Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'nation'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Real estate projects
    • Proposals
    • Going up
    • Completed
    • Mass Transit
    • Infrastructures
    • Cultural, entertainment and sport projects
    • Cancelled projects
  • General topics
    • City planning and architecture
    • Economy discussions
    • Technology, video games and gadgets
    • Urban tech
    • General discussions
    • Entertainment, food and culture
    • Current events
    • Off Topic
  • MTLYUL Aviation
    • General discussion
    • Spotting at YUL
  • Here and abroad
    • City of Québec
    • Around the province of Québec.
    • Toronto and the rest of Canada
    • USA
    • Europe
    • Projects elsewhere in the world
  • Photography and videos
    • Urban photography
    • Other pictures
    • Old pictures

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


Type of dwelling

Found 16 results

  1. Le gouverneur de la Banque du Canada estime que le pays pourrait glisser en récession comme toute autre nation industrialisée, ce qui ajoute du poids aux conjectures des économistes. Pour en lire plus...
  2. Accord inédit entre la France et le Québec sur la mobilité du travail LE MONDE | 16.10.08 | 16h37 Juste avant l'ouverture du XIIe sommet de la francophonie organisé à Québec, le président Nicolas Sarkozy et le premier ministre québécois Jean Charest devaient signer, vendredi 17 octobre, un accord sur la reconnaissance des qualifications professionnelles. Les deux gouvernements présentent cette entente comme "une première mondiale entre deux continents". Les médecins, pharmaciens, sages-femmes, avocats, experts comptables, architectes, géomètres et vétérinaires français bénéficieront à terme d'une "liberté totale d'installation" au Québec et réciproquement, selon Alain Joyandet, secrétaire d'Etat chargé de la coopération et de la francophonie, qui a chapeauté cette entente côté français. Les représentants de ces professions ont négocié pendant plus d'un an les modalités de leurs accords. Les infirmières sont toujours en pourparlers. L'entente bilatérale concerne d'autres professions, non réglementées celles-là, comme les ingénieurs, les assistants de service sociaux et la plupart des métiers du bâtiment. Chaque nation devrait y trouver son compte : le Québec, dont la population est vieillissante, connaît de graves pénuries de main-d'oeuvre qualifiée et la France, où "les jeunes diplômés, entre autres, pourront acquérir une expérience nord-américaine, dans une nation francophone", estime M. Joyandet. Cette entente devra être approuvée par le Parlement français. La partie québécoise n'est pas soumise à la même obligation. La Commission européenne s'intéresse à cet accord, qui pourrait être appliqué à d'autres corps de métier et étendu au niveau du Canada et de l'Union européenne. Martine Jacot http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2008/10/16/accord-inedit-entre-la-france-et-le-quebec-sur-la-mobilite-du-travail_1107649_3222.html
  3. Publié le 03 octobre 2009 à 15h06 | Mis à jour le 03 octobre 2009 à 15h07 La nation inconsciente André Pratte La Presse L'hypothèse d'une hausse des tarifs de certains services publics, lancée par le gouvernement Charest, suscite un vif débat. La population, elle, est furieuse. Un sondage Léger Marketing réalisé pour le Journal de Montréal est particulièrement révélateur. Une très forte majorité de Québécois s'oppose à toute hausse des principaux tarifs gouvernementaux. Les répondants tiennent néanmoins à ce que l'État assume la croissance rapide des coûts du système de santé et se disent très inquiets de voir le gouvernement du Québec en situation déficitaire. Ces réponses sont typiques du pays des merveilles dans lequel vivent les Québécois depuis des années. Dans ce monde fantastique, il est possible d'obtenir du gouvernement les services sociaux les plus coûteux d'Amérique du Nord tout en refusant obstinément de payer les coûts de ces services. À l'Assemblée nationale cette semaine, les protestations de Pauline Marois sur les éventuelles hausses de tarifs ont été suivies par les appels indignés du député péquiste Bernard Drainville pour que Québec améliore la qualité des installations du CHUM... Avec quel argent, M. Drainville, si votre chef refuse toute augmentation d'impôts, de taxes et de tarifs? Si les Québécois peuvent vivre dans un monde aussi paradoxal, c'est qu'ils s'accrochent à quelques mythes. Par exemple, le mythe selon lequel si on augmentait quelques tarifs ciblés ici et là, cela suffirait à payer les dépenses supplémentaires exigées par la santé, l'éducation, l'assurance médicament, les garderies, etc. Or, les sommes nécessaires atteignent au moins 2 ou 3 milliards de dollars par an. Une augmentation de 1¢ par kWh de l'électricité dite «patrimoniale» produirait 1,4 milliard de revenus supplémentaires. Pour arriver au même montant, il faudrait multiplier par 50 le prix des permis de chasse (2750$ par saison plutôt que 55$ pour chasser l'orignal...). Ou encore porter à 28$ (au lieu de 7$) le tarif quotidien des garderies. Une augmentation de 1¢ le kWh de l'électricité patrimoniale hausserait de 194$ la facture annuelle du consommateur moyen, tandis que la hausse à 28$ du tarif des CPE augmenterait de 105$ PAR SEMAINE la facture des parents concernés. Un autre mythe veut qu'il suffise de «faire le ménage» au gouvernement. Le gouvernement du Québec n'est sans doute pas la machine la plus efficace qui soit. Cependant, il ne faut pas non plus se faire d'illusions. Petit dégraissage par ci, petit nettoyage par là, on arrive vite au point où les compressions touchent le coeur des services dont les citoyens ne veulent absolument pas se priver. Il y a aussi le mythe du butin. Le butin, c'est l'argent que «nous doit» le gouvernement fédéral, les milliards qui «dorment à Ottawa» (dixit Mme Marois). Comme les gouvernements des autres provinces, celui du Québec a toutes sortes de désaccords de nature fiscale avec Ottawa. Certaines de ses revendications sont clairement fondées - par exemple, la compensation de 2,6 milliards pour l'harmonisation des taxes de vente - d'autres sont beaucoup plus douteuses, notamment celles relatives à la péréquation. Surtout, dans beaucoup de cas, il s'agit de montants ponctuels. Même si le fédéral se rendait aux demandes de Québec, le manque à gagner structurel ne serait pas réglé. Par ailleurs, contrairement à ce que soutiennent les souverainistes, ce n'est pas «notre argent» qu'Ottawa refuse de nous verser, mais celui des autres contribuables canadiens. Car, malgré ce que croient encore une majorité de Québécois, le gouvernement du Canada dépense plus au Québec que ce que nous lui envoyons en impôts et taxes, 4,7 milliards de plus par an pour être exact. Enfin, on ne peut plus parler d'un déséquilibre fiscal lorsque le gouvernement fédéral est en déficit de 50 milliards... Les Québécois sont fiers de former une nation. Or, une nation forte doit faire preuve de responsabilité et de lucidité au lieu de blâmer les autres et rêver à des solutions magiques. C'est cette maturité qui fait défaut aux Québécois quand il s'agit du financement des services publics. On peut certes débattre des meilleurs moyens d'augmenter les revenus de l'État. Toutefois, une chose est sûre, si l'on veut bénéficier à la fois d'un régime de santé public, d'un système d'éducation de qualité, de garderies subventionnées, d'une assurance médicaments et de congés parentaux généreux comme nulle part ailleurs sur le continent, il va falloir accepter de payer davantage.
  4. Poll Finds Faith in Obama, Mixed With Patience Article Tools Sponsored By By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MARJORIE CONNELLY Published: January 17, 2009 President-elect Barack Obama is riding a powerful wave of optimism into the White House, with Americans confident he can turn the economy around but prepared to give him years to deal with the crush of problems he faces starting Tuesday, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. The latest on the inauguration of Barack Obama and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion. While hopes for the new president are extraordinarily high, the poll found, expectations for what Mr. Obama will actually be able to accomplish appear to have been tempered by the scale of the nation’s problems at home and abroad. The findings suggest that Mr. Obama has achieved some success with his effort, which began with his victory speech in Chicago in November, to gird Americans for a slow economic recovery and difficult years ahead after a campaign that generated striking enthusiasm and high hopes for change. Most Americans said they did not expect real progress in improving the economy, reforming the health care system or ending the war in Iraq — three of the central promises of Mr. Obama’s campaign — for at least two years. The poll found that two-thirds of respondents think the recession will last two years or longer. As the nation prepares for a transfer of power and the inauguration of its 44th president, Mr. Obama’s stature with the American public stands in sharp contrast to that of President Bush. Mr. Bush is leaving office with just 22 percent of Americans offering a favorable view of how he handled the eight years of his presidency, a record low, and firmly identified with the economic crisis Mr. Obama is inheriting. More than 80 percent of respondents said the nation was in worse shape today than it was five years ago. By contrast, 79 percent were optimistic about the next four years under Mr. Obama, a level of good will for a new chief executive that exceeds that measured for any of the past five incoming presidents. And it cuts across party lines: 58 percent of the respondents who said they voted for Mr. Obama’s opponent in the general election, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said they were optimistic about the country in an Obama administration. “Obama is not a miracle worker, but I am very optimistic, I really am,” Phyllis Harden, 63, an independent from Easley, S.C., who voted for Mr. Obama, said in an interview after participating in the poll. “It’s going to take a couple of years at least to improve the economy,” Ms. Harden added. “I think anyone who is looking for a 90-day turnaround is delusional.” Politically, Mr. Obama enjoys a strong foundation of support as he enters what is surely to be a tough and challenging period, working with Congress to swiftly pass a huge and complicated economic package. His favorable rating, at 60 percent, is the highest it has been since the Times/CBS News poll began asking about him. Overwhelming majorities say they think that Mr. Obama will be a good president, that he will bring real change to Washington, and that he will make the right decisions on the economy, Iraq, dealing with the war in the Middle East and protecting the country from terrorist attacks. Over 70 percent said they approved of his cabinet selections. What is more, Mr. Obama’s effort to use this interregnum between Election Day and Inauguration Day to present himself as a political moderate (he might use the word “pragmatist”) appears to be working. In this latest poll, 40 percent described the president-elect’s ideology as liberal, a 17-point drop from just before the election. “I think those of us who voted for McCain are going to be a lot happier with Obama than the people who voted for him,” Valerie Schlink, 46, a Republican from Valparaiso, Ind., said in an interview after participating in the poll. “A lot of the things he said he would do, like pulling out the troops in 16 months and giving tax cuts to those who make under $200,000, I think he now sees are going to be a lot tougher than he thought and that the proper thing to do is stay more towards the middle and ease our way into whatever has to be done. “It can’t all be accomplished immediately.” While the public seems prepared to give Mr. Obama time, Americans clearly expect the country to be a different place when he finishes his term at the end of 2012. The poll found that 75 percent expected the economy to be stronger in four years than it is today, and 75 percent said Mr. Obama would succeed in creating a significant number of jobs, while 59 percent said he would cut taxes for the middle class. The survey found that 61 percent of respondents said things would be better in five years; last April, just 39 percent expressed a similar sentiment. The telephone survey of 1,112 adults was conducted Jan. 11-15. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The poll suggests some of the cross-currents Mr. Obama is navigating as he prepares to take office, and offers some evidence about why he has retooled some of his positions during this period.
  5. A new vision for the country? Harper's federation of fiefdoms will drive Canadian traditionalists nuts LAWRENCE MARTIN From Thursday's Globe and Mail July 31, 2008 at 9:21 AM EDT Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been knocked for not giving the country a sense of direction, for visionlessly plotting and plodding, politics being his only purpose. Not true. Something has been taking shape - and it just took further form with pledges from Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon on the dispersal of federal powers. Yes, Matilda, the Conservatives have a vision. A federation of fiefdoms. Stephen Harper - headwaiter to the provinces. The firewall guy has curbed the federal spending power, he's corrected the so-called fiscal imbalance in favour of the provinces, he's doled out new powers to Quebec and now, if we are to believe Mr. Cannon, more autonomy is on the way for one and all. Mr. Harper has always favoured a crisp reading of the Constitution. He has always been - and now it really shows - a philosophical devolutionist. His nation-of-duchies approach will drive Canadian traditionalists bananas. They will see it not as nation building, but nation scattering. They will roll out that old bromide about the country being more than the sum of its parts. They will growl that we are already more decentralized than the Keystone Kops and any other federation out there save Switzerland, and that only rigorous paternal oversight can hold us together. But do these long-held harmonies still hold? Or are they outmoded, in need of overhaul? Has the country not moved beyond its vulnerable adolescent era to the point where now, like a normal family, it can entrust its members with more responsibilities? After 141 years, is there not a new sense of trust and maturity in the land? Identity? History is identity. If you don't know who you are at 141, if you still think some provinces have stars and stripes in their eyes, the shrink is in the waiting room. Now even Liberals don't think the new Canada is as dependent on the centre as the old. The old parts were fragile, in need of nurturing, in need of national and protectionist policies. But now there is more wealth and more equality, a levelling of the braying fields. Little guys like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, with their newfound riches, are no longer little guys. They are not as beholden and their new level of maturity requires new thinking in Ottawa. Treat them like teenagers and they'll be more inclined to rebel. Give them space and they'll be more inclined to be part of the whole. Not to say that a balkanization of the federation is in order. Not to say that you want a host of provinces running off and negotiating treaties with other countries or that you want better north-south transportation systems than east-west or that national programs are not worthwhile. But a recognition of modern realities is in order. When we get more meat on the bones of Mr. Harper's plans, we'll know how they stack up. There's plenty of room for cynicism. It's well known that the PM will do anything to woo Quebec politically. Letting the province negotiate a unilateral labour-mobility agreement with France can be seen as some rather timely toadying. Shouldn't he be doing more for labour mobility between Ontario and Quebec? Extending his autonomy push to other regions smacks of smart politics as well. Headwaiter to the provinces? How about head cashier at the polling booths. Westerners will lovingly see it as a kick at the Toronto-Ottawa dictatorship. It's gravy for la belle province and down East, loud guys like Danny Williams won't be complaining. The PM needed something to take the focus away from Stéphane Dion's attention-grabbing Green Shift. This raw-boned conservative stuff might do the trick. Joe Clark was the original headwaiter to the provinces. Pierre Trudeau mocked him mercilessly. But of course it was Mr. Trudeau's great centralist grab, the national energy program, that backfired. Brian Mulroney undid some of Mr. Trudeau's work and tried to go further with his province-friendly constitutional accords. Under Jean Chrétien, the Grits got in the act, forsaking economic nationalism. Mr. Harper is following and hastening the trend line. We needed - thank you, England - grandparents. We needed - thank you, John A. - a national policy. We needed measures to keep us independent of the United States and our social security systems and national institutions. Thank you, other leaders. All part of growing up. But now? Noteworthy is that while in more recent times we have seen a trend away from centralized powers, unity is now well intact. Many would argue the country is more unified today than at any time since 1967. The big centre is still needed. It's still needed for infrastructure, uniform social programs, defence and multifarious other initiatives. But, with the old family having a better sense of its bearings, it isn't needed the way it was before.
  6. YANKEEDOM. Founded on the shores of Massachusetts Bay by radical Calvinists as a new Zion, Yankeedom has, since the outset, put great emphasis on perfecting earthly civilization through social engineering, denial of self for the common good, and assimilation of outsiders. It has prized education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and broad citizen participation in politics and government, the latter seen as the public’s shield against the machinations of grasping aristocrats and other would-be tyrants. Since the early Puritans, it has been more comfortable with government regulation and public-sector social projects than many of the other nations, who regard the Yankee utopian streak with trepidation. NEW NETHERLAND. Established by the Dutch at a time when the Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world, New Netherland has always been a global commercial culture—materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience. Like seventeenth-century Amsterdam, it emerged as a center of publishing, trade, and finance, a magnet for immigrants, and a refuge for those persecuted by other regional cultures, from Sephardim in the seventeenth century to gays, feminists, and bohemians in the early twentieth. Unconcerned with great moral questions, it nonetheless has found itself in alliance with Yankeedom to defend public institutions and reject evangelical prescriptions for individual behavior. THE MIDLANDS. America’s great swing region was founded by English Quakers, who believed in humans’ inherent goodness and welcomed people of many nations and creeds to their utopian colonies like Pennsylvania on the shores of Delaware Bay. Pluralistic and organized around the middle class, the Midlands spawned the culture of Middle America and the Heartland, where ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate. An ethnic mosaic from the start—it had a German, rather than British, majority at the time of the Revolution—it shares the Yankee belief that society should be organized to benefit ordinary people, though it rejects top-down government intervention. TIDEWATER. Built by the younger sons of southern English gentry in the Chesapeake country and neighboring sections of Delaware and North Carolina, Tidewater was meant to reproduce the semifeudal society of the countryside they’d left behind. Standing in for the peasantry were indentured servants and, later, slaves. Tidewater places a high value on respect for authority and tradition, and very little on equality or public participation in politics. It was the most powerful of the American nations in the eighteenth century, but today it is in decline, partly because it was cut off from westward expansion by its boisterous Appalachian neighbors and, more recently, because it has been eaten away by the expanding federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk. GREATER APPALACHIA. Founded in the early eighteenth century by wave upon wave of settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Appalachia has been lampooned by writers and screenwriters as the home of hillbillies and rednecks. It transplanted a culture formed in a state of near constant danger and upheaval, characterized by a warrior ethic and a commitment to personal sovereignty and individual liberty. Intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike, Greater Appalachia has shifted alliances depending on who appeared to be the greatest threat to their freedom. It was with the Union in the Civil War. Since Reconstruction, and especially since the upheavals of the 1960s, it has joined with Deep South to counter federal overrides of local preference. DEEP SOUTH. Established by English slave lords from Barbados, Deep South was meant as a West Indies–style slave society. This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations. EL NORTE. The oldest of the American nations, El Norte consists of the borderlands of the Spanish American empire, which were so far from the seats of power in Mexico City and Madrid that they evolved their own characteristics. Most Americans are aware of El Norte as a place apart, where Hispanic language, culture, and societal norms dominate. But few realize that among Mexicans, norteños have a reputation for being exceptionally independent, self-sufficient, adaptable, and focused on work. Long a hotbed of democratic reform and revolutionary settlement, the region encompasses parts of Mexico that have tried to secede in order to form independent buffer states between their mother country and the United States. THE LEFT COAST. A Chile-shaped nation wedged between the Pacific Ocean and the Cascade and Coast mountains, the Left Coast was originally colonized by two groups: New Englanders (merchants, missionaries, and woodsmen who arrived by sea and dominated the towns) and Appalachian midwesterners (farmers, prospectors, and fur traders who generally arrived by wagon and controlled the countryside). Yankee missionaries tried to make it a “New England on the Pacific,” but were only partially successful. Left Coast culture is a hybrid of Yankee utopianism and Appalachian self-expression and exploration—traits recognizable in its cultural production, from the Summer of Love to the iPad. The staunchest ally of Yankeedom, it clashes with Far Western sections in the interior of its home states. THE FAR WEST. The other “second-generation” nation, the Far West occupies the one part of the continent shaped more by environmental factors than ethnographic ones. High, dry, and remote, the Far West stopped migrating easterners in their tracks, and most of it could be made habitable only with the deployment of vast industrial resources: railroads, heavy mining equipment, ore smelters, dams, and irrigation systems. As a result, settlement was largely directed by corporations headquartered in distant New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, or by the federal government, which controlled much of the land. The Far West’s people are often resentful of their dependent status, feeling that they have been exploited as an internal colony for the benefit of the seaboard nations. Their senators led the fight against trusts in the mid-twentieth century. Of late, Far Westerners have focused their anger on the federal government, rather than their corporate masters. NEW FRANCE. Occupying the New Orleans area and southeastern Canada, New France blends the folkways of ancien régime northern French peasantry with the traditions and values of the aboriginal people they encountered in northwestern North America. After a long history of imperial oppression, its people have emerged as down-to-earth, egalitarian, and consensus driven, among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy. The New French influence is manifest in Canada, where multiculturalism and negotiated consensus are treasured. FIRST NATION. First Nation is populated by native American groups that generally never gave up their land by treaty and have largely retained cultural practices and knowledge that allow them to survive in this hostile region on their own terms. The nation is now reclaiming its sovereignty, having won considerable autonomy in Alaska and Nunavut and a self-governing nation state in Greenland that stands on the threshold of full independence. Its territory is huge—far larger than the continental United States—but its population is less than 300,000, most of whom live in Canada. http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
  7. B2B Montréal 2012 Ce forum d’affaires international, spécialement conçu pour les PME, est un investissement offrant un excellent rapport qualité-prix pour le développement de votre entreprise. Se déroulant sur deux jours, vous pourrez obtenir jusqu’à 14 rendez-vous de 30 minutes avec des entreprises votre choix. De plus, le Plan Nord s’invite à B2B Montréal 2012; les enterprises participantes pourront créer des partenariats avec des entreprises, municipalités et communautés œuvrant sur le territoire du Plan Nord et plus particulièrement celles de la Nation Crie. Bénéficiant de l’expertise et de l’expérience unique de Futurallia, ce forum de jumelage d’entreprises donne lieu à des échanges fructueux qui débouchent inévitablement sur des opportunités d’affaires. http://www.b2bmontreal2012.com/fr/index.php
  8. Suite à une intervention hors sujet sur un thread du Mackay, j'ai trouvé cet article qui véhicule bien mon opinion sur l'identité de Montréal par rapport à sa réputation et son développement à l'intérieur du Québec vs Les investissement extérieur et l'immigration. Il s'agit d'un article parru plus tot durant le mois de mai dans La Presse. Pas question de « dénationaliser » Montréal http://www.cyberpresse.ca (opinions) mardi 12 mai 2009 ________________________________________ L’auteur est d’avis que le Québec ne saurait être cassé en deux avec, d’une part, une métropole désormais seule dépositaire de la modernité et, d’autre part, des régions assimilées au « pittoresque canadien-français ». Dans la même journée, mais dans deux villes différentes, nous avons pu entendre deux personnalités issues du milieu de la culture affichant deux visions différentes de l’avenir du français : Luc Plamondon, qui s’inquiète de l’avenir du français dans la métropole québécoise, et Gilbert Rozon qui, au contraire, souhaite relancer le débat sur la nécessité pour Montréal de capitaliser sur son bilinguisme pour regagner un statut de grande métropole nord-américaine. Ce débat est tout, sauf neuf, et il correspond à une vieille obsession mal fondée des milieux d’affaires pour qui le français, langue de culture, ne saurait être pris au sérieux comme langue de développement économique. Un débat qui risque de connaître une nouvelle vitalité puisqu’il semble correspondre à l’état d’esprit d’une partie des élites de la métropole exaspérée par les contraintes historiques du cadre québécois. En effet, chez de nombreux partisans du bilinguisme intégral, il faudrait « se réinventer », dénationaliser Montréal et lui permettre de se développer selon sa dynamique propre, sans l’intégrer dans une perspective plus vaste de développement national québécois. Les plus enthousiastes envisagent même pour Montréal un destin de métropole mondialisée dont les appartenances métissées de ses citoyens serviraient une nouvelle identité inscrite tout naturellement dans le réseau cosmopolite des métropoles postmodernes. D’autres encore considèrent que l’identité nationale relève désormais de la préhistoire de la démocratie, et qu’une une nouvelle société devrait maintenant naître dans une hybridité bilingue et multiculturelle. Inquiétante vision C’est une vision de Montréal qui m’inquiète. Il m’apparaît au contraire essentiel de réaffirmer de façon claire, notamment auprès des nouveaux arrivants, que Montréal est une métropole francophone au coeur de la nation québécoise, un statut que lui confère d’ailleurs l’article premier de la Charte de la Ville de Montréal. Le problème de l’intégration des nouveaux arrivants se pose, et continuera de se poser de façon plus importante, si ceux-ci sont uniquement invités à s’intégrer à la culture métissée d’un Montréal devenu multiculturel. Cette tentation multiculturelle est forte, hégémonique même au sein de certaines élites. Elle n’en est pas moins contradictoire avec le destin québécois de la seule métropole francophone en Amérique du Nord, faut-il le rappeler. Car c’est l’enracinement de Montréal dans la nation québécoise qui lui donne son caractère unique si souvent louangé à l’échelle continentale. Même si Montréal possède un statut à part dans la réalité nationale québécoise, elle est néanmoins appelée à y jouer un rôle, non pas de métropole bilingue d’une société multiculturelle, mais bien de métropole francophone de la nation québécoise. Le Québec ne saurait être cassé en deux avec, d’une part, une métropole désormais seule dépositaire de la modernité et, d’autre part, des régions assimilées au « pittoresque canadien-français ». Il faut au contraire que Montréal et les régions établissent et maintiennent une collaboration en termes notamment de développement économique et culturel qui permettrait à l’ensemble de la nation québécoise de mieux rayonner sur la scène internationale. Le Québec est un tout et Montréal appartient à ce tout. Montréal est une métropole francophone et elle doit le rester. *** Gilles Grondin, conseiller de la ville de Montréal District du Vieux-Rosemont Quelque'un partage cet opinions? Quelqu'un a des commentaires ou des rétissences? Ou peut-etre de quoi à rajouté? Pour le plaisir d'en parler intelligement.
  9. Merci, Au Revoir,Montreal and Hello New York I had the chance to escape from New York (no not like the movie) and visit Montreal, Canada this long Memorial Day Weekend. Wow was I impressed. This was not my first trip to Montreal by a long shot, but it was my first trip as an adult. When I was in college, Montreal meant three things to me: Hockey, Concerts and Strip Clubs. And not always in that order. I failed to see the beauty and the thriving cultural scene through my beer goggles. The city is charming, as are the people, restaurants and scenery. If you want a little bit of Europe without actually going to Europe, Montreal may be just your ticket. Yes, Montreal is in Canada, and Canada is another country, not located in Michigan as one of my crestfallen fellow countrymen discovered on line at the airport when asked for her passport. Much to her chagrin, she discovered she would need a passport to travel to Canada, as Canada is a country, not a state or a city. So much for those improved New York State Regents requirements in geography. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I had the opportunity to visit my friends in Montreal, and they, along with the city, were charming and delightful hosts. While I did not get a chance to take in the whole city, they gave me their perspective. It’s always good to visit a city where you know people, they can show you the off the beaten path gems and diamonds in the rough. If you are located in New York or its environs, East Coast, Montreal is about an hour flight and a world away. I can see why it made the list as one of the world’s cleanest cities. Walking around I was puzzled my first day there. I was thinking to myself “what’s wrong with this picture” and then it hit me - the place is so clean you could probably eat off the sidewalk. I mean not a gum wrapper, plastic bag or tossed away soda can anywhere in sight. It’s obvious that people respect their city and the city does a good job keeping things tidy. A small thing to notice, but when you live in New York, where littering is an art form, you notice these things. Don’t worry New York, you are my hometown and I still love you, and you have vastly improved since the days of my youth, I was just dancing with another girl this weekend and in terms of littering and cleanliness, she just danced better than you. Montreal has a lot to offer - if you are into the nightlife, they have a thriving club and bar scene. Food more your thing? Plenty of top notch restaurants. It’s a city of festivals, and a city of fun. Art and culture more your thing? Plenty of that with galleries and museums, and just the architecture and landscape of the city will leave you breathless. I managed to see a great exposition of Cuban art which I probably would not have had the chance to see since that sort of thing is embargoed in the United States (what, you thought I was not going to get political in this post, that it was all going to be travel tips and city reviews, think again, this is me). The city has a famous Formula One Grand Prix coming up in June, not to mention one of the world’s largest comedy festivals, Just for Laughs, and from what I hear, a kick ass fireworks competition. It also has a casino, located near the famous Biosphere from the 1967 World’s Fair (known as Expo 67). I managed to do what I always do whenever I walk into a casino - lose money. But it has great dining and the trip on Montreal’s Metro was an experience. Makes the average New York City subway ride look like a scene straight of “Nightmare on Elm Street”. Okay, as you might guess I have a come down with a bad case of culture envy, city envy, country envy, with a side order of IAS (Inferior American Syndrome). I get this a lot. I travel somewhere and see how things are and begin to feel like a savage. I tend to forget that in terms of culture, America is extremely young on the world’s stage, we are the bratty teenager compared to most of the world. If you have a brain and a conscience, it’s hard not to hang your head in shame these days. My country is prosecuting a war that is not popular abroad, and is currently lead by a man who is despised and looked upon as a clown by most of the world. Try as we do, we Americans are really culturally naive, and I really feel this when I travel. Let’s just say that after Starbucks, Sex and the City and McDonald’s, our cultural lexicon is extremely limited and we are kidding ourselves when we pump ourselves up with this feeling of superiority. Yes, for now, we are a super power, whatever that means. Our motto should not be “In God We Trust” but “The Sword is Mightier than the Pen”. Okay so this blog entry seems like and exercise in self-hatred and country shame. It is. But as my Canadian friend reminded me this weekend, “You Americans are too hard on yourselves.” That was a refreshing point of view. As I continually feel the necessity to apologize for being an American and living in a country who’s government has sponsored and supported war, misery, crime, and tyranny, I need to be reminded of this - that I, and we as a nation, are indeed too hard on ourselves. Like everywhere else, we have our good and we have our bad. Maybe I will never be a flag waving patriot, but I still love my country and want it to grow and thrive, and yes I want us to stand out in the world, not for what we can do to our enemies if they cross us, but what we can achieve once we set our minds to it. There are a lot of challenges that are currently facing us a nation, and indeed as a globe. The environmental crisis, poverty, hunger, tragedies on a global scale, and lack of faith and trust in established institutions have exploded to the surface and kick us in the balls on a daily basis. Now we can turn away, ignore these issues, grab a beer, watch a ball game, become obsessed with “American Idol” or overindulge in the multitude of distractions that are available to us. Or we can see this as an opportunity to take up these challenges and work with others around the globe to come up with creative solutions. The death toll in the Chinese earthquake alone was over 60,000 people. Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar (Burma) has claimed over 140,000 lives. Here in the United States, and estimated 37 milllion people live in poverty according to 2006 data from the US Census Bureau. Domestic violence, addiction, lack of health care coverage, a crippled education system - these are all bigger challenges our country has faced than anything the terrorists can do to us. Soon, we will have the opportunity to select a new President, who will supposedly guide us through this quagmire. But it’s not too early to think about what we can do on the micro level - that means the nation of one - you and I. Can one person change the world - yes believe it or not one person can - one at a time. Keep your eyes open, and you may just see an opportunity to do that.
  10. Des fois, je RdQ me fait tellement chier!! Remarquez bien, ironiquement, l'endroit où une Torontoise affirme que l'indépendance du Québec serait mieux pour Mtl! Food for thought..... http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/358919/montreal-un-probleme-qu-on-ne-veut-pas-voir
  11. Since everyone here loves Maclean's http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/14/the-good-bad-and-ugly/ What the hell is going on in BC? (and secondarily, Alberta, Red Deer? Seriously?!) I liked one of the comments:
  12. Dumont veut que les provinces parlent de constitution Photo PC Jocelyne Richer La Presse Canadienne Québec Les provinces canadiennes devraient toutes faire pression sur Ottawa pour que le Québec soit reconnu comme une nation dans la constitution canadienne, plaide Mario Dumont. Le chef de l'opposition officielle a profité de la rencontre annuelle du Conseil de la fédération, qui se tient à Québec de mercredi à vendredi, pour proposer que le dossier constitutionnel soit à l'ordre du jour des premiers ministres. En point de presse, mardi, devant le parlement, M. Dumont a jugé que le Conseil de la fédération était un forum approprié pour parler de la place du Québec dans la constitution canadienne, et ce, même si le gouvernement fédéral n'y est pas représenté. Il est revenu à la charge pour remettre en question l'existence même de l'organisme, qui n'a pas donné de résultats tangibles en faveur du Québec, selon lui. À l'initiative du gouvernement de Stephen Harper, la Chambre des communes a reconnu que le Québec formait une nation au sein du Canada. M. Dumont voudrait maintenant que cette reconnaissance soit officiellement enchâssée dans la constitution. Le Conseil de la fédération a été créé en 2003 à l'initiative du premier ministre Jean Charest. Il s'agit d'un forum servant à discuter des dossiers de relations interprovinciales et des positions communes à adopter vis-à-vis le gouvernement fédéral.