toronto than anywhere else in Canada.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
The general bredth and depth of opportunities, along with the opportunities for advancement, are almost immesurably higher in Toronto than anywhere else in Canada.

I have to agree. Its part of the reason I am gald I am in the oil industry where the best opportunites are here in Calgaryand where Toronto is almost never an option. heck Halifax or St. John's are more likely ( and more personally preferable)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Despite all of this, though, a majority of French Canadians would vote YES (56-58%) and are only held back by the Anglo minority. The national sentiment is here to stay, and I don't see it significantly going down in the next 10 or 20 years.

Untrue. Your numbers are accurate for 1995. Not even close to accurate today. A majority of French Canadians would vote no today, and that's been true since about 1996.

Plus the "Anglo" minority isn't really as Anglo any more. Those allophones have this pesky tendency to realise how good they've got it and not wanting to screw with it.

[KrazyHorse]

And don't think I'm unsympathetic to the Québecois cause. If it was still 1960 I would vote for sovereignty. My family's never been rich, but I know my history. I feel we've moved on since then, and that sovereigntists today are still reacting to slights against their ancestors. French Canada today is not disenfranchised. In fact, I think that one of the things I'm proudest of Canada for is its ability to (so far) heal the rift between the two solitudes.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


And of course, in the South, a majority of White Americans would vote YES to secession if only they weren't held back by the Black minority.

Don't even start to think about beginning to compare the Anglo minority to the Black one, that's just silly.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil


Separatists often hold and sometimes express this opinion. It's the ethnics and minorities (as one of their more eloquent leaders protested) that are keeping the true Quebecers down. It's insulting, undemocratic and wrong.

Not exactly, and your interpretation of what I said is too quick in blaming me.

The issue at stake here is delicate, and despite its racial/racist appearance, it does involve genuine concerns. Most Quebecois, even the federalist ones, feel like the major problem of the federation is that it doesn't truly and sufficiently recognizes the difference between the two founding people.

When someone talks about a 'true' Québécois, he's not being as racist as many would have it: this behavior is also a reaction to the legal denial of the existence of Quebec as a founding nation. If it's ok for an immigrant to call himself "Canadian" - and of course it is -, if a Quebecer can say he's a Quebecer and not a "true" Canadian, then why can't it be said that some people aren't "true" Quebecers?

Ethnic identities do exist, racial profiling of political beliefs can be done (it's been widely discussed in the American election). Pointing out what the French-Canadians think of an option is not wrong per se; claiming that they are being held back do not question the democratic legitimacy of minority vote in a referendum; however, it speaks on how some people, at a more fundamental level, feel their belonging to a cultural identity and will translate it into political action.

[notyoueither]

When someone says that a resident of Quebec is not pur laine, that is one thing. When someone says that a resident of Quebec is an illigitimate resident of that province, that is quite another.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Most Quebecois, even the federalist ones, feel like the major problem of the federation is that it doesn't truly and sufficiently recognizes the difference between the two founding people.

In most places I've lived outside of Canada, people think Quebec is in effect (if not in fact) a seperate country. In what way arent these differences recognized and what changes are supposed to be made?

[Wezil]

Oncle - The problem arises when the 'true Quebecer' separatist uses the ethnic reality to argue that ALL of Quebec should be sovereign.

This not only disregards the rights and aspirations of non-francophones who have been in the province FROM THE BEGINNING (natives, Scottish, etc.) but distorts the intent of Confederation. Yes, there were 'founding peoples' of this country but the Constitution was designed on provincial NOT ethnic lines.

I would never deny an oppressed minority the right to self determination. I will deny them the right to deprive others of their EQUALLY valid citizenship.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SpencerH


In most places I've lived outside of Canada, people think Quebec is in effect (if not in fact) a seperate country. In what way arent these differences recognized and what changes are supposed to be made?

What you often see Spencer is what we call 'opting out' of federal programs. What this means is that when the federal government sends a new program down the pipe Quebec will take the cash allocated for the program in that province and administer the program itself w/o federal involvement. Their argument being the cash was theirs anyway (paid in taxes) and the feds should not dictate how it is spent.

While this sometimes results in a disconnect between a program offered in Quebec and the similar program elsewhere in the country, for the most part Canadians outside Quebec don't really care.

Oddly enough I have some sympathy for Quebec's insistance on running its own affairs. The historical record in this country is one of the federal government intruding all over provincial rights whenever it suits them. Sadly, the provinces frequently (almost always) step aside and let the feds assume the jurisdiction. Quebec in this respect has balls and usually says no. Just send the cheque.

Was this what you were referring to Spencer?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
When someone says that a resident of Quebec is not pur laine, that is one thing. When someone says that a resident of Quebec is an illigitimate resident of that province, that is quite another.

Of course. I hope you and Wezil understand though that the mere use of the word "pure laine" is considered racist by some mediatic establishment.

Personally, I think we should all be careful about this, because ethnioc distinctions are a tricky affair, but OTOH I don't see what's wrong with saying that someone who doesn't even consider himself a Quebecer is not a true one, as long it doesn't translate into some sort of assumption about who should or shouldn't vote.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This thread is an interesting read

Oncle Boris:
Why are you an independantist?

I don't know for sure.

Ottawa is an intrusive and self-serving government in many regards, and I feel like many of their decisions violate the sovereignty of what is, arguably enough, a nation without a state. Would the decisions taken at Quebec truly be that much different from those taken at Ottawa? Honestly, I doubt it, except for maybe for immigration and culture.

I think for me the issue becomes one of national legitimacy: I am not convinced of the benefits independance would bring on economic or social issues, because Quebec would be so small it would have its hands tied in the back anyway when dealing with Canada and, obviously, America. Pleasant surprises can always come, but it seems that those who are separatists because they hope that a leftist agenda could be made easier in an independant Quebec are being naive.

Ultimately, though, my case rests on the national feeling within me, conveyed through culture and language; I believe in the democratic legitimacy of self-affirmation, and I would feel like a wuss if I voted against it.

In other words, independance for me is an attractive challenge to tackle, and not a clear solution to clear problems.

[Spiffor]

Thanks for your answer

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Don't even start to think about beginning to compare the Anglo minority to the Black one, that's just silly.

My point was that you're just complaining about an ethnic (well, that's not the right word exactly, but it'll serve) minority holding back the "true Quebecois". It's absurd, and the analogy is a good one.

[KrazyHorse]

Your analogy breaks down on at least 2 levels:

The whites in the South are not, AFAIK in favour of secession
The blacks in the South were historically the victims of oppression