Bonhomme strikes back

A veteran Quebec sovereignist accuses Maclean’s of ‘constructive xenophobia’



I was more amused than shocked by Maclean’s cover naming Quebec “the most corrupt province in Canada.” It certainly feels that way these days, and Martin Patriquin’s only challenge was to cram in a single story all the strands of allegations and shady shenanigans surrounding Quebec’s current Jean Charest government. All the facts in the story are public knowledge, and for the most part brought to light by an aggressive Quebec media and no less insistent opposition parties.

Granted, the blow—being named most corrupt province—was not as painful for me to take as for most of my brethren, since I am aware of Maclean’s penchant for take-no-prisoners covers. Thanks to the weekly’s headline writers, I have been informed these past few months that Lawyers are Rats, Hitler is Back, Toronto Sucks, New York is a Land of Constant Terror, Hillary Adopted an Alien Baby, and Bush was a new Saddam.

No wait! Maybe one of those titles came from another magazine. No matter. Having been a journalist for a couple of decades, I did try to find in last week’s issue the methodology used to grant Quebec its number one spot on the corruption scale. I was curious to know who was number two, and how wide the margin was—as in Maclean’s yearly university rankings. Did the writers use the number of corruption convictions of elected officials in each province since 2000? The cash amount proven to have changed hands illegally? Or, since no conviction is to be found in Quebec (yet?), the number of police inquiries in play? I was disappointed. Maclean’s has no comparison metrics whatsoever. The whole cover is based on opinion and perception alone. Hopes for a Pulitzer on this one are dim.

So, what is the fuss about? A screaming headline loosely based on facts? They’re a dime a dozen. They sell. And Maclean’s is in the selling business. So all would be forgiven, if it were not for Andrew Coyne’s scoop that Quebecer’s are impervious to “constructive criticism.” Let’s try.

Coyne to Quebec: I have some constructive criticism for you.

Quebec: Great, let’s hear it

Coyne: You are pathologically corrupt.

Quebec: Gee, thanks!

The story is not about the trifecta of: 1) alleged and probably rampant political-donation-for-contracts schemes of the current Quebec government; 2) alleged and demonstrably occurring strong-arm tactics and graft culture of one major element of one of many Quebec unions; and of 3) alleged and probably rife bidding-rigging system of a group of contractors (dubbed «the fabulous fourteen») in the Montreal area since earlier in the decade. That would have been sufficient for a cover.

No, Maclean’s writers purport to show—and clearly affirm—that Quebecers as a people are inherently, historically and systemically corrupt. “Deeply entrenched,” “inevitable” lack of ethics, with “roots of corruption [that] run deep,” “a pattern.” “A peculiar set of pathologies,” writes Coyne. “A long line of made-in-Quebec corruption that has affected the province’s political culture at every level,” writes Patriquin. (Yes, “every” level!)

Two arguments are marshaled to explain why Quebec stands “in a league of its own” in the corruption sweepstakes. The first is the size of government. The second is the corrupting impact of a nationalist culture intent on getting “loot” or “booty” from Ottawa.

Let’s deal with the voodoo economics first. According to Maclean’s, the bigger the size of government in the economy, the badder, and the sleazier. Quebec being the most left-of-centre government on the continent it should, of course, be the most corrupt. Am I allowed to use comparative figures in this rebuttal? Transparency International tracks corruption in world. People are asked if they had to pay a bribe or if they feel that private companies have to. The last report, like the previous ones, does show correlation between size of government and graft: reverse correlation. European governments and the greatest spenders, Scandinavian governments, are deemed significantly cleaner than North American governments, who leave more of the economy to the private sector. Haliburton, anyone ? (A contender in my “best quote ever” file is from David Frum’s recent report on a major Republican consultant commenting on the last small-government Republican administration: “I thought we would get more done before becoming completely corrupt!”)

Then there is the “booty” paradigm. Here Quebec’s incessant requests combine with Canada’s victimization as the benevolent provider faced with ingrates. Pierre Trudeau can be thanked for having conceived and pushed this narrative. In 1950 he wrote that Quebecers “are turning into a disgusting bunch of blackmailers.” Ripping into the Meech Lake Accord 42 years later, he revisited the quote, in Maclean’s: “Things have changed since then, but for the worse.”

The “bidding war” tenet is now entrenched into the Canadian psyche. It will stay there, I am sure. But let me explain why it is wrong. Equalization: yes, Quebec gets more in the aggregate—and less per person—than any other province. But newsflash: for decades we told Ottawa that we would rather have jobs than dole. And we tired of explaining that if the federal investment in the economy (capital, purchases, research, grants) were distributed in proportion to the population, Quebec would instantaneously knock off one point of unemployment off the chart, more so over the years, and get less equalization.

Take energy, for instance. According to Stéphane Dion’s count, the federal purse sank $40 billion into Alberta’s tar sands industry. Fourteen of these billions came from Quebec. Add in the billions for Ontario’s CANDUs and Newfoundland’s sweet deal on Hibernia and you get quite a tab, a quarter of which was paid by the booty-hunters. Now let’s compare that with federal investment in Quebec’s hydro-power in the last, say, hundred years. The answer is zilch. (But we got Mirabel. Don’t get me started.)

There is an impact on Quebec. Call it blowback. According to a recent university study (not from a Quebec university), the loonie’s overvaluation, driven by oil gushing from Alberta and Newfoudland, has destroyed 55,000 jobs in Quebec manufacturing in just five years. A sign of things to come. But, not to worry, equalization growth has been capped for the future, so future oil damage to Quebec (and Ontario’s) manufacturing base will hardly be offset anymore.

The narrative is most entertaining when it comes to “buying” votes in Quebec. The Mulroney government will never shake the very political decision to grant Quebec’s Canadair, rather than Manitoba’s Bristol, the 1986 CF-18 maintenance contract. But does that reflect the whole picture? In November 1991, anti-booty nastiness in Parliament reached unprecedented heights. Then-Treasury Board President Gilles Loiselle, charts in hand, felt compelled to admit to MPs that transfers to other provinces had grown 7 to 10% in the last 15 years, but only 4% for Quebec. Only in Ottawa would a Quebec politician have to pledge to be stingy towards his home province.

Figures are clear for the referendum period. Yes, Ottawa illegally funded shady pro-Canada outfits during the campaign—that much has been proven. But the sums were paltry. Let’s look at the real figures. From its 1994 high point to the 1998 low point, federal capital investment—Ottawa’s most direct input—was reduced, overall, by 31 per cent in Canada. These were the dark days of deficit reduction. In Ontario, the reduction was 19 per cent. In Québec, 33 per cent. That makes Bonhomme Carnaval a pretty inept booty hunter.

But we’ve still got the dole, right? Consider this: In the same period, Ottawa moved to rein-in the financial flow to Quebec, over and above the severe across-the-board cuts in health, education and welfare funding. Respected economist Pierre Fortin figures that the EI reforms added a $100 million per year burden on Quebec. And the 1999 surprise reform of transfers wiped-out Quebec’s (and Newfoundland’s) redistributive advantage and reduced Quebec’s expected share of new funding by $1.8 billion over five years. And forget about compensation for GST harmonization or for the ice storm damage, where other provinces in strangely similar circumstances, and whose characters are not sullied on front pages, fared way, way better.

I lived these days from the inside (full disclosure: I was an adviser to Lucien Bouchard). We didn’t find no booty. We found a stubborn willingness on the part of the Chretien government to make things as hard as they could and to impede our (in the end successful) attempt at balancing our own books. Their take was that separatist politics hurt our economy—and they tried to make that happen. Our take was that a fiscally sound Quebec would be in better shape to become independent.

Among the Maclean’s issue’s most preposterous assertions is that Chrétien’s sponsorship scandal is a sign of Quebecers’ intrinsic black soul. Shouldn’t it be remembered that the Chrétien government was never elected by Quebecers? That was Ontario’s doing. We voted for something called the Bloc. For a long while, Chrétien’s only Quebec MPs were elected in non-francophone ridings, Chrétien himself having trouble keeping his own. When the sponsorship scandal broke, we coalesced around candidates whose slogan was “A clean party for Quebec,” and that was not the Liberals. In fact, in 2005, Quebeckers were so incensed about this scandalous Ottawa-based attempt at buying their loyalty, and grease the wheels of the rejected federal Liberal party in the process, that 55% were willing to secede from the corrupting machine then and there. (Sadly, separatists were not in power in Quebec City at that point to make it happen.)

I have a great idea for a Maclean’s cover. Picture a Bonhomme Carnaval with a halo. No, better yet, a crowd of such Bonhommes as far as the eye can see. The title: Quebecers: Canada’s resilient corruption-busters.

The story would go like this. Eliot Ness-type figures battling corruption are a staple of Quebec culture. It seems to be in the national Quebec genome to rise up against graft and sleaze. Not that they haven’t been duped. In the forties, they loved Maurice Duplessis because he denounced and ridiculed the corruption of the preceding Liberal government. But he then became as a great corrupter himself. In the 1950s, they turned to the incorruptible inspector Pax Plante and crusader Jean Drapeau, who cleaned-up Montreal’s Mob and brothels with a vengeance. Drapeau became a hero, then an autocratic, visionary, and at times inept—but never corrupt—mayor. In the 1960s, the new white knight was René Lévesque, who championed procurement reform in a Liberal “équipe du tonnerre” that equipped Quebec for the modern world. The decade nearly was scandal-free. In the early 1970s collusion between a mob-related union, the FTQ-Construction, and the Quebec Liberal government saw the rise of new corruption-busters in a commission that was followed more closely than hockey night. Brian Mulroney and Lucien Bouchard’s careers take their roots in this largely successful cleansing effort. (One of those lost his way on the road to power and large envelopes with cash. The other did not and remains a symbol of integrity, even stinginess.)

In 1976, scandal odours polluted Robert Bourassa’s government. That factor contributed to his being named Quebec’s most despised politician (he would recover). He was replaced by Quebec’s most revered (to this day) politician, René Lévesque, who would shield Quebec politics from graft with the then-tightest financing law on the continent. In time, both France and Canada would copy its path-charting vision. It would take 15 years for the corrupt to find ways around it, which they did.

But from 1976 to the early 2000s, the ingrained, visceral, culturally nurtured aversion of Quebecers to graft prevailed, and only low-level, small-scale lobbying mischief was to be reported from Quebec City or Montreal. This quarter-century of relative cleanliness must have weakened the collective antibodies of honest Quebecers. They have been reawakened by the new slew of corruption described above. How are Quebecers reacting? They are angry as hell. Over 80 per cent want a full inquiry, 58 per cent want Charest out, and fast. Engineers, policemen, attorneys associations, the Montreal city council, all scream for an inquiry and a robust clean-up. Journalists are all on the prowl, cheered ahead by readers and viewers. Like an endless crowd of furious holy Bonhommes, Quebecers can’t wait to throw the rascals out, and the corrupt in jail. If elections had been held any time in the last 18 months, they would have had their wish. It is only a question of time before the long history of integrity of Quebec prevails, once again.

In reacting to the corrupt-Bonhomme cover, Gilles Duceppe quoted a definition of xenophobia from the European Council: “a systematic or irrational hostility towards one or many individuals, mainly motivated by their nationality, culture, gender, religion, ideology or geographic origin.” So. Let’s address the core question. Are Maclean’s writers, Coyne in particular, and its editors who have published his piece as sound journalism and commentary, xenophobic about Quebec? The answer lies in this question: Had Coyne written that Jews were pathologically greedy, Blacks pathologically lazy or Newfoundlanders pathologically goofy, the copy would have been thrown out the window.

I will not win this argument in the English Canadian media because the standard for anti-Quebec writing has been lowered since 1990 to make Quebecers fair game for wholesale put-downs.

Jan Wong famously wrote in The Globe and Mail that the Dawson and Polytechnique killings found their roots in Quebec’s language laws. That prejudiced nonsense was backed by The Globe’s editors (to Jean Charest’s very great chagrin). Lawrence Martin based part of his book demonizing Lucien Bouchard on a psychologist’s opinion that the separatist leader was mentally deranged. (Wait—aren’t those synonyms: separatist and deranged?) Mordecai Richler’s book about Quebec, at 85,000 copies sold the most widely read treatise on Quebec in the ROC, asserted that 66 per cent of my fellow tribesmen were “highly anti-semitic.” More than in Germany in the early 1930s. Even Peter Gzowski defended him. Diane Francis lamented that separatist leaders couldn’t be arrested and hanged. She was named Woman of The Year by Chatelaine.

These are not rednecks mumbling about the devilish threat of bilingualism and of the metric system in farms out west. These are mainstream, respected writers in Canada’s major media. And they jumped in, earlier this month, denouncing Quebec for attempting to blackmail the Harper government for a stake in a sports arena. The request is debatable—I criticized it on my blog—but the knee-jerk and accepted reaction in the Canadian press and political elites is not to reject the claim on its merits, but to insult Quebecers’ character as a whole.

This is where we are. This is xenophobia. This is what Maclean’s salesmanship rides on and perpetuates as we speak. Yes, I am in favour of the independence of Quebec. Like about half of my fellow francophones these days, I want my nation to be fully responsible for its successes and failures—equalization payments be damned. But on the too-long road towards that day, I sometimes tire. Then, I simply pick up the Toronto press and smell the now run-of-the-mill disdain and contempt routinely showered upon Quebec, to remember another reason why I want out. I dream of living in a country that respects me. That, I do not have.


Jean-François Lisée has been the executive director of the International Studies Center of the Université de Montréal since its inception in 2004. Apart from having been an advisor to the Antichrist (Jacques Parizeau) and to the equally devilish Lucien Bouchard, he is a journalist and author. His last book is entitled Imaginer l’après-crise. Although written by a mere Quebecer, the book features a good number of long words. Not only has Lisée received Quebec journalism awards—awarded for, to quote Jeffrey Simpson “what passes for journalism in Quebec”—but sure-fire Canadian ones, too, like the Governor General’s award for non-fiction and a number of Canadian magazine awards, including a silver award this past year for excellence in column writing for, among others, a column on corruption in Quebec. He actually wrote this rebuttal himself, in English. Hard to believe!

His other rantings (in French) are available on his blog at L’actualité.


Bonhomme strikes back

  1. Unfortunately there are a lot of us canadians that realise that some bad apples are everywhere and that the actions of a loud few do not reflect the opinions of the whole. I hope the Quebecers also realize the reverse is true. We do not always back the loud mouths in Ontario (where I am from) or any other province. Unfortunately the crash and rediculouse usually have the loudest voice.

    • Hard to have any voice, sucking.

  2. Well-researched and balanced assessment and analysis. Should be published (with appropriate cover) in next week's MacLean's. ROC readers deserve access to intellectual integrity and see that there is another side to the Coyne.

    • I disagree about Quebec being the most corrupt provinces. I believe that honor belongs to Ontario, with Quebec a distant second. At least Quebec did get to say something about its Corrupt Mafiosi Liberals albeit from one whistle blower. No such luck in Ontario or wherever "Liberal governing families" are. Vince Canada

  3. LEVIS, Que. – The police force in Levis, near Quebec City, is dealing with the embarrassing arrest of their chief on a drunk-driving charge.

    Jean-Francois Roy, 55, was nabbed by Quebec City police on Wednesday evening with a blood-alcohol level that was twice the legal limit.

    A citizen had called 911 to report a motorist who was driving erratically and who appeared to have his eyes closed.

    Police stopped the car around 11 p.m. and noticed that the car smelled of alcohol.

    The motorist was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test, which he failed.

    When they realized the identity of the suspect, Quebec City police immediately notified the provincial public security department.

    • So, what's your point? I'm sure cops and judges in other provinces have also been arrested under DUI charges. I remember one such case in Bathurst, NB back in the mid-90s.

      • The point you seem to be missing is that this incident was handled in a perfectly permanent manner, and the fact that the suspect is chief of police did not keep the cops and their colleagues from showing integrity. If anything, it is a snapshot of the opposite of corruption.

    • Only 4367 more towns to go.

    • Voilà la pareille, you stupid redneck:

      – Path to $12.5 million lotto fraud starts in St. Catharines

      – Acupuncture clinics bend rules to get subsidy in BC

      – Winnipeg Sophisticated ATM scam cracked

      – ONTARIO – A 20-year-old man was arrested early Thursday after he called police dispatchers and told them he had just killed his girlfriend, authorities said. (now that's corruption at its best)

      – Search continues for missing Brockville woman – Teen arrested after found with missing 80-year-old's car

      – Northern Ontario a mob hot spot: Italy (

      – Toronto 18 ringleader appeals life sentence

      -Nova Scotia: Last week, the CBC performed a worthwhile public service by revealing that Canadian charities are often helping professional fundraising companies as much as the communities they serve.

      En veux-tu d'autres, baveux?

      • Exactment!

      • You forgot the little colonel that raped and killed at least 2 young women (one french) by the way. The scandal of the last election in Toronto . Never heard about that eh!

    • – BEACONSFIELD, NB – A man from New Brunswick has died after being shot while hunting in the Beaconsfield area

      – WINNIPEG – Manitoba has more victims of self-reported crime — from physical and sexual assaults to burglaries and vandalism — per capita than any other jurisdiction in Canada, according to a new study.

      -Alleged money launderer vanishes – Peter Gerard Coffey, 44, is wanted on a Canada-wide warrant. Winnipeg police are on the hunt for a man who failed to turn up to court after being arrested allegedly in possession of $500,000

      – Attempted child luring on Hutterite colony – A man has attempted to lure children into a vehicle at a Manitoba Hutterite colony, and RCMP are asking for the public's help in finding him.

    • So?!? Our wonderful Premier, here in BC was busted with a DUI a number of years ago, and he is STILL IN OFFICE! I would say that you just pointed out an argument against Quebec being named the most corrupt province!

  4. Corruption In Quebeck?say It Is not so. Can u say It with a straight face? It ,s a way of life, has been for years, It,s a title well deserved

    • That you would say that to your drinking buddy is fine, but saying that to someone who supports his affirmations with carefully researched arguments is pretty low, especially when your own affirmation is totally devoid of any argument whatsoever.

      You must be a long-time reader of MacLeans… How good it is to hate just for the heck of it, eh, buddy?

    • Maybe it's because the people in Québec are better at routing out corruption whereas the ROC just hide their head in the sand.

  5. Yes ! Thank you Jean-François !

    I actively work to be sure that one day MACLEAN'S cover will read : Quebec kicks Canada out !
    And under that news, a comment saying "Canada always been and still is too toxic for us !"

    • hahaha. Then leave, nobody wants you here. And when you drown in your own corruption you will regret it.

      • Help us then…please video tape yourself spitting and trampling on the Quebec flag…:D

      • On va vous foutre dehors de chez nous. Le Québec a été victime d'une annexion forcée, illégitime, irrecevable, nulle et non avenue. On ne peut pas quitter le Canada puisque nous n'en faisons pas partie. Le Québec n'a jamais voté pour faire partie du Canada. Il n'y a jamais eu telle chose qu'un État, qu'une fédération, qu'une confédération ayant obtenu le clair « oui » de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec qui a toujours refusé d'adhérer à la Constitution de 1982. La députation du peuple québécois n'a jamais été nommément consultée, ni le peuple lui-même. Alors, il ne nous reste qu'à sortir le Canada du Québec et c'est ce à quoi nous travaillons.

        • Your entire separatist movement is the most pathetic separatist movement in the world. Heck even little Montenegro got it's act together and voted for independence.
          Here's a hint Michel, the reason Quebec is part of Canada is that France lost on the Plains of Abraham, there was no annexation, France lost and ceded Quebec to England. Maybe they should have fought harder but they didn't and Quebec came under the control of England. Instead of doing anything about it Quebec has become lazy and slothful on ROC money, especially that dirty Alberta oil money.

          • that is a very cruel thing to say. the Québecois are not lazy and Quebec is not the only province to rely on dirty Alberta money as you say.
            Let me remind you both that instead of fighting about this you should fight about the poverty in Canada.
            If people would stop nagging at Quebec then its people would not have to fight for their rights and dignity and we could live together in harmony.

          • Mais t'es un parfait imbécile. J'ai envie de vomir en voyant des cons comme toi. I serve in Afghanistan and I'm a separatist. I wasn't before I serve until I met some racists jerk and until I RED ABOUT OUR HISTORY.

          • to Keith M
            What a jerk you are. Get an education it will help you understand a lot of things.

          • Can't you read english? Québec puped 13 billions to start the tar sands … not counting the many billions that we still pump in the raising and trtansport of your Beef industry so that U.S.A doesn't export cheaper meat you idiot.

        • Français/ English

          J'ai simplement une chose à dire : ce n'est pas vrai que tous les Québécois désirent l'indépendance. Moi, je n'en veux pas. J'aime autant le Québec que la Canada, pour moi, les deux sont importants. Je suis Canadienne et je vie à Montréal, est-ce qu'en le disant je suis en train de trahir ma province? J'ai 17 ans et quand on parle d'indépendance, je ne voie seulement que le rêve d'une génération qui me précède. Je n'en peux plus de ce débat. Ne pouvons-nous pas accepter la situation et travailler ensemble pour construire un pays plus fort, au lieu de s'enfermer dans un passé, que de toute manière, nous ne pouvons plus changer? Et soyons honnêtes, peut-être qu'avant c'étaient le cas, mais, présentement, le Québec ne serait pas assez fort pour fonctionner seul.

          I just have on thing to say : it's not true that all quebecers want independance. I do not. I love Québec as much as I love Canada, both, for me, has his importance in my life. I'm Canadian and I live in Montreal, does it mean that by saying this I'm betraying my province? I'm 17 , and when we talk about independance, I just see the dream of an older generation. I'm tired of this debate. Can we just accept the situation and work together to build a stonger country, instead of arguing about a past that we can't change anyway? Let's be honest, maybe before it was the case, but ,nowadays, Québec isn't strong enough to run on its own.

          • Chère Sandrine. J'ai déjà eu 17 ans et je pensait exactement la même chos . D'ailleurs ça m'a pris plusieurs années avant de comprendre que jamais une minorité n'a réussie a survivre au sein d'une majorité : Que se soit à court moyen ou long termes. Regarde dans le monde et tu verras que j'ai raison: Que se soit la Tchécoslovaquie l'espagne,le Rwanda, la russie (U.R.S.S.) , la Yougoslavie, . Trouves moi un seul pays dans l'histoire qui ait réussi à unir deux peuples différents . C'est juste humain : Chacun sa maison et la paix règne . Il vaut mieux être une petite gang qui se ressemble majoritaire chez-elle qu'une grosse minorité chex des étrangers. Arrêtons de gaspiller notre argent et surtout nos énergies à tirer sur la couverture pour avoir quelques miettes . J'aime mieux manger un sandwich debout qu'un steak à genoux. Réfléchit à ça.

          • Sandrine, I think you have to go back and read up on Quebec's economy and resilience. Yes, Quebec would be able to make it on its own. The youth have no memory…

        • Pour quoi promouvoir une idéologie de division?
          C’est quoi “chez vous”?C’est qui les “vous”??  l’idéologie nationaliste (read rascist/fascist) fait en sorte de créer 2 classes de québécois. donc, moi , né au kweebek, me sent jamais québécois grâce a des têtes réduites souveraignistes, qui aiment distinguer entre les nous et les vous.

      • Why are all the rest of Canadians objecting. Thanks for your permission Mister Lavallée (did you forget the accent on the first e or are you totally assimilated?)

        • No he is totally COLONISED like a lot of dead ducks . this is a slow genocide for all french or ex-french people.

  6. voilà qui est bien envoyé Jean-François. Mais entre vous et moi, mépris pour mépris je trouve désolant que vous vous soyez donné la peine de leur répliquer en English.

    il serait temps qu'ils fassent au moins de petits efforts essayer de comprendre ce qu'on leur dit. Façpn aussi de leur montrer que tout na pas été dit par Shakespeare, et que Molière a aussi beaucoup à dire.

    • Gilles, I think you are wrong. I don't think ROC anglos should learn to speak to Quebecers in French–it is Quebecers who should stop turning the other cheek like they always do. If you are proud of your language, speak it–never mind the uneducated bigots who refuse to recognize it.

    • Pierre Bourgault once said real things, the right way on CTV to make sure to be understood. Sometimes it's important not to let the translaters the last word. JF a eu raison.

      Claude Lapointe

    • I think that if you want to make sure that things are understood, you make it sure in their own language… So the message will pass. Je suis francophone mais je comprend pourquoi sa réplique fut faite en anglais….

  7. I did try to find in last week's issue the methodology used to grant Quebec its number one spot on the corruption scale. I was curious to know who was number two, and how wide the margin was—as in Maclean's yearly university rankings.

    This is the strongest criticism that may be fairly launched. That there is no number two, trailing by so many points on whatever scale behind the alleged leader, casts enough doubts into the very non-scientific methodology that led to the conclusion.

  8. Shouldn't it be remembered that the Chrétien government was never elected by Quebecers? That was Ontario's doing. We voted for something called the Bloc. For a long while, Chrétien's only Quebec MPs were elected in non-francophone ridings…
    Yes, I am in favour of the independence of Quebec. Like about half of my fellow francophones these days, I want my nation to be fully responsible for its successes and failures…

    There, ladies and gentlemen, in all its ethnically cleansed ugliness, is your Quebec independence movement in a nutshell. Lisée has his worthwhile Québécois, and his worthless Québécois.

    • And Maclean's apparently has worthwhile Canadians and worthless Canadians.

    • There is no ethnic reference in this quote. You should revise your facts…

      • To Western bigots, yes there is: the Bloc was mentioned, and you know that whoever even dares pronounce "Bloc" is a big fat xenophobe who worships Hitler. Oh, and he is stating the fact that Chrétien's supporters in Quebec were not francophone. You know, when a Quebecer states a fact, they are ethnic cleansers, when they fart, they are bigots and God forbid they sneeze, because then they will just be plain old frogs.

    • And what's your point? The guy states that he sees Québec as his nation and wish it would be independent, and then it would have to face its own successes and failures by itself, without any escapes – Blame Canada, blame whoever but Quebec. He's not saying that other Quebecois who believes in Canada are worthless dimwits. but you did. so there, ladies & gents…

      • Maybe I quoted too much text, so let me condense it to help you out:
        (1) Chretien's Liberals were never elected by Quebecers; for a long while his only MPs came from non-francophone ridings.
        (2) 50% of my kind of people favour separation independence sovereignty.
        Do you see it, yet?

        Indépendantistes have pointed out how undemocratic and dangerous it is for non-francophones to vote so heavily as a federalist anti-separatist bloc. Without a whole lot of cerebral activity devoted to analyzing just what it is about their movement that turns such a huge proportion of non-francophone Quebecers off.

        • No, I don't see it. You are grasping at straws in your attempt to demonize the soverainist Lisée.

          What he said was right. Quebecers have voted for the Bloc in majority. That is FACT
          For a long while Chrétien's only MPs came from non-francophone ridings. That is FACT
          50% of francophones favour separation, independence, orsovereignty. That is FACT.

          So what is the problem?

          "Indépendantistes have pointed out how undemocratic and dangerous it is for non-francophones to vote so heavily as a federalist anti-separatist bloc. "

          Where did Lisée or other indépendantistes say this? Show us with quotes.

          "Without a whole lot of cerebral activity devoted to analyzing just what it is about their movement that turns such a huge proportion of non-francophone Quebecers off. "

          I don't know. What is it about Canada that turns of the majority of francophone Quebecers off?

        • None pure French are non Quebecers, so their votes do not count in Quebec.

    • Ethnically cleansed? what are you talking about? French-speaking Quebecers didn't like Chrétien ergo they are genocidal? Maclean's surfs on the only politically-correct prejudice there is in Canada : that against French Canadians. You, writer and Macleans editors, should be ashamed. (Even the title to this column 'veteran Quebec sovereignist'). Articles such as this feed Quebec separatism.

    • Well said my dear independantist friend. Vive le Québec libre et nous vaincrons.

    • That just proves French peoples are not as stuborn as you and we vote for the most competent and clean party. When they cross the line of corruption we change them but we then stuck with the other bunch of crooks in Ottawa see why we want out.

    • I think the point was that if one agrees that Chrétien might have been corrupt, he didn't get elected in Quebec. It has nothing to do with good and bad québécois. But hey, I might be wrong…

  9. In French/English:

    L'article du Maclean's, tout comme ceux de M. Lisée, nous prouvent une nième fois ce que nous savions depuis belle lurette: que 90 % des journalistes sont d'abord et avant tout des militants et des activistes, et presqu'en dernier lieu des esprits scientifiques, quoi qu'il y ait des progrès, dans la profession, sur ce sujet.

    Maclean's article, as well as those from Mr. Lisée, point again towards what we have known for a long time: 90 % of journalists (this is certainly applicable to Quebec journalists) are first and foremost militants and activists, rather than scientific minds, though there has been progress in the profession in that regard.

    Ce n'est pas pour rien que les journalistes se recrutent surtout parmi ceux qui se passionnent pour la fiction, la rhétorique et les arts, et que la science rebute. Et ce n'est pas sans lourdes conséquences, malheureusement. Conséquences en termes d'élans créatifs qui dépassent le réel, et de difficultés à voir les choses telles qu'elles sont.

    Indeed, journalists are recruted mostly among those that are interested in fiction, rhetorics and the arts, but repelled by (or incompetent in) the sciences. This has dramatic consequences; consequences in terms of creative impulses that defy reality, and difficulties in seeing things as they are.

    Le journalisme véritablement d'enquête (et non d' “axe to grind”) me semble plus fréquent que dans le passé, mais toujours très clairement minoritaire.

    Truly investigative journalisme (rather than "axe to grind" journalism) is more frequent now than in the past, but still clearly among the minority effort.

    • Monsieur / Mister honorable,

      By stating what I assume to be an unverifiable / unmeasured / unscientific statistic like "90% of journalists are…", aren't you making yourself guilty of militantism ( I know, not a word in English) and activism? Or at least severe bias?

      • If you'd only know what kind of activist this self-proclaimed "Honourable" really is…

      • Didn't you know that 67.41% of statistics are made up on the spot?

    • J'aimerais savoir quelles sont vos sources pour affirmer que 90% des journalistes sont des militants et des activistes? J'en connais pas mal, et pourtant, personne parmis eux ont des affiliations qui teintent leurs textes.

      J'aimerais bien avoir vos sources. Et bien sur votre methodologie ;-)

    • Jean-François Lisée n'est pas un journaliste mais un chroniqueur.

  10. J Wong, L Martin, M Richler, D Francis [all said mean things about Quebec at least once]…

    I have no desire to defend the indefensible rhetoric from Wong and Francis that you cite.

    Just wondering: what illustrious quotes might one find on Canada and Quebec federalists above a Lisée signature?

      • He has posted numerous time in French, but we shouldn't read too much into that fact.

  11. I say that Jean-Francois Lisee is wasting his breath writing this and trying to reason with the unreasonable xenophobic English media and RoC.

    English Canadians are bigots and will never change. ;)

    • Vous avez parfaitement raison Molari. Le texte générateur de cette réplique en est une illustration idoine. Et c'est bien la preuve que nous ne sommse pas canadiens. Et quant à moi ne le serons jamais.

    • wow pretty wide ranging statement don't you think. English Canadians are bigots what did that just make you.
      Again I say you are listening to a loud minority unfortunately most of us do not have a platform to show our
      appreciation of not only Quebec but the West and East as well, I am Canadian and proud and that includes all
      Provinces and territories

    • Je ne suis pas un bigot. Your post reeks of ignorance and cockiness. I (from Ontario) happen to like having Quebec as part of Canada, even if it is reported that it is a net receiver of funds from our federal government. (Why should that be?) The people of Quebec add a beautiful cultural contribution to that which is Canada, just as the people of Newfoundland, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and every single other province and territory do. I couldn't imagine Canada without any one of these and anyone who does is acting as a Carcinogen. Let the damned politicians sort it out. Demonstrate a depth of character will you. (Yes, even behind the protection offered by a discussion forum)

      Your post here adds creedance to the fact there is good and bad everywhere.

      Merci beaucoup pour your enlightening contribution.


      • What do you use for knee pads?

      • You said that, Michael, but, as a French-speaking Québécois, I'm always surprised how much your english radio stations always ignore the french-language songs. If you would love us really, you would try to hear a bit from our culture. In fact, many Canadian English-speaking singers are known in Québec, but who knows the Québec artists in ROC?
        Mario B.

        • I actually thought only Americans wrote things as stupid as some of the things I have read on here–from both sides.
          McLeans was a dying magazine not that long ago. Now they put the most inflammatory covers they can get away with to sell magazines. And you all buy into it. I am expecting an issue to soon show 'the woman who had the three-headed baby', ala The Enquirer.
          Some of the comments made here are intolerable. What would happen to Canada without Quebec? What will happen to Quebec without Canada? The ramifications would not benefit anyone. Quebecers should try to look ahead and not back so much—-English Canada should look back and learn its history and understand some of the anger. This is an excellent country no matter which province one lives in and Canadians are respected no matter where in this world one travels. Don't mess with a good thing. McLeans has done itself more harm than having one issue sell. I, for one, a resident of Kingston, Ont., is cancelling my McLeans subscription and I challenge the rest of you to do the same.

    • And i agree completely with you knowing them for 45 years ans still traveling throuh this country called Canada i have quit hoping . Nobody changes we are what we are for the better or the worst, that's it that's all…

  12. Wow! You should hire this guy Mclean’s and get rid of the other douche!

    FYI, for having lived in various provinces and cities accross Canada, and can say I’ve never felt any more animosity inQc than elsewhere. And for the dude who say “just leave”: then let them leave! Last referendum was rigged by a giant love-in paid with your money! Amingst with other illegal federal fundings. But hey; who wants to remember thst! Right?
    Canada, I’m embarassed to be one of you today.

    Merci Jean-François

    • Because of one morons comments you are embarassed to be Canadian,
      You must feel that every day then. I feel bad for you, I am poud to be Canadian
      all the time, not withstanding some peoples stupid comments.

  13. C'est pour quand la première page avec les Bonhommes enragés ?

    De deux choses l'une:

    les lecteurs de Maclean's n'auront pas la force de suivre Lisée jusqu'au bout, parce qu'il y a des limites à se faire dire ses quatre vérités;
    ils l'auront, mais l'intelligence, la précision et l'à-propos qu'ils auront trouvés à ce texte seront anéantis par ces mots:" Yes, I am in favour of the independance of Québec".

    Or il est de notoriété "canadian" qu'il est impossible d'être à la fois intelligent et souverainiste.
    Avec amende honorable à Ron et Ic Bridger. Mais pas à Honorable qui, comme d'habitude, se trompe de rubrique.

  14. Blocked on the Web site of L'Actualité, where M. LIsée had posted the exact same article:

    "honorable : Commentaire en attente d'approbation.
    septembre 30, 2010 à 12:36
    Le Maclean's publie les commentaires beaucoup plus promptement que l'Actualité!"

    • Same old.

      Whereever "Honourable" appears, he always complains of being blocked on mainstream medias…

      He lies. His comment now appears on Lisée's blog. But my answer to his post does not. Not because my comment is blocked, but because some approval is needed.

      "Honourable" further claims that Anglo-Canadian civilization is far better than that of Quebec. Why? Because his posts appear instantly here, while they don't on most Quebec's corporate blogs.

      The law is not the same in Quebec; this is why. In Quebec, (related to Sun TV News) has recently been held responsible for some injurious comments posted by third parties. This was a highly predictable judgment, based on Quebec's Civil Code.

      • Papitibi lies. My 12.36 comment appears nowhere in l'Actualité, exactly as I said. And it does not appear at any other time in l'Actualité. The comment has therefore been blocked by l'Actualité, exactly as I said.

      • Papitibi « lies » read this if you can read french. He doesn't have any respect pour the civil code and for the people reputation including journalist.

    • From reading the 4 replies, I am glad to see that we have at least reached the following consensus:

      "Papitibi lies"". Indeed, while attacking respectable, papitibi did not deny my reply. If he could have denied it, you can bethe would have. But how could he? It is plain, by simply checking the Lisée blog in l'Actualité, that he was lying about me.

      In another blog, papitibi lies to the point of attributing to me statements made by ANOTHER person that I was merely CITING! Looks like if I was citing H i t l e r, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao, papitibi, mind clouded by his tendency to demonize and insult adversaries instead of loving them à la Jesus, would readily attribute these statements to me, especially if the citations look horrendous!

  15. i have lived in english canada for thirty years and have had phone lines ripped from the wall and tv's shut off when french is spoken
    welcome to canada home of the friendliest racists in the world…

    • English Canada's xenophobic reputation is slowly coming to light.

      Bigotry and hatred against their own.

      • Yes, some of them. But I remember going to school after the '95 referendum and having stones and getting spat on because I was a "goddamned englishmen," even though I was 15 and couldn't vote. Racism exists on both sides. Remeber Bouchard's "Québec is a race of whites" remark or Parizeau's "ethnic" slip-up?

        • That was no slip-up.

        • Parizeau did not slip up. He clearly assumed what he said and resigned right after, not out of shame but because of his deep conviction. He just said aloud and on the biggest forum in Canada, what everybody thought (whether for or against).

    • I have lived in english Canada as well and experienced the same as you . Especially if you say what you think…They are the finest people until you tell them what they don't want to hear … Then you see your ears grow bigger and they change their attitude and they end up showing their real side: Dedain and deception because they in general don't want to hear anything that is not nice about their Canada. In my opinion Canada is a gimmick made to stay with England and every effort has been made to not be invaded by U.S.A.. Mais un jour nous aurons notre pays à nous et j'espère que je le vivrai. Vive le Québec libre…

  16. We would have but Federalist dishonesty and big money would not let us !

  17. No, Canada is OUR contry which we founded. If it's not all a mere state of the USA, it's because we French Canadian from Quebec-city to Montreal held the fort, trying to keep our country even though we lost control of it. All these centuries we've been put down by a bunch of anglo-fascists fanatics trying to occupy our lands. So NO we will not quit it. We are here to stay, and we will ghet the respect we deserve from you, even if we have to beat you up on the head with a baseball bat to get it.

  18. Good shot monsieur Lisée!
    Independence day is not so far away.

  19. Bourassa 1 and the rotten meat sold by the Mafia in pizzerias
    Bourassa 11 and Beaver construction own by Senetor Rizzuto
    Chrétien, Gagliano, Morselli and the sponsorship's scandal
    Mulroney and Airbus
    Maire Tremblay and Accurso
    Charest, Tomassi and the daycare center
    Charest, Fava and the juges

    What all those scandals have in commun?
    1) Just Federalists are involved (not a single big scandal in 40 years in Québec with a Sovereignist)
    2) Almost all the time there is a big Italian connection in the scandal. No Chinese. No Haitians. No Portugueses. Always Italians and Ultra-Federalist!

    • Bouh. a raciste, raciste et demi.

      • Because underlining that ALL scandals in Québec involve FEDS is racist while Maclean's blame nationalists?
        Underlining than ALL scandals in Québec involve some Italians is racist while Chineses, Haitians or Portugueses are never involved?

        • Easy and cheap shot on Italo-Québécois. Majority of them are hard workers, federalists and Liberal Party voters, but they are part of US. Some of them are corrupters and mafia members, but any ethnic group have their bad people.

          Claude Lapointe

  20. The problem here with Lisée's text is that he writes as an academic for academics and he is appealing to reason. The Coyne and Patriquin's texts are appealing to emotions and serve to reinforce prejudice in the federalist simplistic followers minds. The KISS crowd. His text is great and serious but that's not the way to win a propaganda war. The federalist strategists must be rubbing their hands with glee.

    • Quoth the academic: Equalization: yes, Quebec gets more in the aggregate—and less per person—than any other province.

      That "less per person" will come as a surprise to the persons in the "have" provinces. Well, no, it will come off as a lie to the persons in the "have" provinces. And I would appreciate confirmation (from someone with knowledge of the actual federal-provincial numbers) whether the "less per person" line is even accurate among the have-not provinces.

      • Do you mean confirmation by someone who is not a French speaking Québecois?

        • Is that somehow implied by "someone with knowledge of the actual federal-provincial numbers" in anyone else's skull, or only in the echoing skull?

    • Quoth the academic: But newsflash: for decades we told Ottawa that we would rather have jobs than dole. And we tired of explaining that if the federal investment in the economy (capital, purchases, research, grants) were distributed in proportion to the population, Quebec would instantaneously knock off one point of unemployment off the chart, more so over the years, and get less equalization.

      Wow. If only Ottawa showered the Quebec economy with more free money, it wouldn't have to shower the Quebec government with more free money. This is some academic we've got here.

      • Ever hear of the term "investment" instead of "shower". Ever thought of maybe Canada "investing" as much in Québec proportionately as it does in most provinces?

        • Ever thought of maybe Canada "investing" as much in Québec proportionately as it does in most provinces?

          That's funny.

    • Quoth the academic: Take energy, for instance.

      Because that's the cherry-picked example a whining Quebecer might choose in order to make an unfair point. Guess what? Whiners from elsewhere will have no trouble cherry-picking other sectors where Quebec (or some other province) gets the lion's share.

      This is why I loved M. Bernier's linking expected government largesse with national unity in his stance against government funding of Colisée-Deux. The more a federal government tries to play sugar-daddy for everyone, the more everyone screeches "Hey! No fair!" when looking jealously at the fellow dependent whiners.

      • My my my ….this English bigot madeyoulook has a lot of nonsense to say all over the place. :D

        • The "English bigot" kindly requests evidence of nonsense and-or bigotry in these rather spur-of-the-moment rebuttals to a series of self-serving and outrageously petty and selfish economic claims.

          To any real evidence of bigotry, I will retract and apologize. To any real evidence of nonsense, I will try harder to explain. I must, however, emphasize that pesky word: "real."

          I will come back in a couple of hours to assess the damage, and respond appropriately.

      • And it is also the point a "whining" ROC inhabitant will use to disparage Québec. Remember the "You bastards can freeze in the dark" bumper stickers you could see everywhere in Alberta in the 90's. And they did not only mean Québec. But tell me how much money has the federal government invested in the huge hydro electric development plan in Québec, compared with what the federal government has invested (wasted) in the Tar Sands. To take it even further, which one is renewable clean energy by the way?

        • Federal government NEVER invested in the huge hydro electric development plan in Québec. DOT… Be honest, just check the past federal budget since 1960. DOT…

          Claude Lapointe

        • Jeebus. I never said they did. Try reading again. I said that a crybaby like Lisée would NATURALLY cherry-pick a single sector that didn't go Quebec's way in the sucking-on-the-federal-teat department, the better to conveniently ignore other sectors that are reversed. And that this dishonest trick can be just as easily replicated by other crybabies across the country.

          As for "clean" — Them's a lot of mercury-laden fish and dead caribou and disrupted Cree up there. That may yet be cleaner (or at least less unacceptable) than the costs of tar sands development, but let's not kid ourselves that Hydro-Québec's exploitation of hydro resources is all squeaky-clean and collateral-cost-free. Which has nothing to do with Lisée's weak arguments, but it is a reply to your question.

          • Lisée, a cry-baby?? Wow, you clearly have never read much of his stuff, have you? He's consistently rational, his arguments are well-formulated, his understanding of the issues puts him at the very top of his field. Your caracterization undermines your arguments.

          • Whining that Quebec hydro doesn't get enough federal subsidy largesse for Lisée's liking? That's pretty much the same cry-baby-ness that other Canadians resort to when some sector in Quebec does get the federal largesse.

            But thanks for meaninglessly choosing one word as a substitute for the actual point of my argument.

      • For what it's worth, madeyoulook, not everyone in Quebec is a) corrupt (egad!) and b) for the new Colisée. Yes, a tiny fraction of us have integrity and brains. Ooh, er. Imagine that. Now what would happen if you actually spent time here, met the people, had intelligent conversations with them instead of grandstanding from afar? You might have another think.

        • not everyone in Quebec is a) corrupt (egad!) and b) for the new Colisée. Please indicate where I state that there is universal corruption and support for a (taxpayer-funded) Colisée-Deux, requiring your alleged rebuttal.

          Yes, a tiny fraction of us have integrity and brains. Please indicate where I state otherwise.

          Now what would happen if you actually spent time here, met the people, had intelligent conversations with them instead of grandstanding from afar? I am pointing out the misleading claims made by a single author. I wish I could understand your thought processing that has me dissing an entire population.

          • I was replying to the general tone of your arguments. Things *can* be taken as a gestalt, you know. Your piece-meal ripping of Lisée's arguments does not obscure your overall ideology.

          • And what ideology is that? That, in fisking Lisée absurdities, I am somehow anti-Quebec? anti-French? Please, please, tell me what is my crime for pointing out Lisée's weak whining arguments here?

    • Quoth the academic: Then-Treasury Board President Gilles Loiselle, charts in hand, felt compelled to admit to MPs that transfers to other provinces had grown 7 to 10% in the last 15 years, but only 4% for Quebec. Only in Ottawa would a Quebec politician have to pledge to be stingy towards his home province.

      Here the academic is deliberately being sneaky. A hundred dollars, with 100% growth, is $200, A billion dollars, with 1% growth, is $1,010,000,000. Wah! No fair! Our booty only grew 1%! Without the actual numbers themselves, this comparative growth narrative this "academic" is pushing is meaningless. But I have no problem believing that he is academic enough to understand this. Your "appeal to reason" bit, however, falls flat.

      • Please look at the real facts and not some quickly concocted numbers set up to look like you want them to look.

        Just think about what you said and try the real maths.

        Please don't forget that close to a quarter of the total population of Canada lives in Québec.

        • Gladly. Who has the numbers, and why did Lisée cower behind percent change as some sort of meaningful metric, as if that meant anything, unless it was specifically to misleadingly butcher mathematics in order to arrive at a — wah! — smaller number than for other jurisdictions, thereby proving Bernier correct about the threat to national unity when crybabies (like Lisée) from coast-to-coast-to-coast whine about "special treatment" for everyone else but themselves?

          Wow. Next time I will take a deeper breath…

      • And your point is… journalists accross the spectrum use rhetoric to stake their arguments?
        Now, if you would please use that splendid intellect of yours and applied the same rigorous thinking to the MacLean's article… I think you would find it falls flat on its face, wherease the JF Lisée commentary hold together rather nicely, on the whole.

        • Nice try. My point is that THIS journalist was so selective about his arguments as to be incredibly misleading.

          As for my alleged intellect and rigorous thinking about the article in question, I suppose you somehow missed my very first comment on this whole page. Here, let me help you:

    • Quoth the academic: Respected economist Pierre Fortin figures that the EI reforms added a $100 million per year burden on Quebec. And the 1999 surprise reform of transfers wiped-out Quebec's (and Newfoundland's) redistributive advantage and reduced Quebec's expected share of new funding by $1.8 billion over five years.

      Wow. He wants his admirers to believe that the fairness correction of a historical and unfair advantage is somehow evidence of la tyrannie fédérale. It is not hard to believe the disclosure that this guy and Lucien Bouchard were close.

      • Then why does the ROC still hang on to Québec? Why did the ROC come in groves to fight the nationalist affirmation in 95 helped in doing so by humongous (illegal) funding from the federal government (remember Gomery)? Why does the ROC so stubbornly want to hang on to Québec if it's such a burden for the ROC?

        Let me enlighten you, maybe it'll makeyoulook.

        One of the most important revenue instruments for the federal government is GST. If we compare the size of each provincial economy, notwithstanding the pauperisation image in which the ROC perceives Québec, it is the second largest after Ontario, it is larger than the 4 maritime provinces banded together, it is larger than BC and Saskatchewan put together and Alberta stands alone (because of the Tar) but also behind Québec and Ontario.

        Think about it.

        • Think about it. Ooooh, such thinking!

          Here is echo's thinking in a nutshell: (Q) This huge division of your company is a massive drain on your resources, it loses money hand-over-fist every year, it takes so much attention up at head office. Why don't you close it down? (A) Volume!

          If you think, for a nanosecond, that the reason the ROC puts up with Quebec, year after year after year, is the GST revenues…

      • All in all, after reading your criticism of the "Academic", I sumrise that you don't seem to be an academic either

  21. Well done Jean Francois.

    Performed with skill and efficiency. / Adroit, efficient et efficace.

    Thoroughly cooked. Right on / Fort bien frappé. ''En plein dans le mille''.

    Claude Pelletier
    Montréal-Rosemont, QC

  22. That's MacLeans for you: a pimple-faced teen sticking out its tongue at everything you say.

  23. With friends like english canada, Quebec does not need ennemies…

    • With "enemies" like the Rest of Canada, Quebec does not need fiscal responsibility…

  24. Mr LIsée pretends that there is more xenophobia in english Canada than in French Quebec.

    If, over a period of 10 years, we would record the number of statements, in Quebec, that demonize The Gazette, anglophone newspapers and/or english anadians, and record the number of statements, in the rest of Canada, that demonize Le Droit, francophone newspapers and/or french Quebeckers, I think that Mr LIsée would be in for a huge surprize. He would realize that, though there are xenophobics among both french Quebeckers and english canadians, xenophobia is more prevalent among french Quebeckers than english canadians.

    For example, The Gazette is demonized daily in Quebec, and for no valid reasons. Is Le Droit demonized daily in Ontario?

    • Dear honorable,

      If you are right, there must be a way to prove it. Let's see what the figures are for 2006, according to statistics canada:

      Among census metropolitan areas, the highest rates of police-reported hate crime were in Calgary (9.1), Kingston (8.5), Ottawa (6.6), London (5.9) and Toronto (5.5). There were no hate crimes reported in Saguenay, Sherbrooke, …

      But wait, Montreal is not even on the list!

      better luck next time

      • @camelectric: you have an excellent point about hate crimes. Every indicator that I know indicates that french Quebecker are LESS violent (less prone to crimes) than english Canadians. But we are talking xenophobia, and Lisée is giving as examples: Wong, Richler, Maclean's, etc. NONE of these have committed CRIMES!

        In other words, one people can be much more xenophobic than another while at the same time commiting many fewer hate crimes. That would seem to be the case among french Quebeckers…

        • Dear honorable,

          Point taken, but for my personnal culture, perhaps you should bring up examples of mainstream journalists from Québec that have written xenophobic articles in main stream publications.

          • Dear honorable,

            Not to mention the Angus Reid survey from september 09 2010:

            Albertans (56%) and Ontarians (55%) are more likely to view immigration in a negative light than respondents in all other provinces, according to the release.

            Read more:

          • @camelectric: the list of xenophobic articles about hassidic jews would be endless. The list of articles demonizing Israel would also be endless. This is, too, a kind of xenophobia. The list of derogatory articles about english canadian movies, art, or culture (of the type: there is no culture there whereas we…) would also be endless. Endless…. or at least longer than the list of Lisée, which name only 2 journalists: Wong and Coyne. Translated to a french Quebec context, this means that I would only need to name 0,5 journalist! (There are 4 times as many anglo canadian journalists as french Quebecker ones.)

          • honorable: the list of xenophobic articles in the Globe & Mail and the National Post is very very long. please based your facts on real things. not your perception. ah right, you are writing a comment on an article based on no facts. you should applied for a job at Mclean's. they don't care aboutr real facts

          • Dear honorable,

            You are right about the 0,5 journalist, It doesn't make any sense. I guess it just proves that xenophobia, just like stupidity, is evenly distributed amongst the human cultures.

            (btw, I dont think critics towards Israel is an act of xenophobia: it is perfectly legitimate to question the religious apartheid that is taking place over there and most jews I know are as much anti-Israel than any other western intellectual)

            was nice chatting with you

          • For your knowledge honorable: In All newspaper in Toronto there is every week a full page of publicity for a financial firm that among other things says:( We speak your language) and then enumerates 16 languages… and guess what??? not french… Wait … There is a sing when you arrive in Toronto saying Welcome in Toronto in 6 languages and guesswhat??? no french… And wait I happen to live near Ottawa : You know the so called nationnal capital… All signs and all clerks … No french . But let me continue let's talk Québec O.K. Try to get serviced in french in those towns: Westmount, Hudson ,Campbell's Bay ,Shawville , Oter Lake , Douglastown (Gaspé),Côte St-Luc,kirkland,Pointe-Claire,Dorval, etc… I travel everywhere in Canada and I assure you tht we have to send bilingual people for these areas because we wouldn't be able to do business so don't tell me we are intolerant . If we were we would either boot them out or they would leave by themselves.

          • Very good point here.

            Claude Lapointe

    • You say the Gazette is demonize daily…I dare you to find a single article that does that…oops….maybe one article in the last month will help?

      liar, liar pants on fire come to mind?

      You have no credibility Mr honorable …unless you can find one news article "demonizing the Gazette and its readers"

      Amazing that people like you would spit out anything….

    • The Gazette is demonized in Québec??? Oh my Lord! If that rag would truely be informative and write about something else than the "genocidal" Language laws (Loi 101) or the '' poor '' state of the privileged Westmount Anglos, who comprise only 18% of the population FYI, maybe they would be taken seriously , albeit the clownish joke they now represent!!!!

    • Is it a cliché now to mock The Gazette? Maybe. But I've worked in the Montreal West Island for a couple of years. I can say that there was an anti-Quebecois article at least two or three times per week. They spoke about Quebec separatism as if it was an immediate threat 6 years after the fact! You can't find this level of demonization anywhere in french newspaper.
      Anyway, Mr. Lisée is not comparing levels of xenophobia. He is saying that MacLean's article is based on xenophobia. And the examples he gave are hard to deny. Is one xenophobia excusable because of an other?

    • It is the other way around, you dishonorable. It is the Gazette that demonizes Quebec daily.

    • Yes, maybe there is some degree of xenophobia in French Québec, as there is elsewhere.
      But talking of The Montréal Gazette, I think you should ask yourself if they are from Québec or some other planet. Reading that newspaper you find opinions demonizing anything that makes Québec a French majority province. Of course, living in Montréal one tends to think that the rest of Québec does not exist. How is TheGazette integrated in mainstream Québec? What is their contribution to building a better Québec, other than whining over the loss of right for the anglo minority since the 70's.
      "Demonized in French Québec", not so, just ignored because it's a small community paper that does not contribute much the an open dialog between Québécois.

      • @tashunka47, Guest, quebecdom: I get the impression that you are not subscribing to The Gazette, or have not paid a subscription to this newspaper for a long time. In other words, I have the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about: that you are expressing yourself on the basis of hear-say. What you say does not correspond to what I read in The Gazette, to which I subscribe, by the way.

        • Dear "honourable", in order to make your argument stick, you would do well to provide actual numbers based on verifiable information from The Gazette, The National Post, the Globe and Mail, the Calgary Herald, along with La Presse and Le Devoir. As it is, I don't beleive you subscribe to either of the latter publications yourself, and are simply talking "out of the left side of your mouth", as we say in Quebecois.

    • Cher honorable The Gazette n'est rien d'autre chose qu'un vulgaire papier pour s'essuyer et rien de crédible n'en sort jamais à moins que tu sois déjà convaincu de ce qu'ils écrivent car il ne faut pas oublier qu,ils publient pour des gens qui ne lisent pas autre chose ou qui lisent l'équivalent, genre globe and mail ou national post ou macleans…

  25. Criticizing or just insulting Quebec, French-Canadians or just "the french" will always sell copy in the ROC. The Frogs lost the battle of the Plains of Abraham, so what right do they have to complain about anything? They're racist, loud and have this bad habit of refusing to become good English-speaking Canadians, like all the "others" (i.e. non WASP) that came to this country. On top of it, their hockey team has more cups than the Leafs…

    But there's something else at stake. I think that English Canadians are gradually turning into… Americans. There are many signs of this (Harper in power in Ottawa, for example), but this unrestrained and growing contempt towards Quebeckers (fellow Canadians, remember?) reminds me of extremism that is increasingly found south of the Border.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept Quebeckers as they are and stop picking on them in an outrageous and unfair manner (like MacLean's) … or let them have their independence. Period.

  26. If I may, a light-hearted comment:

    Best bio ever, at the end, there.

    • thanks. I enjoyed writing it. you're the only one who noticed. jflisee

      • No he's not! You're so right ;-)

        • I enoyed it, too, just didn't think to mention it. :)

  27. Canadian cityzens are not our ennemies and never will be. No mather what the future might be. I am for indépendance of all provinces and sharing together the best of what we are and have. I want Ottawa out of Québec, the sooner the better. One governement is an off and we do have our own. The people troughout regions of Canada can take care of their own business too, saving a great deal of money, time and energy by doing so. Conservative want to cut on governement, i suggest they disolve that big useless federal artificial structure to stop millions ridiculous spending at once.

  28. BREAKING NEWS that I do not yet see on the Maclean's site (maybe it's here somewhere, maybe not):

    "On behalf of the company [Rogers Publishing], we sincerely regret any offence that the cover may have caused."

    • Notice, not apologise; only regrets

    • The only apology Is that those stupid quebecers felt offenced. I call it hypocritical : (We don't regret what we showed just that you reacted to this insult).

      • Yves,

        quel call gratuit. Avant de traiter les Québécois de stupide et de ne pas regretter les niaiseries évoquées par ta pute (ton journaliste à l'imagination fertile, qui se sert d'une belle tribune pour faire du Québec bashing et qui crée des attaques gratuites contre cette belle province), commence par te demander si l'argumentaire évoqué par ta pute est appuyé par des études, une méthode ou si elle est simplement évoquée par son égo et mon manque de classe…

        Non la province de Québec n'est pas rose… il y a de la corruption mais est-ce qu'il y en a plus qu'ailleurs ? Est-elle simplement plus exposée? Avons-nous de meilleurs chiens de garde pour nous protéger ?

        Bref, plusieurs questions demeurent ouvertes…

        En terminant, vous êtes un lâche, probablement une merde sans éducation et je vous invite à consulter l'outil de Google Traduction, pour comprendre mon texte, car probablement que vous ne parlez pas le français.

  29. Most would disagree with you. There is that one election which you talk about, where he's showing is also relatively poor anywar, but in the previous ones, JC had extremellly bad showing. He even had to be elected in the Maritimes because he couldn't win a seat in Quebec in the very first one (doing this from memory, don't know exactely). That's despite the long tradition of the party in the province.

    Also, the more important point for Quebecers, is that, at least in on election, he got ALL Ontario seats.

    Doesn't that also disprove eloquently one of Patriquin/Coyne tenant?

    I think to miss that is to entirely misunderstand canadian politics during 93-08.

    • You're quite right, Observer; Chretien first ran in by-election in a Maritime seat, after becoming Liberal leader, in 1990. It was obvious at the time (just after Meech Lake's collapse, and the founding of the Bloc) that Chretien would get creamed in most Quebec ridings, so he chose one in New Brunswick, and even there his victory was not so solid. (This even though the Tories did not field a candidate against him; ostensibly they were allowing the new opposition leader to gain a seat, but I suggest they secretly wanted to make it easier for the NDP candidate to beat him.) You're also right to point out that he owed his 1993 victory to the 'bloc ontarien' (in '93 there actually was one seat he didn't get), while the supposedly monolithic quebecois returned interesting an mix of MPs: not only the Bloc, but also 19 of Chretien's Liberals, a Tory — Jean Charest — and an independent. I suggest that the Liberal tradition in Quebec had already been undermined, by the time Chretien became leader, in the 1980s; under John Turner, the party did far worse there. I won't disagree that Chretien's support came mostly from anglo-federalist Canada, not least in many of the Quebec ridings he held. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the Patriquin/Coyne… tenet? I'm not suggesting that Chretien's faults (or strengths) are a reflection of the quebecois, who so disliked him.

  30. Thanks Monsieur Lisée, many quebecers are behind you in the battle against racism and corruption. To the rest of Canada, the Bloc, for many years tried to have a law on the limitation of political parties financing like the one that René Lévesque gave to Québec, all to no avail. Now messieurs les anglais , c'est qui les corrompus. You have no f lessons to give us about clean political manners. The Parti Québecois set the standards that are internationnally recognized to the exception of the rest of Canada.

    By the way, thanks to Macleans, you've achieved more this year for independance cause of Québec than anybody else.

  31. I am very impressed by the civilised nature of the comments on this instantaneous blog. Is that typical of english Canada?

    My experience of instantateneous blogs from french Quebec is very different: the comments are much less civilised, much less polite; people start insulting whomever thinks differently from them, pretend that person has debilitating physical and mental diseases, distort the names and pseudos of people they don't like etc.. As a result, in fact, all blogs on cyberpresse are not instantaneous: they are filtered before being published. The same happens at l'Actualité.

    The fact that Maclean's does not have to resort to prior filtration of comments suggest that english Canadians bloggers have greater maturity than french Canadian bloggers. This also suggest that there is a degree of intolerance in french Quebec that does not exist in the rest of Canada. Different opinions can be instantaneously expressed in the ROC. In Quebec reigns a régime of "pensée unique", and of intolerance of whomever thinks out of the "pensée unique" box, that makes the existence of instanteneous blogs next to impossible.

    English Canada and Maclean's readers: congratulations for your apparently greater maturity.

    • on comments are easily as bad as the ones on francophone blogs

      • Sorry!?! They are worst! Especially the ones from Calgarians; inbreed conservatives, religious nuts and happy slaves without freedom

      • @tom smith: amongst francophone media, Radio-Canada is the worst. I have seen them publlish an electronic comment from a Laval university professor ONE WEEK late, i.e. buried behind all the comments that were sent for a week after her comments.

        This way, Radio-Canada could say: "see, we are so open that we published your comment, even though it does not fit the opinion of our journalistes."

        Cleary, there is something hugely wrong at Radio-Canada and probably at CBC: a kind of intellectual straightjacket that is very regrettable.

        • Mr. (or Mrs.) "honourable", what you allege as being a flaw in the French-Canadian character is rather due to lack of funding for web staff. Doh!! I'm sorry, I've been reading your comments for the past half-hour and you are so obviously biased and trying to back up your biases with weak, faulty, and fallacious arguments that I just had to call it out. Your arguments, sir, madam, are simply in bad faith and thereby merit no more attention from intelligent and rational readers.

    • Did you ever count words like moron appears in english comments? It would be instructive to you…

    • This bilingual, native-french speaking quebecer thanks you for your misguided opinion.

      See Tom Smith's comment. is too much for even the most cynical person to handle.

    • Drole de commentaires puisq.ue la majorité des commentaires semble venir de Quebecois.Mais continué Honorable vous etes surement le chouchou des Canadiens englais.Vous etes le genre Quebecois qu'ils aiment avoir de leur bord …mais qu'ils méprisent….Et ils on bien raison.

    • Ces petits francophones collaborateurs sont mêmes plus zélés que leurs maîtres canadiens.

    • It's because most of the comments are from Quebecers writting in English you idiot!

    • When you say civilised, I read hypocrisy . Chase the natural and it comes back .

    • If you'll notice, Mr. (or Mrs.) Honourable, most of the comments on this blog came from Quebeckers. What does that tell you?

  32. So what do you want to do? How can we make it better? Would you like to have access to a judge's revenue information? Is the job so important that a judge should give up financial privacy?

  33. What I find especially interesting in your comment is that the article was solid until Lisée told that he was a damn separatist, which instantaneously destroyed his credibility.

    This is not how you would be able to recover Quebecers to Canada's cause: disdaining half its population because of its political choice just increases frustration, as you simply push the debate with the back of your hand. Lack of convincing arguments, I would guess?

    • The fact that Lisée was upfront about his political convitions did absolutely nothing to diminish his credibility, in my view, but rather enhanced it. He's well-recognized as a man of integrity and very methodical in his arguments. I'd like to know how you support the notion otherwise?

  34. Perhaps Quebec really is a nation.

    Certainly they react to allegations about corruption the same way many third world countries do.

    • Maybe it is because, like many third world countries, Quebec reacts as a gained nation. It is definitely far more civilized to react as a conqueror…

    • What allegations? These cases of corruption are all known already because they were exposed by our media, our politicians and our police. We expose the corruption and fix it with regulations. Or are you suggesting that civilised countries should instead hide the corruption just to avoid making the front page of some magasize?

  35. Merci beaucoup Jean-François for providing an articulate and passionate response to English-speaking Canadians.

  36. Ha! So funny to read Québec-bashers. And they try to explain that's not xenophobia.

    Funny, really!

    Québec and the ROC never understood each other and the discrepancy is more and more accentuate. Why refuse the obvious, we disagree on everything or so. Like an old dysfunctional couple, separation would be for the best. We can still be friends, neighbors , but not live under the same roof.

    How many canadians feels quebekers?
    If more than 50% are felling that way, I would consider that canadians feels that Québec isn't different from Canada, but I'm sure that's not the case. So, if you, the majority of english canadians, don't feel that quebeker and canadian are synonyms, why refuse the only conclusions: that we are different?

    Different doesn't mean war, it only means different ways, parted ways. Why deny that?

    • I totally agree with you Nicolas. Quel bonheur de sentir qu'on est pas seul à penser la même chos : Vive le Québec libre et toutes les provinces aussi . Ayons notre propre maison .

  37. What point was Macleans trying to make with those statements without any foundation?

    As for The Andrew Coyne – not worth a penny. Just a in my mind great but mindless writer!

    • Exactement – exactly. Don't even know why we let him annoy us, but he is an annoyance. I am changing my cell phone account from Rogers to either Bell or Videotron.

  38. Eat the french. Now!

  39. Congratulations Jean Francois ! Years ago, we were neighbours in the Eastern Townships but you were a very young boy on Duvernay street. Another neighbour on Argenson was Hugo d'Amour, a baby who, we just found out, is Attaché de Presse in Québec….

    Thank you for this beautiful reply to the obnoxious MacLean's piece especially the front page with our Bonhomme Carnaval.

  40. Quebeckers are so wrapped up in the fact that they are different instead of realizing how they are just like us they truly are and 'could be part of something great' if they let themselves, they are completely full of themselves.

    I say let them separate and watch them fall flat on their upturned noses. Besides EVERYONE knows ALL governments are corrupt so…….where is the surprise?!

    • See…
      Why would we fall falt on our noses, ah yes you know better than us. Pathetic. We shall overcome !

      • lol, Read your history. God what a bunch. Never give up no matter how low you sink!

    • Lisa, if we really think that the quebecois could be 'part of something great' by realizing they are 'just like us' (sic) , then who are full of themselves?

      Further, I don't know that all governments are corrupt, or have to be. If they are, why should we be surprised at the indignation of some people in Quebec when theirs is called 'the most corrupt'?

  41. What a bad predictament, and a total reverse of who has the ball!
    Without a doubt, Quebec has been insulted beyond all means of acceptance! They have been totally humiliated and outed beyond all decency! They have no choice, in protecting their aristocracy, and respectablity of their Culture, by the Country wide attack on them, but to form their own Nation, that Harper had given them! But, guess what? They can't do it! It was all a bluff! Harper is a genious! Checkmate forever!

    • I bet that Nation word bothers you. Poor guy.

    • Its no good. You have to log in or something.

      • Oups… Sorry.

    • Est bonne est bonne. Que j'aime notre peuple et cette nation du Québec qui ne veut pas mourrir. Lâchez pas.

  42. Yes everything M. Lisée says is true. His every word should be carved in stone lest anyone forget them. Any thinking Quebecer knows who M. Lisée writes for. And many have come out of their holes to post here. Listen! Mon oncle Jean-François is saying something profound yet again. Ahhh……this is so good!

    Eric Plante says: "With friends like english canada, Quebec does not need ennemies… " Well, mon ami, with friends like English Canada, Canada does not need enemies. We're not special.

    PS: I can't blame so many of my fellow Quebecers from wanting to drown themselves in alcohol. There is just so much abuse some people can take before breaking.

    PPS: M. Lisée, your "province" is already fully responsible for its successes and failures… Or are you just another one of those who think that independence/sovereignty will magically give you all that you believe you should have? Your movement is a perfect analogy for modern society: "It's not my fault!"

    • Here we go again, Québécois drown themselves in alcohol. Pathetic. Come and see how Canadians from other provinces come and drown in alcohol in Québec City during the Carnaval. You won't believe your eyes!

    • Did you actually read the text??

  43. PS: I can't blame so many of my fellow Quebecers from wanting to drown themselves in alcohol. There is just so much abuse some people can take before breaking"

    lol, well that started 350 years ago!
    Oh well, Danny will console you!

  44. Merci Jean-François Lisée pour ton article. C'est rafraichissant de lire une réponse avec des faits à l'appui.

    Si le reste du Canada pouvait nous comprendre seulement un peu, on saurait que les Québécois ne sont pas anti-Canadien, bien au contraire. Mais quand on s'est fait rejeter en 1982 avec les rapatriement de la constitution avec PE Trudeau, quel choix avons-nous?

    Nous avons plusieurs amis anglo-Canadiens qui ont une tête sur les épaules et les Québécois sont capables d'apprécier le talent, la culture et le génie de gens qui partagent ce pays. Il faut seulement qu'on sente que ces gens sont ouverts. Nous applaudissons les Judy Richard, Jim Corcoran, Nanette Workman et plusieurs autochtones aussi Florent Volant, Elisipie Isaac et autres et nous sommes capables de voir en eux une richesse.

    Ce qui nous répugne cependant c'est la désinformation dans les média contrôlés dans le ROC et l'arrogance d'éditorialistes qui ne peuvent nous voir dans leur soupe.

    When Canada realizes that were are not just another cultural group in the Canadian mosaic and that there is another nation that wants to fully make choices according to their own priorities, maybe we will come close enough to revamping a constitution that needs fixing badly.

    • Sorry we haven't the time or the interest!

      • USA governement: "We haven't the time or the interest to understand the needs of the South", that mentality leads to separatism and then civil wars

  45. Re the notes following Lisée's rebuttal in English…

    I would love to see Coyne's rebuttal in French (written by the great Andrew himself of course).

    " Although written by a mere Quebecer, the book features a good number of long words."

    This statement can only be attributed to an encephalo-rectumitis mentality demonstrating crass ignorance of Canadian francophone literature and contributes nothing to bridging the gap of misunderstanding spanning the two solitudes.
    Before criticizing one's writings in French, it woiuld be advisable to read them!

    By the way, I am neither a Quebecois and much less a separatist …but I do make a conscious effort to understand others' points of view regardless of their origin. I find the notes re Lisée's writings to be more offensive than the original story.

    • I would love to see Coyne's rebuttal in French "
      Use Baffelgab or google translation. With only 5% of Canadians outside quebec, ( Federal french workers), who can speak some french, it not worth wasting time on learning that! Its obvious Coyne , instead, has an education.

      • Funny man, maybe you should learn English.

        "it not worth wasting time on learning that!"

        Yes not worth waste learn bad me go poo now, kbye.

        • I mean you're almost a parody of a hick.

          You wrote about 30 words and made 5-7 mistakes, depending on interpretations. Way to go, you're not bilingual, you can't even write in your own language!

    • Dear C. Charpentier, as I wrote earlier, I wrote the bio myself, just to stay in the general tone. Also, I wanted to squeeze in Jeffrey Simpson's condescending quote about journalism in Quebec.
      Never would have Maclean's make such a description. I mean, not under the circomstances anyway (that's a joke)
      JF Lisée

  46. I am a French-Canadian (I come from Chicoutimi,Qc) but now live in Toronto for the last 10 years. There is corruption in Quebec, this is true: jjust think of the construction scandals and infrastructures going down killing people when those infrastructures were deemed safe and sound… And there is corruption at the Political level; but there is always coreuption in any Government (economic action plan contracts mostly in Tory country…) But the article goes too far with allegations about the core of quebecers that they are all corrupt.

    Is there a common Quebec mental illness affecting all residents of the Province? I don’t think so. Yet that is what the article suggests. I don’t find Macleans to be a good magazine for over 3 years now. I used to subscribe but prefer Time magazine for it’s more in-depth journalism (which I would love to find a Canadian magazine like that but have been unsuccessful). This is probably why we become “Americanized” in English Canada. At least I can still rely on CBC and Radio-Canada for unbiased Canadian news and in-depth coverage.

    • Is there a common Quebec mental illness affecting ( french)?
      Read your own history and decide. Start with napoleon, a certified nut! Then move forward or backward, you get the same results. Like WHO do you think you are? Never won a war, never ran a country, never off welfare!

      • I guess you don't know your history.

      • Wow. I guess that explains everything. English history is so much better: A king that killed 2 of his wives and that had dementia because of syphilis.

        Honestly,liminator, that is the most immature answer I ever received on a blog. Congrats!

        • " A king that killed 2 of his wives and that had dementia because of syphilis." WOW, Really? Do you have a list of the ,say, Haitians that napoleon killed, and how he did it? I heard Hitler was impressed.

          This is probably why we become "Americanized" in English Canada,?
          Funny how you people can turn English so fast! lol I remember in 1970, when my English friend Ray Roy, became Rrrrayyymond Rrrrroooooyyyy, and didn't recognize MOI!

          • You don't know quebeckers at all if you think we identify ourselves with Frenchies and Napoleon

      • A certified nut? Just look in the mirror. lol

  47. Il eut été préférable de d'utiliser l'image de L'orang Outang sur la page couverture. Car l'orang outang n'hésite pas à prendre tous les moyens dolosifs pour arriver à ses fins :

    Pour preuve l'orang outang est l'animal fétiche de cyberpresse en matière d'intimidation, de menaces et d'extorsion. Exemple bien connu :

    Bravo à Honorable Ph.D (yale) et médaillé de la Reine pour sa participation à ce blogue. Ce qui rehausse le niveau d'échange.

  48. Did you know that Ontario was originally part of Quebec and they broke away because they were a minority.

  49. Quebec has one of the highest rates of intermarriage with minorites so it can't be that bad there. Plus minorities are discriminated against all over the world. I see you must focus on Quebec because you are xenophobic.

  50. It makes sense that Quebec would focus on promoting francophones because the Quebecois couldn't get jobs when anglophones controlled companies. Anglophones were noted for hiring minorities and tried to push the Quebecois to the bottom. The younger Quebec generation never experienced this discrimination but some Quebecois say that Canadian xenophobia is reviving the independence movement. Good Job Xenophobes! lol

    • According the latest census data, there are 2 400 000 Allos in Canada who have gone Anglo. Combined with the 400 000 Francophones converts to English and the 500 000 new native English speakers in the country, this has led to one of the fastest periods of growth for the English language in Canadian history according to University of Ottawa demographer Charles Castonguay.

      Even in Montreal, the allophone's last refuge, economics pressure the majority of allophones who assimilate into one or the other of the great linguistic confederacies choose the English-language. The number of people who reported using English as their home language increased by 5,5% between the last two census periods. Again, unprecedented in the history of Canadian census data, according to prof Castonguay.

      Montreal is not getting more diverse, it's just becoming more English. Just like Canada, where there are no more allophones.

      • who cares

      • No more allophones? I see alot of Asian culture when I go to to the west coast. Chinese is spoken everywhere in Vancouver. Take a taxi from almost any major airport in Canada and the driver is visibly allophone – as are the staff in fast food outlets, Walmart, Zellers, etc. Just an observation.

        • Yes, that is true, and Vancouver's allophones is what makes the place. What is really weird though, is that BC has to spend millions for a french school system because of the 5000 quebec immigrants to BC, to occupy the forced french federal jobs.
          But besides driving taxis the Allophones also own, most of the GVRD! lol
          The Allophones in Quebec come from 3rd World french speaking Countries. So far they own most of the bicycles.

  51. This porching paper has demontrated that they are missing judgement and can only take old clicher to try to sale there paper.

  52. Nous vaincrons. We will Win.

  53. Don't worry Lavallee we will flourish because we will not have to fight and spend hafl of our energy to just get what we deserve and we won't be in the hands of foreigners and their supreme court, and the senate and the queen of england and the rules of federalism. One income tax , one governement , one imigration ministry, one ministry of everything . Every 4 years you boot out the government if you don't like it and nobody else is in sight. A people should have his country , this is the way all normal people exist. Wheter it be Tutsies hutus, slovaks or tcheks greeks and turks armenians and russians. Find me a nation in the world that is living in peace and happy with another , especially if minoritary situation just try to find one …

  54. Let me please explainyou in a few words what it is all about O.K. : I an an ex. federalist like most of my contemporary fellows and over the years and with my knowledge of my Canadian neighbours, I have learned tht you cannot mix two different cultures in the same house . Imagine you and your family living in the same house with another family with the same culture and background… Now imagine that you are 4 of your own and the other family is a family of 20 : let's add that your neighbour is a clos parent of the family of 20 but they are 200 . Wouldn't you feel a litlle inconfortable in that house ? To simplify let's say : We don't feel it's HOME.

  55. Merci monsieur Lisée . Que je suis fièr d'être Québécois en ce moment . Notre pays nous l'aurons si plus de gens comme vous se lèvent et fièrement disent comme je dis toujours à mes 6 enfants : J'aime mieux manger un sandwich debout qu'un steak à genoux …

  56. You know it is chinese for a lot of people too… Not very bright comments!

  57. A Minority is a minority, for a reason. How the French manage to stay that way, even in France is puzzling.
    Maybe their need to marry minorities below them is their Idea of the image of having progressed! lol
    And also note! That the English have never had trouble with other nationalities, just the one that everybody has trouble with. ER

    “It's a scandal for the French, for the young people here. It's a scandal for the federation and the French team,” Valentin said. “They don't want to train. It's unacceptable.

    “As for me, it's over. I'm leaving the federation. I'm sickened and disgusted,” said Valentin, who walked away from the training field, got into a car and drove off."

    • You are an insane person

      • Maybe that is because I didn't have the strong great Genes of the Natives of North America, like you do! Assuming, of course, you have read some of your history, preferably in English, which has a far broader language base, allowing a better understanding.

        • I have read it, in French, from the Anglo-Canadian perspective and from the Anglo-American perspective. I have a good grasp of it all… and I am a Québécois de souche, with ancestry going back to the foundation of Montreal.

          I also know the history of the rest of the world and can put ours in a broader context. Pretty sure you have no lesson to give me.

          You're just a racist redneck.

  58. Congratulations to Maclean's for readily accepting electronic comments in french. Such openness is inexistent in l'Actualité, cyberpresse, Le Devoir, Radio-Canada, etc. (1) Dans ces médias, les commentaires en anglais ne sont tolérés QUE SI le billet est écrit en anglais, ce qui n'arrive pratiquement jamais.

    If Maclean's had reacted like Quebec francophone media, it would have said: "Dear commentator: if you have been able to read Mr. Lisée's text, which was written solely in english, you should be able to write your comment in english also."

    On the contrary, Maclean's wisely knows that is is usually much harder to write in a foreign language that to read a foreign language.

    There is simply no valid reasons francophone media should not accept, in the comment sections of their electronic articles, comments in english.

    (1) Proof: Here is what the administration of L'Actualité wrote in the coment section for the Lisée article:

    "ADMIN : Normalement, les commentaires uniquement en anglais ne sont pas publiés. Je fais exception ici puisque le texte du billet est lui-même en anglais."

    • Vous etes un grand- collaborateur – .Meilleurs que vos maitres dans le Quebec bashing .Je vous le dit vous etes le genre de Quebecois que le ROC aime mais too bad for you ils ont du mepris pour ce type de frog parce que meme eux savent reconnaitre un traitre .Bravo

      • Dans l'ancienne Amérique, il y avait les Field Nigg*r , c'était ceux qui ramassait le coton dans les champs.
        De l'autre côté, il y avait ceux plus dociles qu'on nommait les House Nigg*r.
        Désolé d'utiliser ce langage, mais en effet. Monsieur Honorable ici est un parfait exemple de cette deuxième sorte.

        In olden days America, there was the Field Nigg*er, they were those in the fields picking cotton
        On the other side, there was the more docile ones whom we called the House Nigg*r
        Forgive me for using such language, but really. What Mister Honorable is saying here is a perfect example of the later kind.

        Furthermore, it's really a sham and nitpicking. Find ONE MORE ARTICLE in Maclean's where there is comments in French please. So, it is an exception here as well as in l'Actualité. And guess what, this is beyond the point. Go post in French in a Flander newspaper in Belgium and I'm pretty sure it won't work out either.

        You'd figure Canada could be a bit more grownup… but no, it's a pityful country that showed the mediocrity of their cheesy nationalism during the Olympics. Showing pride for their Natives, Beavers, Polar Bears and Mounted Polices… Oh yes, they allowed us to at least have one sh*tty pop singer. They also wanted to have Vigneault translated for the event. What a nice culture I tell you.

        • Why were you even invited? Or did you just barge in, again?
          And articles in french? In Canadian magazines? Only if we are forced boy!

    • The story is part of the annals of relations between France and Quebec. On February 3, 2009, in a sumptuous room of the French Senate, Mr. Lasbordes was welcomed with Mr. Charest, unknowingly, a rather vulgar expression: "I hope you do not have too much land plotter as they say in Quebec. "The members of the Quebec delegation did not believe their ears … ____LOL, I bet that was funny, in some language. I guess, just confusing, to most! So funny.__No wonder all well off people in, the World, are sending their Children to English school, including Quebec.

  59. I live in Vancouver and am perfect. I love all my neighbours!. lol What a hillarious joke! Some of us have lived there you know and its about as backward and a hateful place I ever been to. We will trade you 50 french for every Asian! That pass the CIA test. lol Then we would feel more like its home!

  60. Honorable

    J'ai tenté à plusieur reprises de mettres des commentaires en français sur des forums et des médias anglophones. On a toujours refusé de les publier. Macclean's accepte? Ok Très bien.

    Les médias Québécois ont la même approche que la quasi totalité des médias anglophones…. et alors?

    Veux-tu insinuer qu'un média qui accepte de publier des commentaires en français sur son site internet s'achète la légitimité de publier des commentaires racistes anti-Québec?

    • @François Cardinal: merci de confirmer qu'une PARTIE des médias anglophones est plus ouverte, dans la section commentaire, que la TOTALITÉ des médias francophones. Qu'un commentaire en français ne soit pas publié dans un médium anglophone filtré (on me dit que beaucoup sont modérés à la source plutôt qu'en direct comme les blogs du Maclean's), cela pourrait s'excuser dans la mesure où le modérateur ne connait pas bien le français.

      Mais qu'un commentaire en anglais ne soit pas publié dans un média francophone filtré, c'est il me semble, 95 fois sur 100 de la filtration idéologico-linguistique, car je peine à croire que le modérateur ne peut lire un texte en anglais.

      Cela dit, je condamne la page-titre du Maclean et les aspects non scientifiques de l'enquête du Maclean's. L'enquête était suffisamment détaillée pour montrer que la corruption était répandue au Québec, mais pas suffisamment détaillée pour établir un palmarès de la corruption. Cela devrait être clair si vous lisiez mon premier commentaire sur ce blogue.

      Réponse à votre question, donc: non.

  61. Thanks to MacLeans, the independence movement in Quebec got a boost and if the article reflects what Anglo Canadians think of Quebec, then I wonder why they've bribed (according to the article) Quebeckers to remain in Canada? Why don't you just let go and wish Quebec good after its independence? It seems it would be a blessing for both Canada and Quebec as the latter would stop being dependent on federal generosity and other provinces' benevolence. Two civilized countries could easily live side by side if both wanted. Just a thought.

    • Dear Mr. (or Mrs.) Taqulik: Please go back and read over M. Lisée's article. Canada's fables generosity towards Quebec is a MYTH. Quebec contributes more to the federal governement than it gets back. Other provinces' benevolence, my a**.

  62. The last line of this article resume it all for me… I'm not especially convinced by secessionism, as I am against almost all seperatist movements around this planet.

    But that remains true:

    "I dream of living in a country that respects me. That, I do not have."

  63. No wonder Quebecers are on a blind, people and politicians like this successfully put blinders on its population:

    According to this site

    Source: Statistics Canada
    Per capita benefit is derived from provincial population data in other Wiki articles and the total payments cited below.

    Quebec and Manitoba will receive the most from equalization payments in the 2010-2011 year.
    However, per capita, PEI benefits the most. In the 2010-2011 year, the following provinces will receive equalization payments:

    * Quebec ($8.552 billion)
    * Manitoba ($1.826 billion)
    * New Brunswick ($1.581 billion)
    * Nova Scotia ($1.11 billion)
    * Ontario ($972 million)
    * Prince Edward Island ($330 million)

    The following provinces will not qualify for equalization payments in 2010-2011:

    * Alberta
    * Saskatchewan
    * Newfoundland and Labrador
    * British Columbia

    Source: Dept. of Finance Canada, accessed 15 June 2009

    Quebec receives the highest equalization payment compared to all have not provinces combined. It may not receive the highest Equalization payment per capita compared to PEI but its close.

    • According to Neil Reynolds, from G&M:

      Alberta and the federal government spent $13,016 per capita in 1982; $16,888 in 2010.
      Saskatchewan and the federal government spent $10,554 per capita in 1982; $16,335 in 2010.
      Manitoba and the federal government spent $9,944 per capita in 1982; $17,070 in 2010.
      Ontario and the federal government spent $9,522 per capita in 1982; $15,324 in 2010.
      Quebec and the federal government spent $11,148 per capita in 1982; $14,760 in 2010.
      New Brunswick and the federal government spent $10,672 per capita in 1982; $16,680 in 2010.
      Prince Edward Island and the federal government spent $10,632 per capita in 1982; $16,943 in 2010.
      Nova Scotia and the federal government spent $10,500 per capita in 1982; $15,673 in 2010.
      Newfoundland and the federal government spent $10,564 per capita in 1982; $19,623 in 2010

      Interesting that Quebec's citizens receive less in government spending than any province in canada. So, please stop with your equalization number.

      • What you are writing is very misleading, as you took the combined spending of Provincial and Federal. You could have broken it down to how much of that amount is provincial spending and how much is Federal, then you get a real picture. Globe and Mail did not really go in depth as to the break downs, but look at take the example they have given.

        Let us take for example British Columbia which is not listed in your summary which is also from Globe and Mail.

        In 1982, B.C.'s government spent $2,585 per capita; the federal government spent $2,734. Combined, they spent $5,319. This number can be expressed in 2010 dollars simply by doubling it: $10,638 per capita. But in 2010, B.C.'s government spent $8,334 per capita; the federal government, $6,998: for a combined spending of $15,332 per capita – an above-inflation increase of roughly 50 per cent.

        As you could see in that example the BC spend more money compared to Federal contribution. But have you heard BC whining when not getting the top most money in Federal spending nor qualifying for equalization payment?

        So please listen to your advise and stop usingincomplete data.

        • Danny Williams said Quebec was conniving 50 billion a year from Canadians, through the various giveaway projects, which Quebec never misses a one! Danny knows!

          • Ah that explains it, you're a Newfie… Boohoo, please stop shaming your Province by acting like a complete twit.

          • Hey, it's not that it's a bad idea for Québec's English-speaking kids to take classes in French. What's profoundly bizarre is the concept of English-speaking children immersing themselves in French in schools with no French kids two blocks away from an actual French school…

            As even the Montreal Gazette reported, the result is technically bilingual kids who don't know any French people and who are uncomfortable ordering a burger in French at McDonalds.

            On the French side there is growing tension between proponents and opponents to the kind of bilingual programs that have become common on the English side. While there is a lot of demand for them, opponents feel that the French schools' mission of integrating immigrants into Québec society, especially in Montréal, could be seriously compromised if more English was introduced in the schools.


          • As a result, many French-speaking families in Montreal are massively abandoning the public school system for private schools that offer, among other things, better English classes. Between 2001 and 2006 the number of students in Montreal's private schools leaped by 30%.

            All this together leads to a profoundly dyslexic school arrangement. Immigrants to Québec are now intergrating themselves into Québec society in schools with no French-speaking Québécois, while Québec Francophones send their children to private schools. Montréal Anglos are building their own parallel French school network with no French students while Francophones in the rest of the province are keeping an English school system alive even though there are no more actual English-speaking students.


          • I believe Danny Williams still has a grudge on its province's hydro deal with Quebec. I am not very familiar with the complete contract between Newfoundland and Quebec hydro deal. In so far as contract deals, it is usually negotiated and agreed between two parties. I don't think it is fair to blame Quebec alone on the unfairness of that deal. I would say, Newfoundland negotiators at that time were more to blame for their lack of foresight and business acumen in negotiating that deal. As for conniving $50 billion/year from Canadians, I wonder how he reached that assumption?

        • I could have copied the article if you preferred but I choose not to. Funny that someone refering to wikipedia as his source telling me that G&M journalist isn't accurate… There is no incomplete argument since the total for both governement in every province is given. According to Maclean, quebec governement is bigger than anywhere else, so that mean they invest more money per capita than other juridictions, right? So, even with equalization money, quebec doesn't receive the same amount than other places.

          So please, stop saying bs when you don't have any counter argument.

          • Globe and Mail data is not complete, the break down on how much is provincial spending and how much is Federal, was not given. Also yearly amount is not given. There are many kinds of spending, they did not even give specifics on this one. The purpose of that piece is to warn provinces and Federal government of its increase in spending (across the past 30 years) and what it realistically means to provincial and Federal Debt to GDP ratio. It was not meant as a source or reference, for comparison on which provinces benefited the most from federal spending.

            If you do not believe me, take a look at your source again and reread them. The source I have quoted above is the same source you have quoted also. Globe and Mail is not a complete source because they use that data only for limited context, not for in depth comparison. You also have to remember that the word accurate is not the same as incomplete. If you need in depth go to Government of Canada's finance department which is the same source as the wikipedia you belittled.

            Before you cry unfair prematurely, take a better look at how little BC received from the Federal government in 1982 ($2,734 FEDERAL) + ($2,585 PROVINCIAL) = TOTAL ($5,319 per capita). Let us compare that with what Quebec received at the same year TOTAL (Provincial + Federal) = $11,148 per capita. I would have wanted the break down and total per year, not only 1982 and 2010 as these years are not enough to make conclusion as to how fair is the federal government. I would also like to know the total federal transfer payment per province. Just in 1982 the disparity is glaring but you never hear any Eeehk! from BC. What I agree with the writer though, is that spending across the board needs to be curtailed or we will all be paying the price, our debt burden is just too high. We are actually borrowing money we cannot afford to pay. In fact those Canadians not born nor planned yet, are already having debts to pay.

            Please reread your source below:

            Unless of course, if you have a different source, please fire away.

    • How many times do we hace to reply the same answer ? WE DO NOT WANT PEREQUATION…We want our taxes and our fair share of federal money (Go read Jean-François Lisée) . Why did Ottawa favour Ontario for the auto pact and did not move a finger for the forest industry in Québec . Why does Ottawa take our billions to subsidise
      G.M. Chrysler , the western beef producers , the tar sands, the harmonisation of the G.s.t. for other provinces and not Québec who was one of the first to harmonize it? And you could keep your perequation…

      • You have already spent the federal tax dollar you sent to Ottawa that is why you need equalization to fill in the gap. There is nothing really much we can do than hope that you will do justice to that money you were sent. As for Ontario's auto industry's bail out, and I believe that money comes from Alberta not from Quebec. We should have heard Alberta whining but noooooh, we have to hear a lot of whining from you. Before you shout BS, I am from BC and we do not receive bail out either nor equalization. It is okay to whine but not too much, otherwise it gets so irritating. You are politicians not children, act dignified.

  64. For $ 8.5 billion a year ( $ 5700 a year for my family of 5) in equalization payments per year (my sincere thanks to the hard working people of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and British Columbia for this great generosity), I can put up with some undeserved scorn from Maclean's activists-journalists. (See message from Ariadna, just above, for details.)

    Thanks to these "equalization payments", we, in Quebec can reject uranium mining near Sept-Iles, and outlaw oil and gas explorations in the shallow waters of the Gulf ane Estuary of St-Lawrence (nothing like the depths of the Gulf of Mexico). Thanks to these equalization payments from oil exploring Newfoundland, for example, we can afford to be that picky and snobbish towards potentially dirty work…

    • I do not think Canada is complaining only because of equalization, in as much as the incessant whining and blackmailing from the BLOC. Add to that, is how much of that money is wasted due to political corruption and bureaucratic waste.

      • French is not spelt B-L-O-C
        The BLOC are a respectable entity,who want to determine and pay their own way. Its the rest, along with the so-called bilinguals

      • Dear Ariadne, the Bloc is only doing its job of defending the interests of Quebeckers. If you consider that whining, well, perhaps you should elect politicians to defend your own interestes equally well.

        There was a very interesting newsreport on the CBC a couple of elections back about the Bloc, the great work they were doing, the respect they get from other back-benchers and from a lot of "invisible minority" voters in the ROC. What you call whining, many call admirable and would like to have for themselves.

        • There are times when children can only understand children reasoning. As for CBC, they could even make murder looks like a reasonable option.

  65. Merci encore monsieur Lisée . Je suis tellement fièr d'avoir dans ma nation des gens comme vous et ceci est partagé avec mes 6 enfants. Nous finirons bien par l'avoir notre pays. Quelques fois c'est lorsqu'on touche au but qu'on a l'impresion d'aller nulle part . Le bien ne fait pas de bruit , Le bruit ne fait pas de bien…

  66. Honorable

    Le Québec paye 50 miliards $ en impôt à Ottawa à chaque année. Avec cet argent et les pouvoirs délégués au gouvernement anglophone d'Ottawa, le ROC se paye des politiques économiques et des réalisations comme le G20 et les subvantions à l'industrie automobile de l'Ontario. Tout ça pour donner des job à nos amis du anglophones du canada. Une fois qu'ils se sont servi copieusement dans la caisse, ils nous lancent dédaigneusement des miettes en nous traitant d'asisstés sociaux de la fédération. La réalité est que le Québec se fait fourrer avec son propre argent alors que nous sommes la province qui recoit le moins de péréquation par habitant et le moin des investissements du gouvernement anglophone d'Ottawa. La dédération canadienne cherche à étouffer le Québec pour lui enlever tout envie de se battre. Ils sont en ce moment même en train de vider le Québec de son pouvoir économique en centralisant la bourse et la commission des valeurs mobilières à Ottawa. Cette fédération est un piège à con.

  67. La décision d'Ottawa de renier sa signature du protocole de Kyoto entrainera des représailles économiques que le Québec subira au premier chef. Pendant que l'Albeta se vautre dans son fric et sa boue bitumineuse, nous au Québec, nous sommes forcés de travailler pour vrai pour réussir à se payer un bon niveau de vie et payer la taxes mafieuses du gouvernement d'Ottawa. Vivement la séparation!

  68. You live in a cave?

  69. "to build a highway in Quebec costs 30% more per mile than anywhere else in Canada." (Maclean's)

    If that does not make Quebec the most corrupt province in this area, it makes it the most incompentent. Is there really a credible alternative, Mr Lisée? Surely, you are not insinuating that we build better roads than in Ontario or Vermont, are you?

    • Let me teach you a little geography. First I travel for business across all eastern Canada so I know what I'm talking about .

      First Québec has 30% more roads than Ontario, with over 30% less population .Facts. And for your benefit you should travel out of the 401 or the 417 next time you go in Ontario, you would see what it is a bad road . Considering this our roads are as good as theirs. And I did not read this in the Montreal Gazette or Macleans…

      • @yves: if we have 30 % more roads with 30 % less population, why do we masochistically insist on paying 30 % more per mile? Should we not, on the contrary, insist on paying less per mile than anywhere else in Canada because:

        1) we have 30 % more roads than Ontario;
        2) and 30 % less population, which means that, per unit of population, we have 70 % more roads?

        If housing costs less in Quebec than in Ontario, why should roads cost more?

  70. Blocked by L'Actualité (Lisée blog):

    honorable : Commentaire en attente d'approbation.
    octobre 2, 2010 à 13:18
    For $ 8.5 billions in equalization payments per year ( $ 5 700 a year for a family of 5 ; my sincere thanks to the hard working people of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and British Columbia for this great generosity), I can put up with some undeserved scorn from Maclean's activists-journalists.

    Thanks to these “equalization payments”, we in Quebec can reject uranium mining near Sept-Iles, and outlaw oil and gas explorations in the shallow waters of the Gulf and Estuary of the St-Lawrence (nothing like the depths of the Gulf of Mexico).

    Thanks to these equalization payments from oil exploring Newfoundland, for example, we can afford to be that picky and snobbish towards potentially dirty work…

    • We're all onto you… please, it's a pity to be that persecuted.

  71. apres ca vous vous demandez pourquoi 49% des gens veulent se separer? Venez pas nous dire que vous nous aimez avec une vague de drapeau canadiens apres lol!!!

    • So, because some Canadians say they love you, so they should not tell you that your politicians are doing you in. Have your Mom and Dad, the one who love you most, ever scolded you?

      • We ain't your mom and dad! In fact NO relation. Please! Stop the suck up. If possible. Again.

      • Excuse me, Ariadne, why exactly are you infantilising Quebeckers? This throws a serious credibility damper on all your beautiful, rational arguments of a minute ago. Let's stick to a mature discussion, please.

        • Wow, they affect your sense of humour too eh?

  72. "The whole cover is based on opinion and perception alone. Hopes for a Pulitzer on this one are dim."

    Well said!! Jean-François, if I may: Your rebuke is way too long, and gets lost in the details, but that part did make me laugh… That is refreshing after seeing so much hatred directed against the Québécois, in this "fine" English Canadian magazine. LOL

    Thank you Jean-François.

    • The Pulitzer has never been won by a Frenchman, nor had anything to do with the French. Do you not know your standing in the World? Canada makes it the law to assign half accreditations to french! Like no one pays any attention to awards in Canada anymore.

      • Make sure to wear that pillowcase on your head

      • Also, the Nobel Prize of literature was awarded the most often to a Frenchman/woman… it is the only Nobel category where the US are not number 1.

        The Pulitzer is not for French journalists anyway, on either side of the pond, in case you didn't know…

  73. Please join this FaceBook group if you feel concerned by this ugly situation. SVP joignez-vous à ce groupe facebook si vous êtes mal à l'aise face à cette situation…

    • Facebook is for teenagers. Leave them alone. Be brave and blog here or CBC.

  74. Separation is certainly inevitable to avoid anymore Prime Ministers from quebec. I mean, another pirouetter ? lol

  75. Thumbs up for the bio at the end. Very funny! :)

  76. Very nice, witty rebuttal, a letter that looks like what the article should have been like. This is where this pseudo-discussion should stop. But it won't.

    Quebec separatists use this kind of folly to uphold the Canadian straw-man, the one that is worth separating from. Having travelled and lived across Canada, I know that this straw-man is a caricature. There are a diversity of opinions about the national Canadian question.

    Canadian federalists use this kind of fallacious argumentation (Coyne's) to set up the Quebec straw man. This one also doesn't exist. There are federalists, separatists, and a bunch in between, who are making up their minds every election, who wish for the best government in the province, regardless of their Canadian allegiances. There are other nationalist movements in Canada, albeit smaller, in Alberta, in Newfoundland. National unity questions exist all across the world. Simply making stereotypes of people, drawing on people's knowledge of lowest common denominators, and shooting at straw men, only gets nations in trouble.

    • Well said.

      It is looking all over the world that made me change my mind about Quebec nationalism. I seen where it lead to, I seen my leaders cheer for the creation of Kosovo as a country (not to mention, the rest of Canada) and I understood there and then, that this was all a sham. You want corruption, check Kosovo, this stupid UN-lead fake-country is ran by the mafia and the number 1 employer is the US military.

      You want to see stupid seperatism, check Scotland, it's a truly bankrupt region of the United Kingdom (unlike Quebec, which have the most advanced economy of the country, no matter what you make it out to be). By advanced, I mean in the tertiary and quaternary sectors. Not that it is richer, but it is a contrast to Ontario banks and insurance companies, which we lost in 1976.

      When I think of great Canadian companies, I am not thinking about Manulife, Royal Bank, Toronto Dominion Bank, Sun Life, etc. They may be the biggest, but not emblems of our country… Now that would be more stuff like Bombardier, SNC Lavalin, Alimentation Couche Tard, Tim Horton, Jean Coutu, Alcan, Cirque du Soleil, Hydro-Quebec, Research In Motion, etc.

      Making Quebec seem like the backwater of Canada is failing to recognize how far we've came since the 70's and the divestment of the Anglo power structure from the economy of the Province. Our "Maître Chez Nous" was accomplished. When they made Jurassic Park, they didn't go to Toronto, they went to the best in the world for visual effects… and that was in Montreal.

      We have most of the greatest Canadian companies as far as I'm concerned and understand our economy. Our government make bad use of our great performance and spread us thin as far as public spending goes.

      I'm not a secessionist, but I'm never going to accept that the ROC goes to claim we're a broke backwater that offers nothing to Canada… and worst, make them poorer. In so many sectors, we should be a model to follow, not one to fear. Quebec City for instance have the highest employment rate with Saskatoon out of the major Canadian cities. We need better governments, but as far as our culture, economy, companies and general hardworking attitude is concerned, we have no lesson to be given.

  77. As Trudeau once said of Nixon's xenophobic harangue (look it up in the dictionary you dimwitted low brow) "I've been insulted by better people".

  78. I know may comment wont make a difference in a country that is brainwashing itself denying a realité; there,s to nation in Canada. That's it That's all. It,s a fact. Stop the xenophobic crap so you can denye the reality. It's interesting to notice that the only culture that is bashed down and fought against all the time is the only true non-naitve CANADIEN culture.
    Il english canadians would have made room for Québec's canadian dream, there would be no seperatis movement today.
    The real separatists are the english canadian who ejected Québec from there Canadian fairytale symbolic identity world since the referendum.
    I dont want to be in a country were my so called compatriots keep bullying me for defending and promoting who I am and who I am is a product of the canadian land.
    Continue to blind yoursefl in your canadian religion!!!!

    • "Il english canadians would have made room for Québec's canadian dream, there would be no seperatis movement today."
      lolol, Do I need to remind you that in the treaty of Paris, no one would take you but us! That every other immigrant were just thankful to come here, begin a new life and prospered, on their own! Why not try it?

  79. Quebec IS the most corrupt province in Canada. It's been that way forever and a day. I should know I live in Quebec, Quebec City more precisely, and we need to clean up our act real soon now because at this rate not only will we be bankrupt and depending even more on Canada's wealth to live and afford our life style but we'll be proving that we do only 2 things right: corruption and whining.

    • You're lost

      • et un gros colon, as we say

  80. After 20 years in the field of communication, I'm still amazed that reputable magazines and newspapers can publish BS articles solely based on someone's opinion and no facts. Lisee is right about his description of Coyne's position.

    I would expect this from tabloid magazines, or is it what MacLean's has become, no facts all …. (I will refrain from commenting further).

    But I suggest that people speak with their wallets and stop supporting such things that want to be called Journalism.

    • Maclean's have been tabloid for a few years now… have you missed how often they make "shock" headlines in big bold red characters on the front page?

  81. Canada is proud of its British tradition of open and freedom of speech and opinion, which was actually won for us by the Empire. Reminds me of how difficult it was for Britain and United States to get the french to end its slave trade of Africans and Haitians. And its transporting of prisoners to far Islands. Yes, we are lucky to have a magazine and real journalists not afraid of the boogy home man!

    • Newfie, you pretend to have read some history… but the voices in your head don't count as "reading"

  82. Dear disappointed, perhaps if you bothered to learn French and speak it well, you'd find that your chances of employment in this province is even greater, because then you'd be bilingual? Just a thought…

    Quebec employment laws, in keeping with Bill 101, required public employees to be fluent in French. Oh my God! The discriminiation! Someone call the constitution police! Puh-lease. There are incompetent, unqualified people in Quebec, and there are incompetent, unqualified people in equal proportions in each one of the English-speaking provinces. Guess what? There are incompetent, unqualified people abroad, too! Two wrongs do not make a right. Shame on you for suggesting it might.

  83. Canada should be proud of it's British past what with the genocidal Deportation of the Acadians, the first nation ever to use chemical warfare by forcing smallpox on the native First Nations, the burning, looting and raping of whole Quebec villages during the 1760 war.
    Wow liminator how lucky we really are and proud to be a Brit and read the rag Maclean's with a cup of tea under the portrait of our Queen!

    • HEY, not a bad Idea. I can see we needed a napoleon. We will not let the compassionate British clean up, the next time. What a lousy job they did.

      • Just a reminder, you are now incorporated into the Canadian Federation.

        Please act as a Canadian, not a British Subject already.

  84. I wish we could follow your advice. We got close in 1995 (No: 50.58%, Yeas: 49.42%), but corrupted Chrétien used public money to cheat. In 1995, tens of thousands of Canadians came to Montreal to tell us how much the love us. Where are they now?

  85. HA HA HA, rien de plus marrant que de voir la chicane pogner sur la question nationale.
    Un jour on s'ennuiera de nos bons vieux boomers enragés, ça c'est moi qui vous le dit.
    Tous ceux qui ont le moindre jugement savent que l'article du mac clean était d'une malhonnêteté intellectuel digne de la réputation de ce magazine, rien de nouveau en tout cas.
    Tous ceux qui ont le moindre jugement savent que si la dynamique confédérale était respectée, le Canada serait peu être un pays respectable. Mais un gouvernement fédéral centralisateur et bailloneur à ce point ne mérite pas d'avoir le pouvoir sur ce grand pays.
    Donc, même si la vie m'aurait donné naissance ailleurs au Canada, je serais sécessioniste. Seulement, dans une autre langue, et avec d'autres idéaux pour l'après.
    La structure parlementaire canadienne était bien au 18e siècle mais là… On est dû pour la suite des choses…
    Pour être libre la gouvernance doit se faire le plus près possible du peuple.
    Et vraisemblablement, Ottawa ne suivra pas l'évolution.

    Alors je dit OUI !
    Et vivre le Québec libre !

  86. Explain to me why it's only the LIBERALS who are corrupt. The party exists in the Province since the 50's. But corruption, graft , under the table deals and outright payoffs have been the daily routine in Québec for generations. To suggest that it's only the LIBERALS is the reason Quebec is drowning in debt and scandal. Duplessis was NOT a Liberal and is considered the way things were done in Quebec.
    Spare us the cheap PQ and Bloc tactics. When the PQ were in power the last time ,they were ALWAYS in the presence of union leaders. So much so you could ask if they were body guards or "really close friends". Does the Laval subway @ 343 Millions that untimately cost over a billion ring a bell, no , how about the " Biblioteque national" @ 134 millions that cost over 300 .Al this while Pauline Marois was sending home 5000 health care workers. Should I go on.
    Québec resorts to corruption because it's a closed market. Open up ALL projects to out-of-province bidding using their workers and I guarantee you corruption in quebec will come to a halt.

  87. Well done M. Lisée. A passionate and well-defended response to the cheap form of journalism that McLeans practices. Bravo!

  88. M. Lisée has written an excellent piece airing his opinion of the Bonhomme cover and the article on Québec's corruption.
    As a Permanent Resident living in Montréal I agree that it reeks of sensationalist journalist aimed at selling more magazines. At the same time the examples of corruption portrayed in the article are all too real.
    I really liked the fact that M. Lisée criticizes the tone of the article and not the facts. Quebecers despise corruption.
    I think it was a proper response to the article and I believe it is laudable the fact that Maclean's as published it (even though we all know it wouldn't have the same impact as the original article – the damage was already done).

  89. they should take their share of Canada's debt and shove off. Canada would be better off.

  90. well Quebec wants to seperate, i don't know why we don't say OK!

    look at all the new countries that are happening in europe.each province should be it's own country, under one flag if everyone agree's , why not?

    i'm sick of putting up with crap from Ontario, why should everyone just fall inline with what Ontario dictates.

    i for one would like more independence.

    • Hear, Hear

    • I agree, we need a real confederation with a really smal central governement that will stop spending money like crazy and create anger between its members. In fact each province should have its "Bloc" at the commons.

    • Glen congradulations you are ahead of your time . Soon we will see Canada disintegrate . I mean the federation as we know it . Every part will be independant and will do like Europe and group up , negociate and share some

    • What do you think will happen with the maritimes? Will we tell them to leave as well because we now have to go through either Quebec or the U.S. to get there? How will we handle the shipping business coming down the St. Lawrence? Which provinces should be part of the country and which ones can just go?

      People here talked about countries in Europe finding independence? Have you also looked at their financial status? As far as the separatists—look long and hard at those countries and figure out how long you would be trying to get back to the present standard of living? Almost everyone who has spoken here sounds like an idiot—so maybe we could do this another way. Find a place –maybe north of Whitehorse or something–and all the English idiots and all the French idiots can all go up there–we'll give you territory status and give you some money–and you guys can fight it out. Send the rest of us, the sane people who still maintain some common sense, a letter and tell us how it went.

      • nice one, best thing i've read so far.