Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can prove that a few points are seriously erroneous and fail to take Quebec into account. if that warrants your attention, Magnamoticflux. Other points that our friend ChevySpoons makes are highly subjective and biased. ChevySpoons appears fairly well educated and capable of structured discourse, notwithstanding his politically charged twist.
Hate to break it to you PB but Quebec,French and its culture are for the most part irrelevant outside the borders of Quebec. basically its not talked about,not cared about and not wanted. In fact its only the meaningless federal laws mandating a feeble attempt at bilingualism that keep this linguistic boondoggle alive outside Quebec.
However thanks to CD forum we can make tempests in tea pots by clogging up the Canadian section of the forum with topic after topic of vitally important discourse on the phenomenally interesting subject that is Quebec.
However thanks to CD forum we can make tempests in tea pots by clogging up the Canadian section of the forum with topic after topic of vitally important discourse on the phenomenally interesting subject that is Quebec.
No one is preventing you or anyone else from starting a bunch of threads on the phenomenally interesting rest of the country...
Hate to break it to you PB but Quebec,French and its culture are for the most part irrelevant outside the borders of Quebec. basically its not talked about,not cared about and not wanted. In fact its only the meaningless federal laws mandating a feeble attempt at bilingualism that keep this linguistic boondoggle alive outside Quebec.
However thanks to CD forum we can make tempests in tea pots by clogging up the Canadian section of the forum with topic after topic of vitally important discourse on the phenomenally interesting subject that is Quebec.
Uh, speak for yourself, jambo. Do you think you speak for all 27 million Canadians outside of Quebec?
There ARE some of us who DO talk about, care about, and want Quebec and its French culture. We love the fact that Quebec's culture IS distinct, and we feel that it should be respected and preserved. And anyone who doesn't think so has obviously never lived there. Period.
Well, let's see. Canada in 1973 was a very different place than it is today, so we must take that into account.
Still, seeing Canada's head of state--that is, the Queen--on Canadian money shouldn't have come as a surprise, especially to an American. Americans have been putting heads of state on their currency since forever: Washington on the $1 bill, Jefferson on the $2 bill, Lincoln on the $5 bill, and so on. Neither Alexander Hamilton ($10 bill) nor Benjamin Franklin ($100 bill) were US heads of state, but they are also on American currency--and in the 1969 Bank of Canada series of banknotes, for the first time in Canada's history, former PMs appeared: Wilfrid Laurier appeared on the $5 bill, Macdonald on the $10 bill, King on the $50 bill, and Borden on the $100 bill. But in Canada, prime ministers, like Franklin and Hamilton, are not heads of state. By 1973, he would not have seen every bill in his wallet bear a portrait of the Queen.
On coins? Sure. But not all: as I recall in 1973, there were still plenty of George VI pennies, and fewer George V pennies, in circulation. Canada got rid of silver dimes and quarters in about 1968, so those were being hoarded by collectors, and post-1968 Elizabeth coins were very common.
Our friend continues:
I'm glad to see that he realized that his US constitutional rights did not extend outside the US; but I am equally saddened to hear his "media silenced" story, which I can only call BS on. "The kidnapping of government ministers" has only happened once in our history, and it wasn't plural; it was singular: "minister." Yes, Pierre Laporte, a Quebec cabinet minister, was kidnapped in 1970 by the FLQ, which later executed him, but I do not recall any press censorship. On the contrary, the broadcast media gave minute-by-minute updates on the situation, while the print media caught up in extra late editions and extra morning editions. With such widespread news coverage, there was no need to demonstrate that there wasn't any news coverage.
Needless to say, the Liberal government in Ottawa never imposed press censorship. Hell, to this day, you can still watch YouTube clips of Prime Minister Trudeau telling reporters to "Just watch me." In spite of the fact that there was no Charter s. 2(b) in those days, the principle of "freedom of speech" was ingrained in the Canadian psyche, and part of Canada's "rule of law" obligations; and to offend those was to commit political suicide.
"Big white spaces" on the front page of the Vancouver Sun? I'll need a cite for that, and I will only accept one from the Vancouver Sun archives. Should it be true--and I'll allow that it just might--I'm 99.999% sure that the government had nothing to do with it. In such a case, it may have had more to do with an editor who was waiting for news, got none to put in the space he allocated for it by the deadline, and ran the presses anyway, saving the space for the next edition.
Let's continue:
Now here, our friend is getting a history lesson from somebody who, by their very qualifications as a forester, is not a historian. Of course, the lecturer may have been subject to the same history lessons as the rest of us in high school, but I can, to this day, point out where at least one of my high school teachers was wrong. And so, it appears, was at least one of this lecturer's high school teachers.
The Hudson's Bay Company did not found Canada. It played an important role in trade and settlement, and I have heard more than one legal history professor remark that Canada as we know it today would not exist without the Hudson's Bay Company. But none of them, nor any historians, assert that the Hudson's Bay Company "founded Canada."
Next, the claim that "the reason Canadians have socialized medicine is it began as a corporate benefit." Here, I will give him part-marks, as prior to adopting provincial health insurance, Canadians did have private health insurance, just as Americans do nowadays. I was a child in Ontario, and I was alive prior to OHIP, and I had a couple of surgical operations as a child that were covered by the heath insurance my Dad got through his employer. It was a corporate benefit, in other words.
But to link "corporate benefit" to "socialized medicine" is stretching it, I think. If that was the case, we'd see all 50 states, where health insurance is a corporate benefit, eagerly embracing socialized medicine. But they are not. Logically, then, health insurance as a corporate benefit does not necessarily lead to "socialized medicine."
It certainly did not in Canada. What Canada has is not socialized medicine--it is a single-payer health insurance plan, where physicians remain self-employed, and simply bill the provincial plan every time they see a covered patient. If the patient is not covered by the provincial plan, the physician will gladly bill the necessary insurer (often done in the case of visiting Americans who need care and have a policy from an American insurer), or accept cash or credit cards. Homer Simpson incorrectly asserted, on his visit to Toronto, that "it's okay Marge--they have free health care." Well, maybe in a socialized system, we would. But it's not, and we don't.
It's late, Nat, and I've probably missed a few points, but I'm tired. Can I call it a night for now?
Brilliant Chevy, simply brilliant. Thanks so much. I enjoyed that LOL
Hate to break it to you PB but Quebec,French and its culture are for the most part irrelevant outside the borders of Quebec. basically its not talked about,not cared about and not wanted. In fact its only the meaningless federal laws mandating a feeble attempt at bilingualism that keep this linguistic boondoggle alive outside Quebec.
However thanks to CD forum we can make tempests in tea pots by clogging up the Canadian section of the forum with topic after topic of vitally important discourse on the phenomenally interesting subject that is Quebec.
You live in Quebec and aren't from the ROC, I think it's a bit presumptuous to try and speak for it.
They actually juuuuuuust changed it in BC so that liquor can now be sold in grocery stores, like last week. So far there's just one grocery store in Surrey doing it. It's a ridiculous model though, where you need to open up a tiny separate liquor store in your grocery store, with all sorts of restrictions and bureaucratic insanity. I expect whenever Ontario liberalizes its alcohol laws it'll be a similar political f*** u* navigating entrenched interests, special interests, and the general political need to patronize and make everything needlessly complex.
I agree. It's a stupid way to do it. As stupid as our " Happy Hour " which is a farce and hasn't really caught on because there really is no point with all the restrictions.
You live in Quebec and aren't from the ROC, I think it's a bit presumptuous to try and speak for it.
Its a discussion forum,without some measure of stereotyping there wouldnt be much of a forum.
As for speaking for the ROC?i'm out of Quebec as much as i'm in it and as an Anglo Canadian i am fully in touch with what many outside Quebec feel about Quebec, it aint pretty. When the next referendum happens there wont be that massive outpouring of camaraderie from the ROC that there was on the last one, it will be more of a close the door behind you attitude..
I'm from Niagara Falls, Ontario originally and currently live in St. Catharines, Ontario and honestly, I don't get that statement. I've never noticed any residents here having the opinion that we are a "spillover of Buffalo." To be quite honest, it's an area I'd say most of us avoid like the plague as well unless there is somewhere in particular we need to go that happens to be in that area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis3000
The whole Niagara Falls/St Catherines area is basically a spillover of Buffalo. Most people from Ontario are well aware of that. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp
St. Catharines (not the 'a', not an 'e'), located about a 45 minute drive from Buffalo (and before the QEW was built, probably 2 hours by car) is a spillover of Buffalo?
I think not.
The only Canadian town that could even remotely be considered a suburb of Buffalo would be Fort Erie, and I am not even sure Fort Erie qualifies as a suburb based on commuting patterns.
They aren't a Spillover but there is a mutual partnership. People from Buffalo use Niagara for entertainment and recreational purposes, where as people from Niagara come over to use facilities (retail, Airport, etc).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
