'Pandering' to Quebecers hurts nation

[Edward Campbell]

Interesting piece from Jack Granatstein in today's National Post:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=82853261-bd35-49ab-a17f-a0338815c36b

'Pandering' to Quebecers hurts nation
historian: 'Recipe for discord'

Don Butler

CanWest News Service

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

OTTAWA - Quebecers dictate Canada's foreign policy to the detriment of its national interest and unity, an eminent historian asserted yesterday.

Canada's decisions to stay out of the Iraq war and the U.S. missile defence program were driven by overwhelming opposition in Quebec -- views not shared to the same degree by the rest of Canada, Jack Granatstein told the annual Ottawa conference of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute.

"French-Canadians have largely shaped our defence and foreign policy since 1968," Mr. Granatstein said. "If it's bad policy to let Canadian Jews or Canadian Muslims have undue influence on Canadian policy toward Israel, it's similarly bad policy to let French-Canadians determine Canadian foreign policy."

Mr. Granatstein, a former director of the Canadian War Museum, added: "Is that too strong, to say it that way?"

Allowing Quebecers to determine Canada's policy on Iraq and missile defence damaged our national interest because our economy depends on trade with the United States, he said.

"We're extremely vulnerable when the United States is unhappy with us. In neither case was there any leadership from Ottawa to try to persuade Quebec that the economy, their jobs, their pocketbook might actually matter more than whether or not Canada supported the U.S. in Iraq or supported ballistic missile defence."

Letting Quebec set the foreign policy agenda also strains national unity, Mr. Granatstein argued, who noted that polls showed a 40-percentage-point difference in support for Canadian involvement in Iraq between Alberta and Quebec at one point.

"Trying to give Quebec what it wants hurts the country. Trying to follow our national interests, which are the same in Quebec, might help keep it together if we have prime ministers who are willing to educate, explain and lead."

Canada needs to do much more to integrate newcomers from non-traditional countries, who now comprise the vast majority of immigrants. "We must make Canadians of those who come here," he declared, adding that polls show Canadians "want immigrants to understand that we are part of Western civilization, with all its values."

Within several ethnic immigrant groups, he noted, Canada has "failed to erase the link of blood and soil." A prime example was the conflict that tore apart the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, he said. "Serbs and Croats got into scuffles on the streets of Toronto. They raised funds for the old country, and many returned to Serbia or Croatia to lend the political and military muscle to the war."

Gojko Susak, a Croat emigre who lived in Canada for 20 years, became Croatia's minister of defence and used his Canadian connections to raise $200-million for weapons and aid. He died in 1998, but not before presiding over the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia's Medak Pocket.

"Canada simply failed to turn Susak into a Canadian," Mr. Granatstein said. "His allegiance was to Croatia first, last and always."

Similarly, some in the Sikh, Sri Lankan, Ukrainian, Muslim and Jewish communities have advocated policies based primarily on the interests of their home countries. "These things may be right or wrong in and of themselves," the historian said. "But they ought to be Canadian policy only if they are done not to win support from the padrones of the ethnic group, but whether they serve our interests.

Foreign policy, he said, must be based on what's important to Canadians as a whole. "Anything else is a recipe for fragmentation, for division, for discord."

Failure to do so guarantees that hyphenated Canadians will be locked up as enemy aliens or supporters in the event of a future war, he predicted.

"The Charter notwithstanding, they'll be locked up to meet the demands of their neighbours."

© National Post 2005

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

The hyphenated-Canadians remark resonates with me.  We, Canada as a whole, appear unable, perhaps just unwilling, to 'Canadianize' our new citizens.  I don't expect immigrants (as opposed to refugees) to forget the 'old country' - my grandmother never did - but I do expect them 'shake the dirt - the 'old country' dirt - off their boots and get on with the task of building new lives for themselves and their Canadian children and grandchildren here.  The folks who stayed back there can fix (or f__k) things back there.

We should also realize that the Québec intelligentsia, which does, I believe, set the national policy agenda, shares it values with other parts of Canada - including the Toronto wing of that family.

 

[George Wallace]

So our form of "Multiculturalism" is a failure, to put it bluntly, in his opinion?

Would the Separation of Quebec, or just kick them out, solve the age old problem of Quebec being against any 'Military expeditionary forces' outside of Canada?  It would probably only succeed in destroying the nation.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I don't see him advocating kicking Quebec out, or allowing them to separate.  I think that although he may have chosen poor wording, he is in fact correct.  The fear of alienating "Les Quebequois" certainly does have a huge influence in the decision making in Ottawa.  The federal government will do nothing that may fan the fires of separation, hence 22% of the population have an influence far beyond their numbers.

 

[Gunnar]

Giving special treatment to any minority, linguistic, cultural or racial, even if it's special treatment for one guy "Steve" does a disservice to every hard-working person who is doing the best they can.

It means that underprivileged (less capable, etc.) people get to invalidate your hard work, as they are given positions they don't deserve, because of their perceived disadvantage.   Similarly, it inculcates racism, as the minority is being promoted at the expense of the majority because "well, you wouldn't really expect those types" to do it on their own, now would you?

So, the majority has their hard work invalidated because of "social readjustment", and the hard work and integrity of the "underprivileged" person/group/race/Steve, who have also put in hard work and actually may DESERVE the position/contract/privilege they get, is similarly invalidated, as the people involved are perceived as having their benefits provided on a silver platter.

This takes two classes of people, the privileged and underprivileged due to ability and talent, and artificially divides them into two classes of people:   the privileged and underprivileged based on arbitrary rules.   This annoys anyone who's ever earned a day's pay, and makes them wonder why they should bother trying.   Then the lazy and shiftless, who never cared to work anyway, either start screaming for their underprivileged "rights", or screaming about "those darn minorities".

Treat everyone as PEOPLE, and base their treatment on their ACHIEVEMENTS, and you don't have that problem.  

What the heck am I talking about?   This is a political issue.

Put simply, treat Quebecers as part of the federation (not a special part, not a disadvantaged part), who may have different ideas than the rest of us but who are entitled to a vote in a democratic way (because they are our equals.   If they want to convince us of their ideas, then they are free to try...but they don't get vetoes because Ottawa doesn't want to make them feel bad).   Stop pandering to the swing vote, and try to GOVERN...wouldn't that be cool?

 

[George Wallace]

Put simply, treat Quebecers as part of the federation (not a special part, not a disadvantaged part), who may have different ideas than the rest of us but who are entitled to a vote in a democratic way (because they are our equals.   If they want to convince us of their ideas, then they are free to try...but they don't get vetos svetoes because Ottawa doesn't want to make them feel bad).   Stop pandering to the swing vote, and try to GOVERN...wouldn't that be cool?

That, I see as our only solution.  If only we could make it work.  Equality for all; all across the board.  No favorites.

 

[Gunnar]

A good chunk of Canada, like most of Ontario, is in the same boat.  It isn't that Quebec is the bratty child, it's just that it's the bratty child that isn't bratty in the same way as the other bratty children.

It's hard to love a country run by idiots, for idiots, and defended by people who are forced to watch the idiots ruin what's left. 

 

[geo]

That, I see as our only solution.  If only we could make it work.  Equality for all; all across the board.  No favorites.

George,
where do you draw the lin on equality.... equality of power A& influence
Equality in language & faith?... "speak english you french sw!%&" as it were.
Do we stop pandering to the Amerindians & do away with their reservations?

The new GG was one that hit the nail on the head when she refered on the need to dispense with the "two solitudes"... that it was time to move on.

I am of the opinion that if someone has left his country & asks for Cdn citzenship, he has indicated that he wants to go away from what he has lived in the old country... so no Chador, Burkha, Yamulka, turban, etc, etc.....
so no bibles, koran, torah, etc, etc....

 

[Infanteer]

The way I see it the real dividing issue is language.  If you strip the French/English barrier away, then you just have people that are seperated by degrees of ideology like Newfs are different from BC hippies or Alberta rednecks.

My solution, make bilingualism true bilingualism and not just Constitutionally protected "either/or" segregation.  All children in Canada will learn both French and English at school (perhaps alternating days).  Hard to do?  Sure, but something to work towards.  If we can get D9'ers kid into French Immersion in Northern BC, then anything is possible.

 

[x-grunt]

It means that underprivileged (less capable, etc.) people get to invalidate your hard work, as they are given positions they don't deserve

A good chunk of Canada, like most of Ontario, is in the same boat.  It isn't that Quebec is the bratty child, it's just that it's the bratty child that isn't bratty in the same way as the other bratty children.

It's hard to love a country run by idiots, for idiots, and defended by people who are forced to watch the idiots ruin what's left. 

Wow.
(warning, sarcasm follows)
I learned a lot from your post.  There are things about myself I never really acknowledged before.  For instance
1. I'm not as deserving as decent folk.  You see I was born into poverty stricken mixed-race family and didn't realize all of the advantages and privileges that that gave me.  Apparently all of the hardships, barriers, racial bigotry, and other misfortunes that seem to have come from my mixed-race background were just figments of my imagination.  Thanks for setting me straight.
2. I am an idiot.  Apparently as I am currently a civilian and no longer with the military. Only serving military personnel defending the country (which, by the way, I am ruining) have the lofty wisdom of serving military personnel, who by inference have the inside track on curing all of the ills of our complex society.
3. I am a brat-with all of the sloth, arrogance and ignorance that comes with being a brat-simply because I live where I do. it is important to recognize that any personal qualities I have are irrelevant and overridden by the simple fact that I live in Ontario.

(OK, sarcasm mode off.) 
Reading your posts in this thread, is like watching a car wreck...it's an awful sight but fascinating. Your prejudices are just awesome, and insulting too.

I may be off base here, but I'm going to guess you are white, middle class background, servng military, and somewhere west of Ontario. I say this because you have essentially just said that practically everyone else is an idiot, or lazy, or a brat, or all three. I think that's covering a large chunk of people on this forum. I'd appreciate it if you would stop generalizing your attitudes to most of Canada.

Truth be known, I agree with a bit of what you say, esp, about the brat thing. (At the gov't level, all provinces seem to have brat attacks).  But I do not agree at all with how you are saying it.

 

[Infanteer]

I think you're reading that statement wrong - I'm not inferring the same thing.  As well, you are making a lot of (incorrect) assumptions about Gunnar.

 

[couchcommander]

That, I see as our only solution.   If only we could make it work.   Equality for all; all across the board.   No favorites.

George,
where do you draw the lin on equality.... equality of power A& influence
Equality in language & faith?... "speak english you french sw!%&" as it were.
Do we stop pandering to the Amerindians & do away with their reservations?

I think what George was getting at was :

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability....

Interestingly this is from our own charter of rights of freedoms, and is an amazing statement, and one which I choose to live my life by. The part that has caused all of these problems, in my personal, humble view, is what follows directly under it:

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

..... f**ck people, and that is how you screw up a perfectly good Constitution. Oh yes, everyone is equal, but no, we are allowed to discriminate in certain circumstances (little do they realize that reverse discrimination produces much of the same social disharmony as what we view as "normal" discrimination, ie by making distinctions based upon on the differences between certain groups (namely giving aid or making laws to help various groups who are defined by a certain characteristic, ie Native, immigrant, quebecer, rather than simply by the fact that they are Canadian and need help) you bring attention to these differences (in this case, race, origin, culture), if you bring attention to these differences, people will take more notice of said differences, if people take more notice of said differences, they may start to think in terms of "us" and "them", if people think in terms of "us" and "them" then they are not thinking "us" as in a unifed nation)

 

[GO!!!]

X-grunt

I like your use of sarcasm, but that's about it.

I'm just curious, what is your position on such topics as affirmative action, the official languages act and such policies as "diversity quotas and bonuses"?

Since I'm just a banjo pickin' redneck living here out west, wallowing in my whiteness at the top of the social food chain, could you enlighten me?

I just don't understand why when members of my family applied to organisations like the RCMP, and were told flat out they were the top candidate, but they were lacking in "other" requirements, that I should be happy! I mean, it's making canada stronger - right?

Why should people be fast - tracked for the color of their skin? How does this help us in the long run?

Simple opposition to a policy is pointless without a solution.

I personally favour geo's proposition - no favourites. No status indians, no multiculturalism, no languages act, no diversity training. ALL are equal.

Cheers

 

[daniel h.]

So our form of "Multiculturalism" is a failure, to put it bluntly, in his opinion?

Would the Separation of Quebec, or just kick them out, solve the age old problem of Quebec being against any 'Military expeditionary forces' outside of Canada?   It would probably only succeed in destroying the nation.

I think multiculturalism should be replaced with bilculturalim--the real Canada--English and French. We don't need to pander to the French Canadians if the federal government is run in a competent manner.

I also completely disagree that Canadians outside Quebec wanted to go to war in Iraq--as much as the American media missed the French President Jacques Chirac, the justification for war, WMDs, has now been confirmed as false. This makes the war's justification illegitimate if you believe that we should take the reason for the war at face value.

 

[daniel h.]

X-grunt

I like your use of sarcasm, but that's about it.

I'm just curious, what is your position on such topics as affirmative action, the official languages act and such policies as "diversity quotas and bonuses"?

Since I'm just a banjo pickin' redneck living here out west, wallowing in my whiteness at the top of the social food chain, could you enlighten me?

I just don't understand why when members of my family applied to organisations like the RCMP, and were told flat out they were the top candidate, but they were lacking in "other" requirements, that I should be happy! I mean, it's making canada stronger - right?

Why should people be fast - tracked for the color of their skin? How does this help us in the long run?

Simple opposition to a policy is pointless without a solution.

I personally favour geo's proposition - no favourites. No status indians, no multiculturalism, no languages act, no diversity training. ALL are equal.

Cheers

You've touched on some interesting and increasingly popular topics for discussion. You end by stating "All are equal", no special treatment, but it was the "All are equal" nonsense that got us into this mess.

Internationalist one-world socialists like Pierre Trudeau in every western country have been forcing large numbers of "non-traditional" immigrants in inflated numbers, at taxpayer's expense to settle and take care of many of them. Instead of Jack Granatstein's idea of forcing them to assimilate, why not simply recognize that we never did support this change to our ethnic balance, it is a threat to our nation's stability and future, and make a change?

Few Canadians wanted the real Canada, English and French Canada, to be changed to the degree it is being changed--against our will of course if we bother to read the polls. There's no need to lie, no need to be in denial about what is happening before our very eyes. The destruction, or at least permanent alteration should we not act of the country that Canadians fought to preserve in World War  II.

All cultures are not equal. All races are, despite media brainwashing--not equal, they are all different in numerous ways. This does not mean some should be persecuted or treated with disrespect individually, it simply means we should stop lying that the current policy is working--let alone sane. We have to do what is best for Canada, not the world poor. Jack Granatstein's idea is not feasible IMO. Simply getting someone to dress like a Canadian does NOT make them a Canadian.

Can a Chinese person be Scottish if they wear a kilt? Is an African a German simply because you give them German citizenship? You know what I mean.

It is absurd. If everyone can become a Canadian citizen AND have their culture funded and protected in Canada, then there is no longer any such thing as a Canadian.

This being said, the idea that cultural marxism equals multiculturalism is funny, as culture is a group thing, not an individual thing as the Charter of Rights implies.

 

[Sapper Bloggins]

I personally favour geo's proposition - no favourites. No status indians, no multiculturalism, no languages act, no diversity training. ALL are equal.

Amen brother. Enough of this self-pity.
Cheers.

 

[couchcommander]

You've touched on some interesting and increasingly popular topics for discussion. You end by stating "All are equal", no special treatment, but it was the "All are equal" nonsense that got us into this mess.

Internationalist one-world socialists like Pierre Trudeau in every western country have been forcing large numbers of "non-traditional" immigrants in inflated numbers, at taxpayer's expense to settle and take care of many of them. Instead of Jack Granatstein's idea of forcing them to assimilate, why not simply recognize that we never did support this change to our ethnic balance, it is a threat to our nation's stability and future, and make a change?

Few Canadians wanted the real Canada, English and French Canada, to be changed to the degree it is being changed--against our will of course if we bother to read the polls. There's no need to lie, no need to be in denial about what is happening before our very eyes. The destruction, or at least permanent alteration should we not act of the country that Canadians fought to preserve in World War   II.

All cultures are not equal. All races are, despite media brainwashing--not equal, they are all different in numerous ways. This does not mean some should be persecuted or treated with disrespect individually, it simply means we should stop lying that the current policy is working--let alone sane. We have to do what is best for Canada, not the world poor. Jack Granatstein's idea is not feasible IMO. Simply getting someone to dress like a Canadian does NOT make them a Canadian.

Can a Chinese person be Scottish if they wear a kilt? Is an African a German simply because you give them German citizenship? You know what I mean.

It is absurd. If everyone can become a Canadian citizen AND have their culture funded and protected in Canada, then there is no longer any such thing as a Canadian.

This being said, the idea that cultural marxism equals multiculturalism is funny, as culture is a group thing, not an individual thing as the Charter of Rights implies.

Daniel,

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time following your argument, could you please rephrase for me so that I can keep up?

Re: Charter of Rights, it doesn't really touch on culture, it's point, in large part, is "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination", it's fatal flaw, is that it does not follow this.

I, and some others, really don't care that much about what people choose to do in their spare time. If you want to go take Ukrainian dancing after school, fine, be my guest. If you want to go and participate in some Nigerian pride day, fine, be my guest. We really don't care THAT MUCH about what people do as long as it does not adversly affect us or those we care about.

The point we are trying to make is that institutionalized discrimination (institutionalized "multiculturalism"), no matter how good the intentions, is not really tollerable. Multiculturalism can be a great part of any society, but it should not lead to certain groups of people having better treatment.

...equal before and under the law....

If you want to consider yourself German-Canadian, fine. If you want to consider yourself French-Canadian, fine. You want to consider yourself Aboriginal Canadian, fine. Don't expect me, or MOST IMPORTANTLY, the government or any other institution to do so, or to give you special treatment as a result of it.

IMO different cultures have a lot to add to Canada, and we need not be afraid of them, but the laws of this country need to change, and the government needs to start behaving as though we are all indeed Canadians, equal before and under the law (I think that is what others are getting at as well).

 

[Gunnar]

1. I'm not as deserving as decent folk.  You see I was born into poverty stricken mixed-race family and didn't realize all of the advantages and privileges that that gave me.  Apparently all of the hardships, barriers, racial bigotry, and other misfortunes that seem to have come from my mixed-race background were just figments of my imagination.  Thanks for setting me straight.

I don't care if there's bigotry against you, and you feel that somehow you were disadvantaged because of it.  I don't believe that gives you the right to discriminate against me to "equalize" things.  What the hell did I ever do to you?  Did *I* deny you a job based on your race?  Then why am I to be denied a job due to quotas?  Is reverse discrimination somehow better?  Or worse, since you mention all the "privileges" that it gave you...have you been playing the race card, or have you been playing the competence card?  Cuz as long as you're competent, then this kind of discrimination is an insult to your talent and intelligence, because it isn't being considered when you get something you *deserve*.

See, I'm for equality before the law, i.e., you have a right to everything else a Canadian citizen can expect.  You don't have the right to be promoted because of your background, unless that background makes you a uniquely suited candidate for the job.

2. I am an idiot.  Apparently as I am currently a civilian and no longer with the military. Only serving military personnel defending the country (which, by the way, I am ruining) have the lofty wisdom of serving military personnel, who by inference have the inside track on curing all of the ills of our complex society.

While I will admit that was a broad generalization, I am tempted to agree with you for not understanding that in the first place.  I believe that for the most part, the military is staffed by remnants of what Canada should be, and could have been...but the rest of Canada does not for the most part reflect this ideology.  Hence, the recruitment problems...The military is largely the last defenders of a philosophy which is not reflected by the rest of Canada.

3. I am a brat-with all of the sloth, arrogance and ignorance that comes with being a brat-simply because I live where I do. it is important to recognize that any personal qualities I have are irrelevant and overridden by the simple fact that I live in Ontario.

That's right...what's true of a province must be individually true of every single member, right?  Just like Quebec is a separatist province, and all the Liberals fly in from Toronto just for elections....

There's some talk of the "all are equal" idea being the problem that got us into this mess...what it is, is a failure to understand the difference between equality, and egalitarianism.  Under equality, a genius and a handicapped person can both go to school--the genius is taught to his potential, the handicapped person to theirs (and I mean, to the best of their potential...no unnecessary dumbing down).  Under egalitarianism, the genius and the handicapped person are treated exactly the same....so the genius gets to spend day after day learning average stuff that is really beneath his intellect, and the handicapped person is taught stuff that is above him...and neither is happy, and neither becomes educated to their full potential.

Under equality, black and white people can apply for the same job, and based on qualifications, one or both of them will get the job.  Under egalitarianism, 15% of the population is black, so we'll just defy normal statistics and ensure that 15% of the population gets this job, regardless of qualifications.  (no, I know the numbers aren't right, that's not the point).  Then, the minority who gets the job on his merit, because he's good, knows what he's doing & etc. gets lumped in with the rest of the deadheads who filled the quota.  Betcha that makes him feel proud, like he EARNED where he is, knowing that the idiot next to him is there just because they share a skin colour.

Would you rather share a foxhole with another guy who earned his stripes, or would you rather have some numpty foisted on you because of his race or religion..?  Speaks neither official language well, doesn't know the basics of first aid, couldn't shoot straight if his life (or more importantly, YOURS) depended on it?  Equality means it could be a minority member who shares that foxhole, and we don't care--we're all green.  Egalitarianism means that 15% of foxholes must be staffed by minority members, regardless of qualifications.  Under equality, people are allowed to attempt to do any of the things they want, subject to their own brainpower, experience, etc.  Under egalitarianism, everyone is treated the same, regardless of their brainpower, experience, etc.

 

[Infanteer]

Isn't "egalitarianism" a fancy way of spinning "equality" with a French twist (the root egale)?  :blotto:

 

[54/102 CEF]

To get back to the heart of the question - I say its not even pandering as long as the LIberals can split the Cornservatives with the NDP

We can easily see its all internal politics all the time vs. how Canada can interact with the world.

Pre- Gulf War 2003 the streets of Montreal and Quebec were jammed with people not opposing the murderous regime too hard.

Today - we have Jack Granatstein re-stating the obvious

What I do not hear is the following

Risk Avoidance is not Risk Management

We should seek and interact with Risky Situations to the extent we can influence them for the better.

Until that happens our Foreign Policy is like my Mother-in-law's smile - Toothless

 

[youravatar]

Ok So I'm 16 and i havent been around all that long; but if we keep treating quebecers like outcasts; calling them frogs and disrespecting their language maybe they wouldnt be so pissed off at everyone and wanting to seperate.

I myself am a Quebecer; Proud Canadian; But if the social situation does not improve i don't think the pro-federalism point of view in quebec will either.

thats my 2 cents.

-Tony