Rechercher dans la communauté
Affichage des résultats pour les étiquettes 'canadians'.
18 résultats trouvés
-
https://www.onf.ca/film/helicopter_canada Il y a quelques belles vues de Montréal (29:10) Quelques captures:
-
(Courtesy of the Financial Post) Reason I put it in culture, it seems more of a Quebec culture to be more laid back and no really care about material wealth, but that is my own point of view.
-
[video=youtube;7chpllnU-To] Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Bank+Canada+unveils+secure+plastic+bank+notes/4976595/story.html#ixzz1Pr2CMMca
-
http://www.moneyville.ca/article/952333--plastic-100-bills-here-this-fall-20s-10s-to-follow?bn=1
-
This whole Subban-Richards affair raised a lot of discussion in the media about hockey and the culture of hockey acceptance of things outside of the norm. Lol, in typical Canadian fashion, that's how the discussions were framed, since (white) Canadians are not secure enough or comfortable talking about race, even though race is an under-current of the issue. Not saying that Richards is racist, because I don't know that, but as a Black Canadian myself, the whole discussion raised a lot of questions for me about discrimination in hockey. I never played organized hockey (I don't count the 2,3 games I played in high school back in the mid-1990's), so I don't know. All I know is that when I was growing up I was really into hockey and people would tell me "you shouldn't play hockey", "why are you playing hockey", etc...and that was from my black relatives/family. I've never had a white person tell me those things, but remember that this is Canada, so they may be shy to tell you what they really think. What I do know is that most hockey players who speak a certain way similar to Kirk Muller or Jerome Iginla, get labeled as "good guys" by their teammates, coaches, GM's and media types. I put Iginla's name in there because some of these "good guys" have been black. But is there discrimination in hockey? Yes. I think discrimination does exist in hockey, but I wouldn't go as far as to go "Al Sharpton" or "Jesse Jackson" on their ass, because I don't think it's that widespread. I believe it exist, but at what level, I can't say. I view racism, discrimination and prejudices, like the clouds in the sky: Some days there's more clouds than others. Some places there's more clouds than others. But even on a bright day, with a clear blue sky, If you look close enough at the horizon, you'll see clouds. If you think about it, that's true both in reality and in metaphor. Especially here in Canada where (white) Canadians feel uncomfortable openly discussing issues dealing about race. At least in America, even with the KKK, the Republicans of today and the Democrats of yesterday and other forms of historic institutional racism, (white) Americans can still have intelligent discussions on racial issues on CNN or in other political and/or public forums without fear of being labeled a racist. In Canada, people, especially white Canadians, feel strange talking about that. They "don't want to go there." Are they afraid of speaking their mind? At least in the US you know where people stand. If they don't like you, you'll know. But here in Canada, people are so secretive about their racism that I just keep to my cloud analogy. I'm assuming that analogy is true for hockey as well.
-
Quebec monk declared saint for his 'boundless charity' Sun. Oct. 17 2010 5:19 PM ET The humble Quebec monk who founded Montreal's St. Joseph's Oratory was named a saint by Pope Benedict in a ceremony at the Vatican Sunday. The former Brother Andre, who was credited with miracle healings before his death in 1937, is now known as St. Andre. The Pope told the thousands of faithful gathered for the ceremony, including hundreds of Canadians, that although St. Andre was poorly educated and working at a menial job, he was an inspiration to many faithful. "(As) doorman at the Notre Dame College in Montreal, he showed boundless charity and did everything possible to soothe the despair of those who confided in him," Benedict said. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon led the official Canadian delegation to the ceremony. "Here is a person who throughout his life had a dream, and he was able to pursue that dream, he was able to build the St. Joseph Oratory in Montreal," Cannon told CTV News Channel on Sunday in a telephone interview from Rome. "So I think that when one looks at him, and what he was able to do throughout his life, he will be an inspiration for generations of Canadians to come." Francoise Bessette, whose grandfather was Brother Andre's first cousin, was among the thousands of Canadians in attendance. "I didn't think this would happen while I was alive," said Bessette, whose brother was named after the saint. "So to be here today is very special for me." In Montreal, the faithful crowded around a big-screen television in the Oratory's church to watch the ceremony broadcast live from St. Peter's Square. His elevation to sainthood will carry some worldly benefits for St. Andre's hometown, according to Kevin Wright, the president of the U.S.-based world religious travel association. "When an individual is declared a saint, their shrines attract significant numbers of visitors," Wright told CTV News Channel. "And we're going to see that in Montreal." He said that while the oratory that St. Andre founded is not as big a draw as sites like the French shrine at Lourdes, it already attracts an estimated one million pilgrims a year. And Wright said that St. Andre's sanctification will only boost those numbers. "Over the next couple of years we could see that double and get up to three, four or even five million people. And that's incredible." All the attention and ceremony would likely have embarrassed St. Andre, who was known for his humility and his faith, which has been described by Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte as strong enough "to move mountains." St. Andre was born Alfred Bessette in St-Gregoire-d'Iberville on Aug. 9, 1845, and was orphaned at the age of 12. In 1904, the Holy Cross brother founded Montreal's St. Joseph's Oratory, a landmark church on the northern slope of Mount Royal that receives about 2 million visitors every year. He became known for comforting the sick, and is credited with more than 100,000 miraculous healings before his death in 1937 at age 91. Two of those healings met the Vatican standard for a miracle, reported the Globe and Mail's Eric Reguly from Rome. The drive for the canonization goes back to 1940, when it was started by the Archdiocese of Montreal and the Congregation of Holy Cross and St. Joseph's Oratory. He was declared "venerable" by Pope Paul VI in 1978, and beatified -- declared "blessed" -- by Pope John Paul II in 1982. Benedict announced his canonization in February after officially recognizing a second miracle attributed to him. Brother Andre died at age 91 on Jan. 6, 1937. During the six days and nights before his funeral, more than one million people filed past his coffin. His heart still rests in a small shrine in the Oratory, where he was ultimately laid to rest. The heart, which is on public view as an object of contemplation for pilgrims, is protected by security systems after it was stolen in 1973. Police recovered it almost two years later from the basement of a home near Montreal. Brother Andre follows in the footsteps of Marguerite d'Youville, who was born in 1701 and was the first saint born on what is now Canadian territory. Canada's other saints are Marguerite Bourgeoys, who was born in France in 1620 and is considered the co-founder of Montreal, and eight French-born Jesuit martyrs who were killed during the 1640s. Benedict gave Australia its first saint, canonizing 19th-century nun Mary MacKillop. Also canonized Sunday were Stanislaus Soltys of Poland, Italians Giulia Salzano and Battista Camilla da Varano, and Candida Maria de Jesus Cipitria y Barriola of Spain. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101017/brother-andre-canonized-101017/
-
Gun registry favoured only by Quebecers: poll Last Updated: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 | 4:06 PM ET CBC News A poll suggests Quebecers are alone in wanting to save the long-gun registry, with most Canadians outside the province appearing content to abolish it. The findings in the latest survey by The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima come a week after the House of Commons gave approval in principle to a private member's bill aimed at killing the controversial registry. In Quebec, a majority of respondents say they're opposed to abolishing the registry, which was created after 14 women were killed at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989. Fifty-six per cent of Quebecers polled said they oppose abolishing the registry, in contrast to the majority of people questioned in Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba-Saskatchewan, who support cancelling the registry. Residents in Ontario who participated in the poll were split on the issue, according to Harris-Decima's results. Quebecers also held distinctive views about the registry's role in public security, with more than half of respondents believing it has helped fight and prevent crime. That's about 19 per cent more respondents than the national average of the other provinces. The poll comes as the debate over the long-gun registry slowly inches forward in the House of Commons. Last week a key vote was held on a private member's bill that would wipe out the registry. Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner tabled the bill on the contentious registry. The Bloc Québécois caucus voted against it, while 12 NDP and eight Liberal MPs backed the Conservative caucus in voting for the bill. On the same day as the vote, Quebec's legislature, the national assembly, unanimously adopted a motion reiterating Quebecers' reliance and belief in the registry. The Conservative government has wanted to abolish the registry on the basis that it is expensive and inefficient. The Harris-Decima poll surveyed about 1,000 Canadians by telephone between Nov. 5 and 8. The poll's margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
-
http://web.worldbaseballclassic.com/index.jsp Anyone following it? Canada plays the United States on Saturday and beat the New York Yankees 6-0 in exhibition.
-
Canadian smog costs $1 billion, 2,700 lives: CMA Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 The Canadian Medical Association estimates that by 2031, more than 4,900 Canadians, mostly seniors, will die prematurely each year from the effects of polluted air.Dean Bicknell/Canwest News ServiceThe Canadian Medical Association estimates that by 2031, more than 4,900 Canadians, mostly seniors, will die prematurely each year from the effects of polluted air. OTTAWA -- Smog this year will contribute to the premature deaths of 2,700 Canadians and put 11,000 in hospitals, costing the economy and health-care system $1 billion, Canada's doctors say. A report by the Canadian Medical Association calculates that deaths linked to air pollution will rise over the next two decades, claiming nearly twice as many lives each year and costing $1.3 billion annually in health care and lost productivity. The study estimates that by 2031, more than 4,900 Canadians, mostly seniors, will die prematurely each year from the effects of polluted air. Ontario and Quebec will bear the brunt, with smog-related deaths soaring among aging baby-boomers and the chronically ill. In Ontario, the number of premature deaths could double, to 2,200, from 1,200 per year, while hospital admissions over the same period could jump by as much as 70%. The annual health-care and economic costs could rise by as much as 30%, to $740 million, from $570 million. Quebec's mortality rate could rise by 70%, from 700 a year to 1,200, while hospital admissions could spike by 50% annually, costing the province 10% more, or up to $290 million a year. While smog can trigger lung problems, accounting for up to 40% of hospital visits, heart attack and stroke are the real problems, responsible for more than 60% of all air-pollution-related hospital admissions, the study found. Pollutants such as nitrous oxide damage the heart by harming blood vessels, leading to atherosclerosis, a disease that makes people susceptible to heart attack and stroke. Besides the direct costs to the economy and the health system, the study tries to put a price on the poor quality of life and loss of life caused by smog-related deaths. With those estimated costs included, this year's total bill -- in addition to the $1 billion estimate for economic and health-care costs - would amount to more than $10 billion. That figure would rise to $18 billion a year by 2031, with nearly $16 billion of that the price the doctors' association puts on lost lives. But Gordon McBean, a renowned climatologist at the University of Western Ontario, questioned the accuracy of such estimates. While he praised the report and called most of its data sound, he said the attempt to put a price tag on lost life is problematic. "Health-care costs you can do a reasonably good job quantifying, but quality of life and the actual value of life is a bit difficult," said Mr. McBean, co-author of a recently published Health Canada report on the impact of climate change on human health. As a Canadian representative to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Mr. McBean said the world's top experts have tried unsuccessfully to come up with similar estimates for the human cost of climate change. "That became very controversial because the people who did it said, 'Well, a North American is worth so many thousand dollars and an African is worth a small fraction of that.' And people like me didn't think that was acceptable," he said. Given that climate change likely will lead to more smoggy days, the report does not exaggerate the level of anticipated deaths caused by air pollution, said Mr. McBean. "They're not overstating the problem. If anything, these are lowball estimates."
-
Head offices are worth protecting High-value jobs come with territory DAVID CRANE, Freelance Published: Thursday, July 24 When Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining giant, made a successful $38.1 billion bid for Alcan a year ago, the Quebec government quickly intervened to make sure that Alcan's global head office remained in Montreal. Fortunately, the Quebec government not only had leverage but, in un-Canadian fashion, chose to exercise it. Those with longer memories can recall how, when Stone Container of Chicago acquired Montreal-based Consolidated Bathurst in 1999, the head office was quickly dismantled and most important functions were transferred to Chicago. Head offices clearly matter, and, with the number of high-profile foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, this has triggered fears of a "hollowing out" of the economy. That's why, just over a year ago, the Harper government asked a small group of talented Canadians, led by corporate executive Red Wilson, to tell it what to do. Wilson's panel - the Competition Policy Review Panel - has now delivered its report, with many important proposals to improve the competitiveness of Canadian companies and build more Canadian multinationals. But Wilson's panel has not been successful in designing an effective policy on foreign takeovers that balances Canada's commitment to an open economy with the need for a stronger business sector headquartered in Canada. Our experience tells us that head offices of large corporations bring many benefits, the panel says. "When a Canadian company is acquired by another Canadian company, Canada loses a head office but gains a stronger company. When the acquirer is foreign, Canada loses a head office and a company," it contends, arguing that foreign takeovers affect career opportunities for Canadians as well as many community benefits associated with large head offices. As the panel stresses, "the head office of an enterprise is its 'brain.' It is the place where strategy and other critical decisions are made by its key management personnel." When a Canadian firm is acquired by a foreign enterprise, decisions that once were made in Canada are now made in another part of the world where Canadian interests may have little importance. Head offices provide high-skill, high-paying jobs. And as the panel points out, head offices also support many other jobs "by attracting high-value business services - legal, accounting, consulting, information technologies, marketing and advertising - to the community." But the panel's solution to foreign takeovers is not to propose stronger rules on foreign takeovers but to advocate policies to develop a new generation of Canadian-based multinationals, companies like CAE, Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin, as well as making Canada more attractive for divisional headquarters of foreign multinationals, as happened with Alcan. These are important proposals and we should certainly do all we can. But even if we do a better job of creating new companies, the best of them could also become foreign takeover targets. So we would be growing seed corn for foreign multinationals or, as it has been put, "growing guppies to feed the sharks." Moreover, the panel would make it even easier for foreign corporations to acquire budding Canadian multinationals by limiting Investment Canada screening of foreign takeovers to companies with a value of $1 billion or more, compared with the current level of about $295 million. This would be a mistake - we should keep as much screening scope as possible. The panel does propose that instead of judging foreign takeovers on a vague test of "net benefit" to Canada, that negotiation of proposed takeovers be based on a test of "Canada's national interest." Australia, which uses the "national interest" test for takeovers of about $100 million or more, has shown it's possible to use this approach to negotiate strong terms or alternatively to say no. For example, according to Secor Consulting, when BHP Ltd. of Australia and Billiton Plc of Britain merged in 2001 to create BHP Billiton, Australia required that the company continue to be an Australian, managed in Australia and listed on the Australian stock exchange. The global headquarters had to be in Australia, both the CEO and CFO had to have their principal places of residence, offices and key supporting functions in Australia and the majority of all regularly scheduled board and executive committee meetings had to occur in Australia. So the "national interest" test could make sense. But it would have to be carefully defined to give Canadians confidence that Ottawa would really stand up for Canadian interests. The panel also proposes easing Canada's foreign takeover restrictions on foreign ownership of Canadian airlines, telecommunications companies and broadcasters. But it's hard to see clear benefits. One important recommendation the panel does make is to give directors of Canadian corporations more power to say "no" to foreign takeover bids. Today, directors are typically forced to become "auctioneers" and find an alternative buyer in response to an unwanted bid. In the U.S., directors have much greater capacity to simply say "no." Canada should continue to screen foreign takeovers, but with a more rigorous and more transparent negotiation of conditions and a greater readiness to say no, while improving the ability of corporate boards to reject unwelcome takeovers. Canada should also focus more on attracting foreign corporations to launch new businesses here, not take over our existing ones. David Crane is a Canadian writer who closely follows innovation and globalization issues. He can be reached at crane@ interlog.com. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=65bbef64-3d8f-401e-8ad2-7790f7f4bcd1&p=2
-
Has Canada slipped into recession without anyone noticing?
un sujet a posté ErickMontreal dans L'actualité
Has Canada slipped into recession without anyone noticing? July 16, 2008 - 6:35 pm By: Julian Beltrame, THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA - Canada is within a hair's breadth of slipping into a technical recession, economists said Wednesday, a day after the outlook for the North American economy soured sharply. But they add that it won't seem like recessions of the past. In fact, says University of Toronto economist Peter Dungan, Canadians may already have lived through a technical recession - two quarters in a row of a shrinking economy - and not noticed. "Our forecast is there's a recession now," Dungan said. "There may be a slight revision to the first quarter, but the second (which ended June 30) is almost certainly negative. "This is nothing like the recessions we had in the early '90s and early '80s, however, when we had serious recessions and serious unemployment," he added. The early '80s recession came after two major oil price shocks in the 1970s that battered the North American economy and led to a restructuring of heavy industry, especially steel and autos, with the loss of millions of jobs. The early 1990s recession produced widespread bankruptcies in real estate and retail before growth resumed a few years earlier. Speaking in Calgary, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty expressed confidence that the economy would stay on the positive side of the ledger and insisted Ottawa won't fall into a deficit as a result of the slowdown. "We are on track in terms of our budget in Canada, that we will continue to run a surplus," he said, adding that the country's "strong fundamentals" and status as an emerging energy superpower will keep it in better shape than the United States, although not immune to a global economic slowdown. "Canada is not an island," Flaherty said earlier in a speech to a Calgary Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Following a first quarter contraction that saw gross domestic product fall 0.3 per cent and continuing signs of stress, economists and policy makers have been routinely revising their growth projections for the year, all trending downward. In the last week, Canadians have been hit by a series of bad news announcements. Employment fell in June for the first time this year and full-time employment tumbled for the second straight month. Average home sale prices edged down during the month, the first year-over year price decline in nearly a decade. And General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM) announced plans to lay off 20 per cent of its white collar staff in North America, a further cut of thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada warned of rising inflation Tuesday while lowering its 2008 growth forecast from 1.4 per cent in April to one per cent. On Wednesday, the Conference Board of Canada downgraded its projection from 2.2 per cent this spring to 1.7 per cent. For both, it was the second downward revision so far this year. Both are overly optimistic, says David Wolf, chief economist with Merrill Lynch Canada, who says gross domestic product increase will likely come in at a tepid 0.5 per cent this year, a statistical blip from recessionary times. "Absolutely, by the informal definition of recession we could be in recession," agrees Global Insight economist Dale Orr, noting that nobody will know for sure until late in August, when Statistics Canada releases the second quarter growth tally. But Orr also points out that the Canadian economy still has some legs, particularly in the resource and oil and sector, consumer spending, and employment and housing that while slowing, are coming off record-setting years. Even manufacturing showed signs of life in May. Statistics Canada reported Wednesday that manufacturing sales rose 2.7 per cent from April, the fourth increase in five months. The details behind the aggregate number were weaker as sales remain below last year's levels and most of the gain was due to higher prices, not increased production. The strongest pillar remains high-priced commodities, particularly Alberta oil, which is bringing tremendous wealth into the country and helping grease the general economy through corporate profits, job creation, and higher government revenues that get passed along in lower taxes and higher spending. "Perhaps the volume of what we produce is going down, but the wealth effect (from commodity exports) is very much there," said Pedro Antunes of the Conference Board. "We often think that's beneficial for some regions and sectors, but there have been redistributive effects. The federal government has collected dividends that's been fanned out to all Canadians in the form of tax cuts, and the effect on stock prices, wages, employment have been distributed all over the country." That has kept nominal gross domestic product growth - which measures the actual worth of what Canadians produce - above four per cent, as opposed to the flat performance in real growth, which measures the amount produced. "The hurt in Canada is narrowly focused in the trade sector," Orr says. "If you are in Windsor, Ont., where unemployment is near 10 per cent and the value of your home is falling, or in the auto sector, or if you are in a forestry one-industry town in northern Ontario or Quebec or B.C., then you are really hurting." But for most Canadians the slump has yet to register and likely won't if forecasts of a second-half improvement prove accurate. And for those who live off the resource sector, this is boom times, says Orr. Dungan says another difference between today and recessions of the previous two decades is that inflation, while rising, remains relatively tame, and governments now have the wherewithal to stimulate the economy or at least not inflict further harm. "The Bank of Canada is trying to keep inflation from rising, not reduce it, and generally speaking prevention is not as costly and not as unpleasant as cure," he explained. "And our government balances are basically OK. It's not like 1991 when we had huge deficits and therefore you couldn't do anything, if anything you were trying to raise taxes to make those better, which only makes the downturn worse." -
Rich Canadians have bigger carbon footprint Size matters. Study links national income, consumption JOHN MORRISSY, Canwest News Service Published: 8 hours ago When it comes to ecological footprints, wealthy Canadians are a confirmed size 12, creating a global warming impact 66 per cent greater than the average household, according to a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The study is the first to link national income and consumption patterns with global warming, and it showed that the richest 10 per cent of Canadians create an environmental footprint that's 2.5 times the size of those created by the lowest 10 per cent on an income scale. "When we look at where the environmental impact of human activity comes from, we see that size really does matter," said Hugh Mackenzie, a research associate for the Ottawa-based think-tank and co-author of the study. "Higher-income Canadians create a much bigger footprint than poorer Canadians." The study revealed a gradual progression of environmental impact going up the income scale, but a marked jump with the richest 10 per cent. In fact, the highest 10 per cent has an environmental impact that's one third larger than the next lower 10 per cent, Mackenzie said. The differences stem largely from the homes wealthy people own and the way they get around, Mackenzie said. The top 10 per cent own homes that are larger, cost more to build and to heat, and they are more likely to own more than one vehicle and travel more frequently by air, Mackenzie said. The impact of food consumption, on the other hand, hardly varies from one income group to another. The study measures environmental impact in terms of the amount of hectares it would take to sustain a certain level of consumption. When it comes to the wealthiest Canadians, their environmental footprint requires 12.4 hectares per capita, compared with the average Canadian's 7.5-hectare footprint. Globally, the average Canadian's footprint is still several times the average of those in poorer nations. What the study highlights, Mackenzie said, is the need for policy-makers to realize how activities related to global warming concentrate themselves in the upper income groups. Failing to recognize that could lead to policies that penalize lower-income Canadians yet fail to achieve their objectives, he said. "All Canadians share responsibility for global warming," said co-author Rick Smith. "But wealthier Canadians are leaving behind a disproportionately larger footprint - and should be expected to make a disproportionate contribution to its reduction." http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=57768cfb-8144-4ae2-b235-3a045d045065
-
Quebec destined to stay Canadian: poll Only one-third of Quebec residents believe province will become a country RANDY BOSWELL, Canwest News Service Published: 4 hours ago A new nationwide poll suggests that a strong majority of Canadians - including most of the country's French-speaking population - believes Quebec is "destined" to remain part of Canada. The survey, commissioned by the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies, also revealed that barely one-third of Quebec residents believe the province is "destined to become a country" of its own. Conducted in May by Léger Marketing, the survey of 1,500 Canadians probed their "gut feelings" about Quebec's ultimate fate as a political entity, says ACS executive director Jack Jedwab. He also says the results suggest the limited appeal of the historical narrative long promoted by Quebec separatists - that "accidents of history," such as the British victory in the Seven Years' War, have merely delayed Quebec's inevitable emergence as an independent state. Instead, Jedwab says, most Canadians, including Quebecers, appear to find the classic federalist storyline - which emphasizes inexorable progress toward reconciliation of the French-English conflict at the heart of Canadian history - more compelling. A persuasive narrative that predicts a nation's destiny can exert a powerful influence on people's perceptions of history, contemporary politics and the future direction of a country, Jedwab says. He points to the influence of the "Manifest Destiny" doctrine in shaping the 19th-century expansion of the United States and certain strongly held views about its place in the world. Similarly, he says, views in Canada about whether Quebec's future is "pre-determined" by history play a significant role in the long-running debate about its place in the federation, with separatists and federalists alike claiming that "history is on their side." Jedwab notes that in the latest poll, the percentage of Quebec residents who envision a separate Quebec in the near or distant future "closely corresponds" to the proportion of the population that supports Quebec's separation. The findings, he says, may therefore represent "what people are wishing for" as much as what they expect to happen to Quebec one day. The poll was conducted from May 21 to 25. Just over 1,500 Canadians 18 years of age and over were surveyed, with a margin of error of 2.9 per cent 19 times out of 20. Those questioned were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statements "Quebec is destined to remain part of Canada" and "Quebec is destined to become a country." Seventy-one per cent of English-speaking respondents and 78 per cent of allophones - those whose first language is neither French nor English - agreed that Quebec will remain part of Confederation. Fifty-four per cent of French-Canadian respondents agreed. Regionally, respondents from Ontario (79 per cent) and Alberta (76 per cent) were most likely to agree that Quebec's destiny is within a united Canada. Majorities from the Maritimes (65 per cent), B.C. (64 per cent), Manitoba/Saskatchewan (62 per cent) and Quebec itself (54 per cent) also agreed. Asked more directly if Quebec is "destined to become a country," just 38 per cent of French Canadians, 12 per cent of English-Canadian respondents and three per cent of allophones agreed that it would. Regionally, a minority of respondents from Quebec (35 per cent), the Maritimes (17 per cent), B.C. (13 per cent), Ontario (8 per cent), Alberta (7 per cent) and Manitoba/Saskatchewan (4 per cent) agreed that Quebec is destined to become a country. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5395da71-1e74-4242-ba29-a647cc45a477 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Souveraineté - Le Québec est toujours aussi divisé Alexandre Shields Édition du lundi 23 juin 2008 Mots clés : Confédération, Souveraineté, Sondage, Canada (Pays), Québec (province) À la veille de la Fête nationale des Québécois, un coup de sonde réalisé pour le compte de l'Association des études canadiennes vient confirmer qu'ils sont toujours aussi divisés sur la question de la souveraineté. En effet, si le tiers d'entre eux estiment que leur province deviendra un jour un pays, à peine plus de la moitié croient que le Québec restera au sein de la Confédération, selon le document obtenu par Le Devoir. Les résultats de ce sondage effectué dans tout le pays montrent que 38 % des francophones sont convaincus que «le Québec est destiné à devenir un pays», dont 35 % de Québécois. Chez les anglophones, ce chiffre chute à 12 %, puis à 3 % chez les allophones. À l'inverse, 69 % des Canadiens sont d'avis que «le Québec est destiné à demeurer au sein du Canada», dont 54 % des francophones. Les répondants de toutes les catégories d'âges jugent que le Québec est «destiné» à demeurer au sein de la Confédération, exception faite des 18-24 ans, qui adhèrent à cette idée dans une proportion de 46 %. Malgré cela, à peine 19 % de ces derniers croient que la province accédera un jour à l'indépendance. Il faut toutefois souligner qu'il s'agit là de l'opinion des jeunes de l'ensemble du pays, et non seulement de celle des Québécois. Plus on avance en âge, plus les citoyens sont d'avis que la seule région francophone demeurera partie prenante de l'État canadien. Par ailleurs, la moitié des répondants québécois ont jugé que «sans le Québec, il n'y aurait pas de Canada», ce qui représente la plus forte proportion au pays. Albertains et Ontariens suivent, adhérant à cette idée respectivement à 45 % et 41 %. La moyenne nationale se situe à 42 %. Les jeunes semblent plus fortement préoccupés par cet aspect de la question de la souveraineté, puisque que 53 % des répondants de 25 à 34 ans croient que le Canada ne pourrait continuer d'exister sans le Québec. «Les réponses sont particulièrement intéressantes à la lumière de l'argument avancé par les souverainistes voulant que le Canada continuerait d'exister si le Québec le quittait, une idée défendue par les autres Canadiens, mais non par les Québécois», souligne d'ailleurs le directeur exécutif de l'Association des études canadiennes, Jack Jedwab, dans le document qui sera rendu public aujourd'hui. Le coup de sonde a été mené par la firme Léger Marketing auprès de 1507 Canadiens de 18 ans et plus, entre le 21 et le 25 mai 2008. La marge d'erreur est de 2,9 %, 19 fois sur 20. http://www.ledevoir.com/2008/06/23/195107.html
-
Why duel over our dual national holidays? Split our differences and create a third! JOSH FREED, The Gazette Published: 9 hours ago We are entering the annual period of dueling national days, when Quebec's national celebration takes on Canada's in the battle of the fêtes. The action starts Tuesday with Quebec's Fête nationale, the holiday formerly known as St. Jean Baptiste Day. This was originally a holy day celebrated only by French Catholics, but the government removed religion and renamed it the Fête nationale so it would belong to all Quebecers. Our dueling holidays reveal our differences. In a recent poll, most francophones said Canada was founded by the French, while anglos named the British and immigrants said the native peoples. In reality, of course, the native peoples found our country over 10,000 years ago, the French found the natives 500 years ago and the British found the French difficult to manage and granted Canada its independence. Canada's real problem is that we have different histories, so we can't celebrate the same holidays or the same heroes. We'd probably rename Victoria Day tomorrow if we could think of someone to name it after without a national fight. John A. Macdonald is not loved in Quebec or Newfoundland. Pierre Trudeau is hated by half the country, while René Lévesque is hated by the other half. Who else is known from coast to coast - Celine Dion? Terry Fox? Mordecai Richler? Hockey is our most unifying Canadian event. Maybe we could agree on a Rocket Richard/ Wayne Gretzky National Day. But it's easier just to leave it as Queen-Victoria-Vs.-The-Patriotes-Day for another century. The good news is that our dueling holidays are becoming irrelevant relics that aren't that indicative of who we are. In the past few days, there are far more Portuguese, Italian and Turkish flags flying on cars for Euro soccer than there are Fête nationale fleurs-de-lys. Likewise, the Canadiens hockey playoffs brought out more flags than Canada Day will ever see. In fact, there is one common holiday in Montreal when millions of French, English and other nationalities all rush into the streets to celebrate together. It's the Montreal Jazzfest, our city's true "national" day. Why don't we declare a third statutory day off on June 28, halfway between the Fête nationale and Canada Day, when everyone can party together - for National Jazz Day. In fact, with three holidays in eight days, it would become just like Christmas and New Year: We could all take two weeks off. The Fête is correctly marked by waving the fleur-de-lys - France's old royalist flag - and passionately singing Gens du Pays, the sovereignist anthem, which few anglos ever sing except at birthday parties, when they mouth the words. There is also a terrific parade where revelers celebrate June 24 by symbolically drinking a two-four of beer. By contrast, next week's Canada Day is a cooler, kitschier affair marked by Mounties, maple leafs and the traditional carrying of fridges and other heavy furniture for Moving Day. Canada Day is a recently invented holiday. It was known as Dominion Day until 1982, when Ottawa decided to compete with Quebec's new Fête nationale by having a flag-waving federalist day, too. However, it turned out that real Canadians do not passionately wave flags - unless they're part of a sponsorship scandal. Most Canadians won't even sing their national anthem on July 1, because the government has changed the words so often no one has a clue what they are. In fact, O Canada only became the official English anthem in 1980 and many people still know the words to God Save the Queen better. In addition, Canadians are embarrassed by patriotism - and would be more comfortable humming the hockey song. Overall, for Quebecers La Féte is an emotional day to honour their survival. But for Canadians, Canada Day is just our National Day Off Day - a day to be thankful we live in a country so calm we can ignore our national day. St. Jean and Canada Day are not the only divided holidays in our semi-detached national duplex. Just last month, we marked Victoria Day, when Canadians celebrate a British queen who died in 1901 - even though England hasn't for decades. Until the 1980s, anglo Quebecers marked this day by holding an annual riot in Point St. Charles. But the tradition has faded and today Victoria Day is typically marked by The Opening of the Country Cottage - Or Garden. Franco Quebecers never liked the Queen's birthday and set up their own competing holiday back in the 1920s - called Dollard des Ormeaux Day. But the Parti Québécois government obviously found it embarrassing to have a holiday named after a West Island suburb, because in 2004 they renamed it the Journée nationale des patriotes. This ensured no anglo Quebecer would ever celebrate it again. In Quebec, we make war with dates, not battles. This year's big dispute is over the 400th anniversary of Quebec City's founding. French nationalists say the celebration marks the birth of the Quebec nation, but federalists say it marks the founding of Canada - and warring words have been flying over the Plains of Abraham like musket fire. Josh_freed@hotmail.com http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8435f7ac-92cd-4790-afbb-f18cdbd40d3b&p=2
-
52% oppose Bill C-10 Proposed change targets filmmakers. Don't censor content by refusing tax credits, slim majority of Canadians say in survey TIFFANY CRAWFORD, Canwest News Service Published: 6 hours ago A slim majority of Canadians believe it would be wrong for the government to screen the content of films and deny tax credits to projects it deems offensive, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Canwest News Service and Global TV indicates. The poll, conducted from June 10 to 12, found that 52 per cent of the 1,002 Canadians surveyed disagree with Bill C-10, a proposed change to the Income Tax Act that would deny tax money to filmmakers whose content is "contrary to public policy." At 62 per cent, residents of film-industry-heavy British Columbia are most likely to say the government is "wrong" to interfere in such a way. That's followed by those living in the mostly Conservative province of Alberta at 57 per cent, indicating the reaction of Canadians is largely ideological. "(The bill) has obviously touched a nerve," said John Wright with Ipsos Reid. "If it's not going to pass the sniff test, it's going to be gagged," said the senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid. "It has a good majority in the country that are going to go against this." Although the idea to deny tax credits was raised under the previous Liberal government, Wright suggests people may be concerned about the "slippery slope" of censorship with the Conservative Party. "While it may have been acceptable under the Liberals because they were more flexible on content, this government has the trappings of moral and religious rigour," he said. "So they might wear this more than the last government." According to the poll, 45 per cent of Canadians believe it's right for the government to screen the content of films, because it involves taxpayers' money - and because government has the right to determine what's in the public interest. As the poll was released, the Canadian independent film, Young People F*****g, opened in cinemas on the weekend. The film has become the poster child for the controversial bill that has many Canadian film and TV stars, including actress and director Sarah Polley, lobbying the government to stop the bill. The reason, say opponents of C-10, such as Polley, actor-director Paul Gross and Oscar-winning director Ang Lee, is that Young People is the type of film that would have been denied funding. Young People, a movie about four couples and a threesome trying to find satisfactory sex lives, has been viewed as pornographic by some religious groups, while others say it's just a bit of fun. In any case, the film is not as raunchy as its title suggests. Although there's a lot of nudity, mostly it's just a series of sketches where the characters seek to balance their lives with love and sex. The film's director, Martin Gero, says it's a harmless comedy, but he agreed it may not have got the funding had it been judged by the title. The poll found younger Canadians aged 18 to 34 were more likely to say the government is "wrong" to censor content by refusing tax credits, followed by Canadians age 35 to 54. Those with post-secondary education and those who live in urban areas were also more likely to disagree with the bill, the poll suggests. While the poll suggests a majority of Canadians disagree with the bill, the government argues the proposed change to the federal tax-credit system does not jeopardize the creative freedom of Canadian film and TV production. Heritage Minister Josée Verner says the government is trying to make sure Canadian taxpayers' money won't fund extreme violence or pornography. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=a7f81b30-f97e-4570-84d8-dff373f9f66e
-
Government liabilities add up to $150,211 per taxpayer: Fraser report
un sujet a posté jesseps dans L'actualité
(Courtesy of The Canadian Press) -
Beth Nauss: In Montreal on spring break, mom and daughter chill out
un sujet a posté mtlurb dans L'actualité
Beth Nauss: In Montreal on spring break, mom and daughter chill out In a blinding display of “what was she thinking?” brilliance, I went to Montreal for spring break. The first problem was that I went with my oldest daughter. I love my daughter. She is an excellent traveling companion. But no one with a body my age should ever try to keep up with someone who is more than a decade younger and actually runs for a hobby. The second problem was that it was in Canada. For anyone who hasn’t been there, Canada is the huge mass of ice between the United States and the North Pole. In addition to ice, it is occupied primarily by Canadians, many of whom speak fluent Canadian. For reasons that seemed perfectly logical at the time, my daughter and I decided spring break was the perfect time to go to there. After all, it would be spring. Spring is warm. Therefore, Montreal would be warm. I’m sure people in Montreal get a hearty laugh at that thought. This was the first time I’d ever traveled to Canada as a destination. I’d flown over it a few times, looking down at the snow and thinking it was probably pretty cold there in the winter. After I landed, I realized it’s pretty cold in the springtime, too. In fact, based on the 10 feet of snow still on the ground at the end of March, Canada is probably pretty cold most of the time. When we checked the forecast and learned what the actual weather would be, I told my daughter not to worry, the locals must have adapted by now. I was sure that because Montreal is a major metropolitan area and tourist destination, the attractions would be open year round and would be readily accessible, clear of snow and ice. I’m sure people in Montreal get a hearty laugh at that thought as well. What I didn’t know was that their way of adapting to the snow was packing it down and walking over it, possibly because they have no choice. After a certain point, clearing snow becomes futile because you have no more places to put it. The result is that the streets are clean and dry, while balconies, vacant lots, parks, playgrounds and parking lots are buried under large mounds of snow that, in many parts of the U.S., would support multiple ski resorts. [url=http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=87135#][/url]Fortunately, Montreal has an excellent underground public transportation system called the “Metro” (Canadian for “excellent underground public transportation system”). We found that many of the snow-covered attractions were readily visible from a Metro station so we could at least take scenic photographs before retreating back underground into an area that was warm and dry. Unfortunately, we couldn’t live in the Metro, so occasionally we had to brave the elements. One of those times involved a trip up Mont Royal, the snow-covered mountain in the middle of Montreal. The pedestrian walkway up the mountain was (of course) covered with snow, ice and numerous hardy Canadians who were walking, running, skiing and biking their way to and from the top. One even drove by, oblivious to the wrong turn that took her off the pedestrian-free road a mile behind her. These hardy Canadians were probably fortified by the local dish called “Poutine,” a pile of french fries and cheese drowning in a lake of thick brown gravy. I felt that in the interest of Canada-U.S. relations, I should try some. When I did, I found that it would have been better if I hadn’t. We did, however, make it up Mont Royal without falling. If any Canadians are reading this, before you accuse me of exaggerating, let me say that I love Canada. We had a great time there. Montreal is a beautiful city even if it is always covered with snow. Let me also say that I know that sometimes Montreal has a warm season and, at least once a century, all the snow melts. And when that happens, I hope to return. Even if you’re still serving Poutine. http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=87135 -
(Courtesy of CanWest News Service)
