Home » Posts tagged 'Québec blog'
Tag Archives: Québec blog
A brief history of France’s former languages, and how they helped to shape our French in Canada (#217)
Not long ago I came across two well-made YouTube videos. One offers samples of France’s 28 different accents. The other offers samples of 45 languages which are native to France — from the three major French language groups.
In a nutshell, French（as we know it today) is a relatively young language. It was based in part on languages / dialects which existed in regions in and around Paris for centuries. Modern French came about when it took elements from the languages / dialects of the Paris area, as well as a number of other nearby and closely related dialects. In broad terms, they became mixed together in a big language stew, and voilà! — Modern French was born, primarily in the 1600s & 1700s. (This is an oversimplified summary of what happened – but that’s basically it in a nutshell).
When I use the word “dialect” or “language”, my choice of words is a question of semantics. Here I’ll use the word “language” (instead of “dialects”) because speakers of many of the dialects referred to in this post would not have necessarily been able understand one another (which is a characteristic of what constitutes separate languages).
Prior to the birth of Modern French (in the 1600s & 1700s), all the languages which existed in the Northern half of France were descended from a “super-group” of languages called the Languages of Oïl (les langues d’oïl). These 20+ languages existed for roughly 1,500 years, well into the 1700s — at which point modern French began to supersede and replace them.
Even though the Languages of Oïl were related, if you were to travel across Northern France in the year 600, 1000, 1500 or even 1700, you would have possibly traveled through 20 different language zones. Likely you would not have been able to understand the locals as you crossed from one language zone to another (at that time in history, French was not the common every-day language of France). However, when French began to supersede these other languages, French spread beyond Paris to the outlying regions, and the government began to forcefully suppress (basically wipe-out through forced assimilation) all the regional languages.
A very similar phenomenon existed in the Southern half of France. Whereas the related languages of the North fell under the umbrella of the Languages of Oïl, in Southern France, there was a different group of many related languages called the Occitan Languages.
A region of Eastern France also had a separate grouping of languages called the Franco-Provençal (or Arpitan) Languages.
Unlike the Oïl Languages, the Occitan and Franco-Provençal languages did not contribute as much to the formation of Modern French (if you listen to recordings of the Occitan & Franco-Provincial languages, they sound very different from French – with sounds and pronunciations much closer to Italian, Latin, Catalan and Spanish — whereas the Oïl Languages have sounds and pronunciations much more related to Modern French).
Also, just like the other Oïl Languages, the Occitan and Franco-Provençal languages were forcefully repressed by the government, starting in the 1700s, and replaced by Modern French.
Although all these languages of France were wiped out over the course of 300+ years, the inhabitants of each language region retained many different accents which can be associated with the original languages. Thus, as you travel throughout France today, you will hear many different French accents, sometimes very different from one another.
What I find extremely interesting is that there are still some individuals in France who still speak the former regional languages. Depending on the language, their numbers can be quite small. Native speakers are often senior citizens, and some languages may have almost no speakers left (with the only remnants existing only in old audio recordings made 40 to 90 years ago).
How this fits into Canada’s style of French:
In the 1600s and 1700s, the original settlers to Ontario and Québec brought with them the languages of the Paris region (at least how it was spoken in Paris at that time – which is different from how it is spoken in Paris today). The Parisian language was the main language spoken in New France (the French colonies of North America), but there were significant numbers of other Languages from France such as Norman, Saintogeais, and Gallo. Settlers also came from other areas in the Northwest and North-central parts of France. Paris’ language became the standard norm in Québec and Ontario in the 1600s and 1700s, but it carried heavy language influences from other regions of Northwestern and North-central France as people mixed and added their own linguistic nuances to the overall pot. It was this mixing of Northern France medieval languages which gives us our way of speaking French in Canada today.
Consequently, there are two major forms of French in Canada today (each with many varieties of accents and colloquialisms).
- One grouping covers Québec, Ontario, the Prairie Provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta) and British Columbia. This is also the dominant style in the media (owing to the fact that Montréal is the epicentre of Canada’s Francophone media). It is based on a much broader mix of old languages and accents which came from France.
- Conversely, in Canada’s Easternmost provinces we find Acadia (the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador). The original French settlers to Acadia in 1605 (and those who continued to come up until the 1700s) came from narrower, more localized regions of France. In France, they came from regions a bit further South than the settlers who went to Québec and Ontario. But the Acadian settlers were still from the Northern Half of France and the still spoke languages of Oïl. Because the settlers spoke different Oïl languages than those who went to Québec and Ontario, Acadia ended up speaking a different style of French — a unique style which is still spoken as the main type of French in our Atlantic provinces today (called Acadian French).
The YouTube recordings:
Someone went to a good deal of work in creating the following YouTube videos, and making them publicly available for our viewing and listening. They found and put together a collage of sound recordings of 28 accents throughout France, and 45 of the languages of France.
- France’s 28 accents from all regions of France:
In this first video, see if you can hear aspects of accents in Northern and Northeast France which share some traits with Canadian French accents. There are some shared traits – and it is quite intriguing to listen to.
Pay particular attention to the “Charentes (Saintonge)”, “Nord-Picardie (Thiérache)”, “Orléanais (Blésois)”, and “Poitou (Deux-Sèvres)”, accents. Sound familiar??? — I especially find the Charentes (Saintonge) accent to be quite interesting – but all of them are very interesting (I’m thinking out loud here… When I listen to the above accents, I certainly can hear accents which share definite traits with those of Québec’s North-Coast, Gaspésie, Northern Ontario and older Canadian Prairie-French accents). Now mix all the above accents together (plus a few more), and guess what overall accent you’re likely to begin to get! (Wink, wink!!). And that, my friends, is precisely what happened 300 – 400 years ago here in Canada.
- France’s 45 languages:
As a speaker of Canadian French, what I find fascinating about the video below is that I (quite surprisingly) find some of the languages relatively easy to understand. Three of the languages which stick out as relatively easy to understand are Percheron, Mainiot, and Poitevin (despite that I had never heard them prior to listening to this video). Even though I can understand them, I am not sure that people in other regions in France would understand them quite as easily. This is because they seem to share many more traits with our colloquial French in Canada than with standard International French (or even colloquial European French).
Something I find quite shocking (but equally fascinating) is that I can hear vocabulary and expressions in these languages which we regularly say in Canadian French but which are not said in France French and have died out in France. The following are some prime examples of words / phrases I heard in the languages I pointed out. They are things we say everyday in Canadian French (many many times every day). I, like most people in Canada, took it for granted that these were uniquely Canadian words — but apparently they’re not, and we now know their true source! (from some of the old Languages of Oïl).
- “où-ce que t’as..?” or “où ce qu’y est…?”
- instead of “où est-ce que tu as…?” or “où est-ce qu’il est… ?”,
- which means “Where did you…?” or “Where is…?” in Canada
- “à c’t’heure”
- instead of “maintenant”
- which means “right now” in Canada,
- instead of “alors”
- which means “so“ in Canada,
- “M’a faire, aller, etc….”
- instead of “Je vais faire, aller… etc.”
- which means “I’m going to do, go… etc.” in Canada,
- instead of “bon!”
- which means “well…”, or “so then” in Canada, etc.
And then there were the accents and tones… such as the old French Montréal-Windsor-St.Louis corridor aveolar “Rs”, and Acadian vowel flattenings.
Truly fascinating stuff — like a 400 year old time-machine, but with a mirror with our face in it!
I suppose it indicates that the degrees of separation from the original French dialects which came to Canada in the 1600’s & 1700’s, and the style of colloquial French we speak today across Canada and Québec may not have diverged as much as one would think.
Other languages which I surprisingly do not have major difficulties understanding are aspects of Picard (Ch’ti), Orléanais (which appears to share many traits in common with Acadian French in Canada), and Gallo.
It was actually quite eerie listening to these languages for the first time. There was an instant sense of “familiarity” with them, despite having never heard them before.
Go figure! 😉
Where all this fits on a language tree:
As with any language, I suppose you could say any given language has “sibling” languages and “cousin” languages.
A cousin language would be when one older language gives rise to a few parallel new languages. In a broad sense, Latin gave birth to many different language groupings. Some examples would be the Italo-Dalmatian grouping (which includes Corsican, Italian, Sicilian, etc), the Eastern Grouping (which includes Romanian, Aromanian, etc.), the Langue d’Oïl grouping (which includes French, Norman, Walloon, etc.).
In general, these “groupings” could be said to be positioned like “cousins” with respect to one another on a family tree. In language terms, sometimes you can understand your cousins, but sometimes you cannot. Some of French’s cousins would include Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. I can understand (especially read) a good deal of these three language cousins. Conversely, English’s closest cousin is the language of West Frisian which is spoken in the Northern Netherlands. English speakers cannot understand or read West Frisian (or any other cousin of English) owing to too much separation in terms of time and geography. So it’s hit and miss when it comes to understanding cousin languages.
Then there are the sibling languages. Each of the “cousin groupings” gives birth to a number of other languages (“sibling” languages) through closely related circumstances of geography and history. In the Oïl Language grouping, we find the languages in the above video (for example, Percheron, Mainiot, Poitevin, Picard (Ch’ti), Orléanais and Gallo). As a Canadian French speaker, the above-mentioned sibling languages are not difficult for me to understand, despite that I had never heard them before (whereas other “sibling” languages in the Oïl Language grouping are difficult for me to understand). Conversely, English has two sibling languages… one has gone extinct (Yola), and the other is Scots. Sometimes Scots can be a bit difficult to understand if you are not used to hearing it (see the video below), but if you were to read it aloud, chances are you would understand 80% of it if your native language is English.
Click below to open the language tree to see where French and English sit with respect to their language “cousins” and “siblings”. The languages discussed above are in “Blue” on the tree.
We already heard samples of some of French’s language siblings. But as an English speaker, if you’re curious about English’s only remaining sibling, Scots, here are some examples:
This is a sample text of Scots from Wikipedia: Quebec (Québec in the French leid) is a province o Canadae. It is the mucklest province gaun bi aurie o Canadae. Quebec haes a population o 7,651,531 fowk. The offeecial leid o Quebec is French, an aboot 90% o the indwallers o Quebec speaks it (aside French, baith Inglis an Inuktuit are spoken). The caipital ceety o Quebec is Quebec Ceety (Ville de Québec in French), an the mucklest ceety is Montreal (Montréal). Maist o the fowk in Quebec are French Canadians (or Québecois), but Erse-Quebecers, Scots-Quebecers, Inglis-Quebecers, Italian-Quebecers an Jewish-Quebecers bide there an aw.
Just for the fun of it, I’m going to have a go at translating it. Let’s see how I do (I’ll put my guesses in parenthesis): Quebec (Québec in the French language) is a province in Canada. It is the largest (?) province (something something) of Canada. Quebec has a population of 7,651,531 people (or folk). The official language of Quebec is French, and about 90% of the inhabitants (dwellers) of Quebec speak it. Apart from French, (something) English and Inuktitut are spoken. The capital city of Quebec is Quebec City – Ville de Québec in French. And the largest city is Montreal. Most of the population (folk) in Quebec are French Canadians – or Québécois, but (something) Quebeckers, Scottish-Quebeckers, English-Quebeckers, and Jewish-Quebeckers also live (abide) there (but I assume they’re not saying they live there “in awe”… so I don’t know what the last word is).
How did I do? It looks like I could understand 90%. If you want to read the full Wikipedia article, you can find it here; http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec
But… Let’s ramp this up a notch, and see how well your listening skills are. I’ve seen the following video, and although I would likely not have many problems “reading” what is being said – I cannot say the same regarding my listening skills. I have only ever had minimal exposure to listening to Scots, so believe me when I say that 80% of what is being simply flies over my head. Have a listen and see how you do (if you are an Anglophone Canadian, I’m sure you will do NO better than me in understanding what is being said):
If you want to read more on all these topics, you can check out the following Wikipedia articles:
- Old French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French
- The Languages of d’oïl (which is what much of Modern French is derived from): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d%27o%C3%AFl
- The History of French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French
- French Language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language#History
- Canadian French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_French
- Québec French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_French
- Acadian French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadian_French
RELATED BLOG POSTS:
OUR 32 ACCENTS (7 POSTS)
- 1. “Our 32 Accents” – Post 1: Canada French Accents Overview (#86)
- 2. “Our 32 Accents” – Post 2: (Ontario x 4, Québec x 3) (#87)
- 3. “Our 32 Accents” – Post 3: (Québec x 5) (#88)
- 4. “Our 32 Accents” – Post 4: The Big Three (Montréal x 2, Standard x 1) (#89)
- 5. “Our 32 Accents” – Post 5: (Québec x 7) (#90)
- 6. “Our 32 Accents” – Post 6: (Atlantic Provinces x 11) (#91)
- 7. “Our 32 Accents” – Post 7: (Western Province accents x 2 and nuances) (#92)
OTHER RELATED LANGUAGE POSTS (2 POSTS)
This documentary, “Le Garage”, caught my eye the moment I first saw a short 20 second clip, and now I’m hooked!
I’ll provide you with trailers, and an official link for online viewing a little further below.
This is one of the most “real” documentaries I think I have ever seen. I have never seen a documentary quite like this one before; one which has surprisingly left me with a feeling of having a strange bond with the people featured in it, despite never having met them.
At the very bottom, I’ll provide you with links to official sites where you can watch the full hour-long documentary, officially approved for internet viewing.
The Trailer: Here’s how the film maker, Michel Demers, describes his film (translation) : “It is along the banks of the North Coast where we find The Garage. Between forest and sea, adults, children, and grand-parents all gather in the garage to tell their stories and to gossip. In an atmosphere in which everyone has each other’s back, you can sample the moose meat, trout, and mussels that everyone has pitched in to bring home together. Norman and his sons are mechanics, and are under the ever-so-watchful eyes of those who drop in and who watch from the side-lines”.
C’est à Longue-Rive sur La Côte-Nord que nous retrouvons LE GARAGE. Entre mer et forêt, adultes, enfants et grands-parents s’y rencontrent pour raconter histoires et menteries. Dans une atmosphère de solidarité et d’entraide, on déguste orignal, truites et moules que l’on a capturé ensemble. Normand et ses fils y font de la mécanique sous les yeux des gens qui “veillent” dans le côté salon.
THE STORY LINE:
The film maker’s brother, Norm, lives in a very small village, Longue-Rive, in the relatively remote region known as Québec’s North Shore. Norm is a mechanic in the village, and works out of his garage set up on his property. In small towns and villages across Canada, particularly those which are quite remote, neighbours have grown up together and/or know each other very well. In such places, people often do not lock their doors at night, and villages take on a family atmosphere of sorts (you can walk into your neighbour’s homes without knocking, everyone knows where everyone’s chilren are at all times, and adults spend a lot of time with each other.
In Longue-Rive, there is no bar or cafe. But the blue-collar nature of the small town makes it so everyone has a garage where they work (either professionally or as a hobby), and everyday life revolves around the garage (much like everyday life may have revolved around kitchens 50, 70 or 100 years ago).
I’ve personally driven through Long-Rive a while back, as well as many other communities like it along the North Shore, and all across Canada. In villages like these, it tends to be more cultural the norm, rather than the exception, to see homes with detached garages, in which residents work or whittle away their time (even in my own family, we I have a number of relatives whose lives semi-revolve around their garage).
Culturally, it is very Canadian to see this phenomenon in remote, rural settings, in all provinces. It’s something I have never really thought of before, but I think it’s an aspect of our rural culture. It’s a part of our culture which the film maker, Michel Demers, has captured beautifully.
In the absence of a bar or café in town, Norm’s garage doubles as the local hang-out for family and friends. People drop by in their free time, pull up a chair (or a “living room recliner”) and meet for a beer, to chat, to eat, organize group activities and just pass away the time. And it’s not only the village men who have turned Norm’s garage into their local “hang-out”. Women and children also gather to gossip, joke, and play.
Because everyone shares the same lifestyle (a love of the outdoors, catching up on community news, bonding as a community, hunting, trapping, fishing, clam digging, ski-dooing, etc.), there are more than enough topics for everyone to talk and laugh about. There is rarely a dull moment. People bond, and the entire village becomes one big family.
WHAT I TOOK AWAY FROM WATCHING THIS DOCUMENTARY:
What I love about the film is its simple and genuine nature, its innocence, and how life is uncomplicated for those we see on the screen. If one member of the community falls on hard times, there will be a whole network of others around to help pick him/her up by their bootstraps and step in until that individual is back on their feet.
Although I now living in our largest city (with Toronto at the heart of the “Golden Horseshoe” which counts over 10 million people), and even though I have lived in a few cities overseas which have ranged from 8 million, to 17 million, to 25 million people people, a film like this still resonates so strongly with me because I see so many echoes of my own early childhood in it; be it clam-digging close to home with my family, ski-dooing with my dad and his buddies, spending time with my dad as he did odd things around his own garage, or simply growing up in a small, isolated community in which neighbours spent the bulk of their time together. I talked about many of these things in a couple of earlier posts:
It find it quite interesting that so many aspects of life on the North Coast of Québec (where the St. Lawrence meets the Atlantic) are almost identical to many aspects of life on the North Coast of British Columbia (where the Skeena meets the Pacific), and a good number of other places. Fascinating stuff!
Apart from the various Canadian cities in which this documentary has or will be screened (both inside and outside of Québec), it is also set to be screened or has been screened in cities as far away as Moscow, Marseilles, Brussels, Chicago and Mexico.
A NOTE ON THE STYLE OF FRENCH USED :
The French accents and expressions spoken are those commonly heard in Québec’s North Coast region. This style of French has more in common with French spoken in Québec’s Gaspé region, the Atlantic Province’s Acadian regions, and the older generations of Prairie French speakers than it does Western Québec (which includes Montréal) or Ontario. (You can click the above links for more information on these various accent styles).
However, if your French is at an upper advanced level, and if you’re used to hearing a couple of different Canadian French accents to a fluent level, you should not have much difficulty understanding what is being said. Just be aware that even if your French is perfectly fluent, or even if French is your first language (such as for those from Montréal or Québec City), but if you are not used to hearing a North Coast accent, the super-strong accents of a couple of Normand’s buddies may throw you off here and there (there were a couple of times when I had to rewind to catch the words in a couple of different phrases).
SOME ADDITIONAL OUT-TAKES:
Here are some clips of people in the documentary talking about their lives and their”Garage” culture:
Here are some clips of reactions from local residents in Long-Rive when they first viewed a showing of “Bienvenue chez Normand”.
The documentary’s official website: http://www.micheldemers.com/?cat=67
HOW TO VIEW THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTARY ONLINE, FOR APPROVED VIEWING:
The documentary will be available on Radio-Canada’s “Tou.tv” website for free viewing until approximately September 2015.
The direct link is as follows: http://ici.tou.tv/les-grands-reportages/S2015E189
Subtitles (in French) are available in the video if you need them (click the subtitle button at the the bottom of the screen).
Happy viewing !!
Yesterday, during the Parti Québécois debates, Pierre Karl Péladeau (PKP), the most likely contender to be the next head of the PQ, stated (and I’m quoting as accurately from French as possible, with context being provided in square brackets):
“We will not have [another] 25 years to achieve [Québec independence]. With [Québec’s] demographic [changes], with its immigration [rates], it is a sure thing that we are losing [the support of the equivalent of] one riding every year. We wish we could better control [this situation], but let us not hold any illusions [about it]”
“Who is in charge of the immigrants who come to settle in Québec? It is the Federal government. Of course, there is shared jurisdiction [in immigration between the provincial and federal governments], but [immigrants] still pledge an oath to the Queen [to become citizens, and thus are eligible to vote in any referendum]. Therefore, we don’t have another 25 years ahead of us. It is now that we must work [on this problem].”
Reactions to PKP’s statement have so far boiled down to two camps:
- One camp believes immigrants are “not” the problem. Rather this camp believes the issue is with either sovereignist ideology (which is what federalists argue), or the successful communication of this ideology to all sectors of Québec’s society (both federalists and sovereignist can share point of view, as did Alexandre Cloutier, another contender for the leadership of the PQ). What they mean by this is that rather than (a) turning off the immigration tap, or (b) choosing only immigrants who would be demographically “more apt to support sovereignty”, the PQ should instead concentrate more on getting their argument to resonate with all immigrants. Federalists will argue that in the end, if immigrants will not support their proposal, then the PQ should question the validity of their own proposal rather than the intelligence of immigrants. To do otherwise creates a “them-and-us” society (A similar analogy would almost be as if the Federal government were to restrict immigration numbers so as to garner enough votes in the off-ball chance they were running on a platform that was about… I don’t know… ceasing subsidization of education [I just chose this completely at random]). This means Québec has to determine if it wants a globalized, cosmopolitan (ie: all inclusive, multi-ethnic/racial, we’re-all-in-this-together) society, or if we want a “them-and-us” society, with a sovereignty debate axed on ethnic nationalism. This camp believes that you can’t just turn immigration on and off depending on how you think this segment of the population will vote (otherwise it becomes a question of ethnically rigging our entire system and population — very dangerous!).
- Another camp believes that immigrants are the roadblock to sovereignty because they are statistically less apt to vote for sovereignty in any referendum. This camp argues that a referendum should be held as quickly as possible to beat a demographic time bomb against sovereignty as Québec continues down the road to becoming more cosmopolitan (some veteran, high-profile sovereignists, such as Denise Bombardier, argue Québec is already past this point and will never achieve sovereignty). This camp believes part of “beating the demographic time-bomb would involve controlling immigration levels so that, in the eyes of supporters of this camp, no more “damage” could be done. This argument can be summed up in the following statement: Québec sovereignty should be decided by those of New France origins, and also by those who are allied with citizens of New France origins and culture, and to hell with the rest. (harsh, but that’s kind of where this camp stands). This argument advocates that, if at all possible, “the rest” should be prevented from coming to Québec, for fear that they may influence any referendum’s outcome. It also insinuates that those of Non-New France origins would never support sovereignty (yet, interestingly, 20% of visible minorities did support the “yes” side in 1995). It is interesting to see that there are are people who advocate this view — and based on what was said at a number of pro-Charte des valeurs rallies in 2012, perhaps there are more people who support these views than what one may think (it is a view which very much echoes the 1995 Parizeau statement).
One little factoid I wish to explain, one which is not very well understood in Québec or elsewhere in English Canada: Under the constitution, Québec and all provinces have sole jurisdiction to decide which immigrants can settle in their respective provinces. However, Québec is the only province which has opted to exercise this jurisdiction (all other provinces, with the exception of some limited immigration categories, have “voluntarily decided” to let the Federal government handle selecting their immigrants for them). What this means is that in Québec’s case, Québec has provincial immigration officers, posted abroad in Québec immigration bureaus, who receive applications from foreigners to “immigrate to Québec”. These provincial immigration officers then decide which immigration applications will be approved (it is not Ottawa who chooses the immigrants to Québec, unless they fall under certain categories of refugees. However Ottawa conducts the police and health checks on all immigrants before the permanent resident card is granted — but this has nothing to do with choosing the “person” who is about to immigrate). In this sense, all immigrants in Québec have been chosen by Québec, for Québec (including by the Parti Québécois when they were in power). That’s why I find PKP’s statement quite curious – (in many, many respects) – as well as misleading, ill-informed, and frankly ignorant.
The intention of this post is not to report the news. Believe me when I say this story has already become one of the most reported individual stories of 2015 (and it has only been news for 24 hours). We have not seen this sort of political statement since Parizeau cried foul of the “ethnic vote” on referendum night in 1995.
Nor is the intention of this post to analyze the validity or invalidity of PKP’s statement (the above is more of a backgrounder, than anything else). Again, reporters, columnists, other bloggers, and political circles are covering this topic like oil takes to the sands in Fort McMurray.
The intention of this post is to question “why” PKP made such a statement “now” – at this point of time. This is a question I have heard absolutely nobody talk about. I have some initial thoughts, and it’s worth pondering aloud.
In English Canada, the whole debate of reasonable accommodations (mostly orbiting around headscarf & facial-veil issues), and the political capitalization of religious tolerance issues (in light of recent jihadist-related events) has only become acute in the last few weeks (with the introduction of Bill C-51, recent court decisions, questions of extensions of military action in the Middle-East, homegrown terrorism issues, etc.).
Whereas this debate is relatively new news in English Canada, in Québec this debate has already been going on for the better part of three years — starting with the PQ’s initial proposal of the Charter of Values, and subsequent arguments for codifications and limitations of reasonable accommodations (within the framework of a debate surrounding multiculturalism and interculturalism).
This has allowed more than enough time for segments of Québec’s population to become quite galvanized along certain views in this debate – much more galvanized that in English Canada, which is still doing a lot of soul-searching. In many respects, such soul-searching is already “finished” in Québec, and we see clear lines of public opinion already being drawn in the sand; “for” and “against” various degrees of accommodation, “for” and “against” measures such as bill C-51, “for” and “against” increased or decreased levels of immigration, etc, etc.
Over the past year, many in our media in Québec have been stating that PKP’s manner of frank speech and political naïveté are a mix which makes him prone to severe verbal gaffs. More than a handful of veteran reporters have been predicting for months that it would only be a matter of time before PKP says something which would land him in very hot water – to the point that it could jeopardize any public support he has garnered (be it for his run at the PQ leadership, or his status as the leader of the PQ after the leadership race). Today, the vast majority of the media establishment have been citing yesterday’s statement as one such gaff.
However, I’m not so sure they are right. PKP is an extremely intelligent individual, surrounded and counseled by skilled, veteran political warriors. I actually have the funny feeling PKP knew exactly what he was saying when he made the above statements. I would venture to bet that he was fully aware of the type of public attention such statements would garner. It could very well have been part of his strategy.
Over the past months, even over the past couple of years, we’ve seen a stark galvanization of Québec’s population around issues of immigration, and how immigration touches upon matters involving integration and accommodation. In part, this galvanization has garnered unprecedented, historic support for “post-Alliance party” Conservatives in Québec — to the extent that they are for the first time leading in some polls of some regions in Québec, such as in Québec City.
The PQ has had a very difficult time attracting support over the past three years. I have a hunch that PKP saw how the Conservatives were able to capitalize on immigration & integration issues (as well as related security issues) to gain support in Québec – and I’m almost lead to believe that PKP is trying his hand at the same antics.
If this truly is part of his strategy, of course it is not without risk to PKP (and I’m sure he would be aware of that). Having one’s remarks labelled in the same breath as those of Parizeau’s 1995 remarks comes with the risk of a heavy political price. But unlike Parizeau’s remarks which we pronounced on a stage at the “end” of a highly emotional political process, PKP’s remarks came during a time when “other coincidental public debate” on related issues could provide him with a wider, more receptive audience towards yesterday’s remarks. In addition, unlike Parizeau’s remarks which went down in the history books as “closing” remarks at the “end” of the referendum process, PKP’s remarks yesterday are coming at the “beginning” of several political processes which will be debated for quite some time (such as the PQ’s leadership race, the 2015 Federal election, the 2018 provincial election, and a possible future referendum).
For a couple of reasons, it is important to be cognizant of the fact that his remarks are coming at the “beginning” of a whole set of political events (rather than at the end). In Canadian & Québec politics, the longer the time-frame that issues are debated, and the more certain issues are debated, the more our population has a tendency to become “numb” towards what is being debated. Parizeau’s remarks did not come at a time when sovereignty was still being debated (the debate was finished) — and thus the population did not have the opportunity to become “numb” towards them, or to “rally” around them as part of a campaign. Perhaps PKP is hoping the population, over time, will become “numb” towards the controversial aspects of his words, and that he may eventually succeed in rallying a segment of the population which perhaps would have otherwise lent its support to other parties (or did in fact lend its support to other parties in the last provincial election).
Perhaps PKP is willing to risk a few weeks of “uproar”, believing that criticism of his statements may eventually die down at some point — and in the meantime he may be hoping to pick up some of the same support that the Conservatives have managed to garner.
I’m sure there are people who agree with PKP, but to what extent they may be close to (or far from) a majority (even within the Parti Québécois) is a whole other question.
I suppose only time will tell.
Update 2015-03-20, 18:00pm: This is quickly becoming a very fluid topic. As of this evening (26 hours after first making his statements), it is being reported that PKP has apologized. I’m going to try to catch 24/60 in a few minutes to find out what is happening.
Public condemnation of PKP has been swift, hard, and virulent from the full range of the political spectrum, from friend and foe alike (even from some of his closest allies). It is rare to see such across-the-board condemnation of a Canadian political figure (at least without them resigning – which he likely will not). If you wish to read the full-range of condemnations he has attracted, you can view them here in the Radio-Canada article, PKP présente ses excuses. (sorry, no time to translate the article — but “google translate” works great!).
Regardless, I’m not sure what is going to hurt him more; having made the above statements in the first place, or having retracted them and now coming across as completely incoherent and incompetent, especially as the aspiring head of a major political party.
Update 20:00pm: Evening news & talk shows, their guests (from all political streams) and the windows they’re giving into the public’s perception is unanimous condemnation of PKP’s statements. People are still questioning whether his apology is sincere or not, or if it is a mere reflex after he realized it did not have the desired effect (he was sure sticking by his remarks earlier in the day). But frankly, at this point, I don’t care. What matters the most is that Québec, as one society, has dropped all political labels to says with one voice that this is not acceptable. That’s worth more than anything else – and really sums up what we’re all about as a society, in Québec and coast-to-coast across Canada!
Update 20:30pm: Oh, and in case anyone is wondering how PKP’s own television network, TVA, covered this story today (considering it was the top news event on every other network, on the radio, and in the newspapers), well, TVA’s main evening newscast in Québec City, the capital city of Québec (Le TVA Nouvelles 18h de Québec) buried it behind 7 other stories in their major evening news broadcast, behind
- A funding story about a skating rink in Québec City,
- A union dispute at Olymel,
- A loud city counsel session in a small city near Québec City,
- A court case regarding students who want to attend university when other students are striking,
- A story about an ex-juge convicted of murder three years ago and who is now appealing,
- A story about Québec City’s airport terminal expansion
And PKP and the PQ want to have us believe there is no conflict of interest between his position as a politician and that of a media mogul. I just shake my head. As we say… “mon oeil!”
And on top of it, TVA was the only network which did NOT broadcast video of his apology. They only broadcast a short, face-paced clip of him saying “It was only my intention to say that we need to act faster than taking 25 years”. I can tell you one thing, if this is the tone they’re setting for themselves in front of the public, things ain’t gonna go very far for ’em. Unbelievable… absolutely unreal.
ADDENDUM 2014-03-15: Radio-Canada knocks down PKP’s argument (bluntly saying PKP was wrong) that the Federal government is responsible for what PKP perceives to be Québec’s immigration woes (I’m still shaking my head with it buried in my hands after what he said yesterday).
Here’s Radio-Canada’s article: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/politique/2015/03/19/005-parti-quebecois-pkp-peladeau-immigrants-vote.shtml
It basically says the same thing that I said above with respect to how immigrants are chosen (by Québec, for Québec). They go a bit further by stating that
- Ottawa takes Québec’s advice into consideration when deciding immigration numbers
- Québec looks after integrating and allowing immigrants to learn French
- That Ottawa gives Québec $320 million annual for the above integration and “Frenchisization” process.
It has been over two months since PKP has made the above statements. Four days ago he became the head of the PQ. There has been no more talk of the subject since the statements were made last March.
I’m left wondering:
- if this means the PQ believed the initial virulent reaction to the statements were so strong that it remains too dangerous to evoke the immigration card any further?
- if this means that the PQ continues to let Québec’s population quietly ponder the who question of immigration? (after all, the seed was planted, but will it sprout into something in favour of PKP’s initial arguments at a later time?). Like I said earlier, Canada’s and Québec’s population often changes their minds on issues of a social and societal nature if slowly eased into the idea (we’ve seen this many times over the past 50 years… think of how many subjects used to be taboo in the past, but are no longer taboo now). Far-right wing parties in Europe have played their immigration cards in this way.
- if PKP may try to reinvoke this same argument in the run-up to the 2018 election, but in a re-packaged format – perhaps in a different format? He perhaps may try to invoke an “immigration crisis” on another issue. Perhaps he will try to make an argument that temporary foreign workers are taking jobs (the Couillard government has been bucking Ottawa’s bid to quell temporary foreign worker numbers). Perhaps he will try to invoke an argument that massive immigrant investment in the real-estate sector is driving up prices. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps… Regardless, such arguments (even if incorrect) have the potential to diminish public appetite towards immigration. I would hedge my bets that we’ll see something of the making of this 3rd point in the run-up to the 2018 election. But as always, who knows. Only time will tell.
Two nights ago, Xavier Dolan’s film Mommy cleaned house, yet again. This time it was an arm-full of trophes at Montréwood’s Jutra awards.
The 2nd most important back-up actor in the film was Patrick Huard.
Regarding Montréwood cinéma, we often say if you want to know what film is worth watching (ie: what constitutes a “good” film), then follow the “director”. Conversely, in Hollywood, more often than not it tends to be the reverse; people in Hollywood say you should follow the “actor” to find the “good” movies.
One major exception to the Québéc/Montréwood rule of following the “director” is in the case of the superstar actor, Patrick Huard. In Huard’s case, if you follow the actor (just as you would in Hollywood), you are bound to find the best films.
With a few exceptions, if you look at the biggest of the big Montréwood films from the mid 1990s to present, Patrick Huard has held either a leading acting role, or a major back-up role.
I’ve never personally seen Huard walk down the streets in Québec, but I can only imagine he would be pounced upon from all directions by adoring fans looking for autographs.
Some of the more notable, very successful Montréwood films he has appeared in were:
- Les Boys (1, 2 & 3) – all of which were among the highest grossing, and most viewed films in Canadian history
- Bon Cop, Bad Cop – (Patrick Huard was the main actor)… the highest or second highest grossing film in Canadian history when it came out in 2006
The above films have gone down in the Montréwood, Québec and Canadian history books. I think it’s fair to say that so has Patrick Huard.
If you want to hear a half-hour conversation between Patrick Huard and his co-star in Mommy, Anne Dorval, you can hear it on Radio-Canada’s radio program, “L’autre jour à la table d’à côté” (“The Other Day at the Table Beside Us…”). Click HERE for the program on Radio-Canada’s official website.
Check out some of his work… I think you’ll be impressed.
Bon Cop, Bad Cop – ENGLISH TRAILER (the film was 50/50 French-English)
Starbuck – SUBTITLED English Trailer
Omertà – (Also starring Céline Dion’s husband, René Angélil)
A little bit of warning: If you have wine, beer, or something stiffer in your cupboards, you may want to grab a glass of it now… because you’re going to need a drink after reading this.
If you are already well-versed in Canada’s & Québec’s political spectrum, you can skip much of this post and go straight down to the section entitled : How the media’s elastic band became stretched (below).
The first half of this post is going to give you some general information so that the second half makes sense. This unfortunately is not the type of post that I can break up into smaller chunks, so bear with me.
This is a post about how political tension has been building in Québec’s media for years (particularly since the 2012 student protests – which you can read about by clicking here regarding an earlier post about Gabriel Nadeau Dubois), and how it appears that the elastic band just “broke”. It will be interesting to see if someone pulls out a “new” elastic band in the coming weeks.
I have always listened to a LOT of talk radio (both from English stations across Canada, and in French from both Québec & other provinces). The French-language talk radio I tend to listen to the most are Radio Canada’s “Radio-Première”, primarily from Montréal and Toronto, as well as RCI’s Radio-X in Québec City.
As far as where these two radio stations sit on the socio-economic and political scale in Québec, you couldn’t get two radio stations further apart.
I find that in Québec, radio & TV media can be labelled on a wide-ranging scale in terms of “political ideologies” much more than in English Canada (people often talk about their choice of media in the same breath as their political allegiances). It is quite interesting in this respect. In English Canada, with the odd exception (such as the now-defunct Sun News, or certain talk radio stations / shows), people tend to think of English-language radio & TV media as fairly middle-of-the-road, with aspects which can appeal to people on all ends of the spectrum.
With this said, despite Radio-Canada often being grouped into a range which often appeals to certain personalities on the left, I do not believe the “bulk” of its programming venture too far beyond a “mid-range left”. Of course, there are exceptions to this, and we can’t paint all programming or all hosts with the same brush.
In the same vein, Radio-X often is often labelled as a station which would appeal to those on “far” right. However, although their programs have a good-deal of overlap with the Conservative party, I do not believe the “bulk” of their programming ventures much further to the right than perhaps what former Federal Progressive Conservative party occupied, or what the formal ADQ party in Québec occupied (however, they are not as “eco” as what the former federal PCs were, and their “eco” stance is one area where they very much overlap with the current Conservatives). Despite being on the right-end of the Canadian spectrum, Radio-X does not have any religious element to it (Canada generally does not have any Federal parties which venture, on the whole, into religion politics — and where there is a religious element, it is often isolated to a small handful of “independently-minded” MPs or MLAs).
If we to compare where Québec’s TV & radio falls on a comparison with Canadian political partisan scale, the following chart can be quite telling.
Generally speaking, adherents who find their political voice reflected on the political chart will also find their voice reflected in the same corresponding range on the media chart. Take a look at both of the media & political charts, and see if you can line up which media best fits the physical locations of various political parties on the same scale. This is important, because it plays into the rest of this blog post.
Some side-remarks regarding the political chart:
Because so many parties are so close on the political spectrum (even if their platforms are different), it’s all in the nuances.
In the above chart, although I didn’t mention it, the various NDP & Liberal provincial parties would be roughly positioned in the same place as the Federal NDP & Liberals. For the sake of reference, I threw in some provincial parties outside of Québec (since there is a variance between the provincial PC parties… Alberta’s is a prime example of one of the PC parties which has made a slight shift to the left over the past 3 to 4 years).
Also, you will note that there is a great deal of overlap between all parties in Canada (mostly concentrated within a couple notches of what would be considered Canada’s “centre”). Because of this overlap, much of our Canadian politics come down to:
- (1) Personality politics of the leader (or of the individual MP, MLA, MPP, or MNA at a local level)
- (2) Individual platform issues, rather than an overriding vote for a party as a whole (It is for this reason why we see elections boil down to 3 or 4 major issue demarcations, even if those 3 or 4 issue only constitute 10 or 20% of a party’s overall platform).
- (3) Voters, like myself, carry a very mixed bag of viewpoints. What that means is that many voters see constructive views from all ends of the spectrum. Take me for example: I know where I stand on many individual issues, but my views are not “partisan” or particular to any one party. Rather, I have issue-by-issue views which are liable to shift with time, as I become better informed, or with circumstances. Come election time, I, like many (or most) Canadians try to find the party which best matches perhaps 65-70% of my own issue-by-issue views. No party will every match all of an individual’s views 100%. But if I find a party at election time which matches 65-70% of my views, then I’m comfortable when I cast my vote. But if there is a party which matches every one of your views, you should be a lottery ticket! In fact, considering our parliamentary style of democracy and how many choices we have out there, this approach is very “Canadian”. It’s an approach which is generally quite practical, efficient and effective, not to mention very reflective of how a good portion of Canada’s population votes. And more importantly, it seems to work (after all, we don’t have deadlock for a lack of political options or platforms out there)
These three elements are also the primary reasons why the average Canadian voter is more apt to change their vote from one election to another. There tends to be much less “party loyalty” or “lifelong loyalty” in Canada than exists in other countries – likely because there is so much overlap. It just takes one or two major platform issues, or the right (or wrong) personality to come along, and the average person will be more apt to change their vote in a heartbeat (otherwise we would never see polls in Canada shift to the extent that they do, sometimes right up to election day).
Considering that I regularly listen to both Radio-Canada and Radio-X (which are supposedly at “opposite ends of the scale”) I find it fascinating that elements of all these media, as well as the written press (which I didn’t place on this chart) are so often at each other’s throats! They sometimes hurl accusations at each other even louder and more spiteful than any ruckus in the House of Commons, as if they’re yelling at their worst enemies.
As I continue to write this post, I want to emphasize that,
- I’m not a member of any political party, and
- I’m not taking a partisan stance as I write the rest of this post (Politically speaking, I’m going to approach the rest of this post as objectively as I can).
How the media’s elastic band became stretched
For about the last three to four years, private talk radio station hosts, newspaper columnists, members of the artistic community (some of whom happen to be hosts at Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec and TVA), and certain television program hosts on all TV networks have been engaged in a verbal tug-of-war – Mostly between the Left and the Right. Because Québec City’s media is more to the “right”, whereas Montréal’s media is more to the “Left”, this verbal war has also taken on a somewhat “geographic” form (Québec against Montréal, and vice-versa).
The geographic aspect to this verbal media war is much more talked about in Québec City than it is in Montréal. People in Québec City are much more “aware” of this geographic war of ideologies, perhaps owing to the fact that Montréal doesn’t pay much attention to Québec City’s media, whereas people in Québec City are accustomed to seeing Montréal’s media. People in Québec City are also much more aware that Québec generally votes to the “right” of the centre line, whereas Montréal generally votes to the “left” of the centre line.
When Montréal’s media takes aim at anything right of centre, I get the impression that Montréal’s Left believes its Left-leaning media is scoring unhindered, unchallenged political points … whereas nothing could be further from the truth. The moment Montréal’s “Left-leaning” media takes a shot at the “Right” (usually the Conservatives, but also the CAQ, anyone who takes a union to task, budgetary restraint issues, certain industries associated with a rightist perception such as oil, etc.), Québec City’s “Right-leaning” media, within hours, goes bazerk! The phone lines of Québec City’s talk show programs light up, Québec city twitter accounts smoke from being overworked, and Québec City newspaper columnists put pen to paper for the next day’s editions – all to counter the shots fired from Montréal’s Left-leaning columnists and media programs. But what I find extremely interesting is that when Québec City’s media also goes on the offensive, most of the time Montréal just yawns, or doesn’t even notice.
How the elastic band finally broke
Since 2011/2012, I’ve been hearing Québec City’s “Right-leaning” media cry foul. For lack of a better word, they feel that Montréal’s “Left-leaning” media has high-jacked the province’s political scene. Whether that’s accurate or not, I’m not too sure (everyone is able to vote, after-all, and certain regions and the province as a whole has taken a few sharp turns towards both the right and the left over the last couple of decades).
But needless to say, since the 2012 student protests, the elastic band of this Left-Right war of words has been getting
… and tighter
… and tighter
And the elastic band broke!
Something huge happened about a month ago. It was so big in fact, that I have been holding my breath for the last four weeks, patiently waiting for follow-up reactions in the media…
Here is what happened:
First I will say that I believe Radio-Canada, for the most part, does a very good job of remaining neutral (most of the time). They are a big organization, with many different personalities – sometimes very strong personalities. However, I believe that the majority of their on-air (and off-air) personalities do a commendable job of keeping any political affinities hidden from the public (as they should). The fact that I have difficulty guessing the political inclinations of most on-air Radio-Canada personalities speaks volumes (in a good sense).
But something went “astray” at Radio-Canada last month which I think is representative of numerous media outlets in Montréal – and they found themselves in the centre of this verbal media war of ideologies. I’m guessing this incident only involved a few strong-headed, opinionated individuals. But those individuals were aparently able to get their fingers on the “broadcast” button — which broke the elastic band.
A little bit of background: The Conservatives cut almost $200 million from Radio-Canada/CBC’s budget last year, which resulted in 800+ people being layed off. Radio-Canada employees held protest rallies and even a massive on-air protest concert. You can see people at Rad-Can are not happy. (As an aside, the federal Liberals cut $400 million from Radio-Canada/CBC in the 1990s, but I don’t think we ever saw the same extent of displeasure towards the Liberals, at least not on the air).
With this backgrounder in mind, here are the events which lead to the elastic breaking:
In August 2014, Radio-Canada aired the anti-Harper documentary, “La droite religieuse au Canada”. This is possibly the most politically controversial Canadian documentary of the past 30 years (or at least since Denys Arcand’s “On est au coton”). After it aired in August, the Prime Minister’s head of communications publicly condemned Radio-Canada, stating that he “feared his worse suspicions about Radio-Canada were true”. The Radio-Canada/CBC Ombudsman became involved. The Ombudsman stated that the documentary’s airing did not meet the corporation’s standards requiring the organization to remain politically neutral.
The documentary purports that Steven Harper’s entire basis for being in politics is to align himself, and Canada’s governance, with Israel — so as to prepare himself and the world for the second coming of Christ, thus allowing him, his followers, and Alberta to go to Heaven. I’m not BS’ing you here! (I couldn’t make this kind of stuff up, even if I tried). If you don’t believe me, then click on the above link to watch the documentary yourself. The link will take you to Radio-Canada’s own online re-broadcast site. The documentary is an hour-long.
For a very long time (years), Québec City’s Right-leaning media had been going nuts over this type of bias, and have consistently cried foul over these types of things. For months they beefed up their condemnations of Radio-Canada, of Montréal’s Left-leaning media (be it Télé-Québec, Rad-Can, newspaper columnists) and of the province’s very politically-vocal union movements. In the meantime, Montréal’s media (both television and written press, as well as Montréal’s based union federations) stepped up their attacks of anything right-of-centre.
The elastic band got tighter…
… and tighter…
… and tighter.
Everything came to a head the last half of February 2015. Get ready for this (grab that drink if you haven’t already… because you’re not going to believe this…):
- On February 9, 2015, the host of a gourmet-cooking television show on Radio-Canada, Christian Bégin, took take part in anti-Québec-Liberal demonstration in a distant region of Québec. He joined the unions to very publicly protest provincial Liberal budget cutbacks. He appeared on television shouting and screaming in the name of anti-Liberal protestors. This caught the ire of Québec City’s right-leaning media. Québec City’s media tore into him, as did the very few elements of the Right-leaning written press in Québec.
- On Feb 11, 2015, Lise Ravary, one of the few Federalist and Right-of-Centre columnists at the Journal de Montréal, wrote a column condemning Bégin’s actions. In her newspaper column, she took personal shots at him for living the high-life, with a high salary paid by taxpayers (at Radio-Canada), and labelled him as a hypocritical, wine-sipping, gourmet loving bourgeois who is all talk, but doesn’t care about the little guy for whom he was protesting (Ouch! Harsh! — now you can see they type of verbal war that has been going on since the 2012 student protest, between both sides!). Rather, she charged that his protest was motivated by political reasons (against the Liberals, versus truly caring about the little guy). She called him and those like him “La gauche champagne” (which means the “Champagne Left”). [Don’t quote me on this, but I believe the expression in Europe would be “La Gauche caviar“, which is slightly different from our expression in Canada]. This garnered a lot of attention in the media (both Left and Right), and all media circles (the Right, the Left, sovereignists who traditionally lean Left, federalists who are traditionally lean Centre or Right-of-Centre, artists, columnist, etc)… basically, everyone went to town over this one. It was a verbal brawl like I haven’t seen for a very long time – and once again, it happened over the airwaves.
- Around Feb 12, a host of Radio-Canada’s radio show “La soirée est encore jeune” sought revenge and took direct aim at the columnist Lise Ravary, calling her an “idot” (une dinde) on air, as well as taking aim at Québec city radio stations Radio-X and FM93, calling them “garbage”, and going so far as to lump anyone who is right-of-centre in the same category (again… this is what has been happening for 3 to 4 years, and it has been getting more and more out intense).
- On February 13th, Québec City’s 93FM and Radio-X “let into” Radio-Canada and its program “La soirée est encore jeune”. Radio-X’s host, Dominic Maurais, said he heard Rad-Can was going to move “La soirée est encore jeune” from the radio to television in order to give it more “visibility”. Maurais basically gave Radio-Canada a direct on-air warning, stating (actually, yelling, on air) that if Radio-Canada dares to make such a move by moving this program from the radio to television, considering that this program regularly blasts anything right of centre, that it will wake the dragon and will spell the end of Radio-Canada. Radio-X basically stated that the cuts Radio-Canada was subjected to from the Federal government will be nothing compared to what they will suffer should “La soirée est encore jeune” be moved from radio to television. Maurais basically told Radio-Canada to get ready to be privatized if things continue as they are.
- I believe it was around Feb 14th, right after the above, when Radio-Canada aired a very peculiar episode of its popular prime-time family sitcom “Les Parents” (kind of like a Radio-Canada produced version of “Different Strokes”). In this episode, the Radio-Canada scriptors took direct aim at the Right leaning Conservative Party by having the actors say that it is an embarrassment if a family has children who support the Conservatives. In this prime-time episode, one of the children of the fictional sitcom family said that he wanted to grow up to be a Conservative so he could “change everything in the world”. (Again, I’m not kidding you!). His parents (in the show) told him he wasn’t raised like that, and to not tell anyone that he wants to be a Conservative. Whoa!! Holy Crap! The next day, independent media again went nuts with this one. Radio-Canada was blasted.
- On February 15th, Harper made the unprecedented decision to wade into this very public spat himself (I was completely shocked it got to this point! — I’m not saying he was wrong, but holy smokes… I couldn’t believe it actually got to this point) Harper granted an interview to Right-wing journalist Éric Duhaime of Québec City’s right-of-centre FM93 (the second most popular talk-radio station in Québec City). Harper stated he (quote) “believed there are anti-Conservative elements inside Radio-Canada with an agenda against him”.
- I believe it was the same day as Harper’s FM93 interview that Radio-Canada aired, unbelievably, for a second time, “La droite religieuse au Canada”— the documentary which alleges Prime Minister Harper’s entire agenda is to religiously rule and align Canada with Isreal so as to await the second coming of Christ so he can go to Heaven (without giving a “rat’s behind” about Québec, might I add — at least that’s the gist of the “documentary”).
- Usually when I wake up in the morning, I grab my iPad and quickly skim the headlines before crawling out of bed. The next morning, I just about fell out of bed when I read the the #1 headline on Radio-Canada’s website at 7:00am – the morning of February 16th. Quote: “Steven Harper believes many Radio-Canada employees “Hate” Conservative Values” (the link for the article is here: “Beaucoup d’employés de Radio-Canada « détestent » les valeurs conservatrices, croit Stephen Harper”).
So how did this very public p@##ing contest… er … media catastrophe from hell… er… spat all end? Well it looks like Radio-Canada’s senior management must have become involved. By 10:00 or 11:00am, the above article was no longer anywhere to be found on Radio-Canada’s main webpage. I’m guessing it must have been ordered taken down by someone higher up in management who wanted put an immediate end to this
drama of epic tempertantrum proportions “innocent misunderstanding”. The above article was taken down, moved and buried where nobody could find it… at the very bottom of an off-shoot page in the political section of Radio-Canada’s website. This was the first time I had ever seen Radio-Canada take down a headline article within 3 or 4 hours of posting it. I can just picture the emergency meetings senior management must have held on the top floors of the Radio-Canada tower that morning. What I would not have given to have been a fly on their wall that morning!
I suppose this sort of thing is bound to happen from time to time in every media organization. But considering the background of this last incident, I was surprised more self-restraint was not exercised much much earlier.
Regardless, it appears that everyone is now finally exercising a great deal of “lip-biting” self-restraint. I have been waiting, watching and listening since the end of February – but for the first time since the 2012 student protests, everything seems to gone silent in this vicious Montréal-Québec, Left-Right tussle — on all sides. I guess the elastic band did finally break.
But guess what’s right around the corner… Union backed student & street protests against Liberal government cutbacks. I have a funny feeling it may soon be a case of “here we go all over again”.
As an aside, just so you know that these sorts of episodes of crazy manipulative mania can happen in English Canada too… I can give you a similar recent example of where a few over-zealous employees at the CBC pulled a similar stunt. It happened when CBC decided to air the hour-long documentary “The Psychopath Next Door” (a documentary on what clinically defines a psychopath). CBC aired this documentary in the time slot just before it aired the Fifth Estate’s hour-long episode “The Unmaking of Jian Ghomeshi”, (a investigative reporting program which investigated Jian Ghomeshi). “Coincidentally” the Unmaking of Jian Ghomeshi gave all the same psychopathic signs mentioned in the earlier clinical documentary. Don’t even try to tell me CBC’s back-to-back airing for two straight hours was not a coincidence; it sure looked like an effort on the part of CBC to seal-the-fate of Ghomeshi in the minds of the public, but more significantly, to deflect public criticism away from how the CBC handled the whole Ghomeshi affair, and shift more anger towards Ghomeshi (sneaky!). Frankly, it was morally and ethically wrong on the part of the CBC to air the clinical documentary right before they aired their investigative report on Jian Ghomeshi, regardless of the allegations against Ghomeshi.
But with all this said and done… fortunately I still believe that the vast majority of Rad-Can’s & CBC’s employees and management do their best to remain (and succeed in being) neutral, and do not, nor would not act on any sort of hidden agenda. Most people who work at Rad-Can are just normal people, raising normal families, and trying to make both ends meet. Personally, I have met a good number of people over the years within the organization, and have followed the organization for long enough to allow me to believe otherwise (the vast majority are normal people like you or me who would never pull these kinds of stunts).
I think the issue simply came down to a question of the sheer size of Radio-Canada, with hundreds and hundreds of employees. In an organization of this size, you’re bound to get a few very opinionated individuals (even if they are not the majority) who will make the odd poor decision and who will goof up.
As with anything in life, it’s always the most vocal ones, or the most opinionated ones whose opinions tend to come across the strongest (or push the broadcast button the quickest). Thus these few high-profile people sometimes tend to give rise to our media outlets acquiring an undeserved bad rap (on the radio, on TV, and in the written press).
I’m not going to give a shortlist of who I think these individuals are, but as you acquaint yourself with various media, you’ll soon find out who I’m talking about – on the Left, in the Centre, and on the Right.
27 March, 2015 — things still seem “quiet” on the Radio-Canada front. Additional Rad-Can job cuts were announced yesterday, but people did not make a spectacle or flip-out over it over the public airwaves (which is something which occurred in the past). Curiously, Marie-France Bazzo announced her departure today from Radio-Canada as of April 2015. She very much was one of the on-air personalities who embodied a very public anti-right-of-centre standpoint. The reasons invoked for her departure from Radio-Canada were “divergent viewpoints” between her and Radio-Canada management as to which direction her popular morning talk-show “C’est pas trop tôt!” should take (the flagship morning show of Radio-Canada). I wonder how this little event fit into all of the above. Again, what I would have given to have been a fly on the wall in Radio-Canada’s executive offices when these “divergent viewpoints” were being discussed. 😉 . (Radio-Canada’s & Bazzo’s announcement of her departure, with audio clip (curt, short, and very low-key… makes you wonder what happened): http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/arts_et_spectacles/2015/03/27/001-bazzo-emission-radio-canada.shtml
I’m still watching, and listening – across all media platforms, to try to figure out what the next chapter in all of this will be.
Quite interestingly, PKP has become the head of the Parti Québécois since the above spats. It has become more than obvious that a good number of reporters, radio hosts, and television hosts on the left, centre and right so not like PKP and the PQ’s choice in having him as the head of their party. This “less-than-kind” temperment for PKP (and coincidentally his wife, Julie Snyder) seems to have “united” the media across Québec, regardless if the media personalities are Federalist or Sovereignist, or left, right or centre.
Media elements which usually compete (and take shots at each other) on an ideological basis seem to have lost interest in each other for the first time in years. Rather, they’re all focusing on what is happening within in the PQ (giving the PQ largely disproportionate news coverage — and often not good new coverage). This in itself is quite interesting.
This is not to say that competing media elements have ceased taking shots at other media elements with opposing ideological standpoints (I still am hearing cheap-shots being taken on a range of issues), but PKP and his wife’s (Julie Snyder’s) political activism has certainly monopolized much of Québec’s media’s overall energies.
The winner in all of this? The Provincial Liberal Couillard government (who is not being severely criticized, even from those who are usually most critical of the provincial Liberal camp – namely left-wing sovereignists). Also, the Federal left-wing NDP party… and now even the Federal Right-wing Conservative party seem to be getting a free ride owing to a lack of airtime stemming to PKP having sucked all the oxygen from the room.
Intriguing stuff. I can’t wait for the post-summer election season drama to resume in a few weeks to see where this all goes. With the media squarely focused on PKP (namely against PKP), such a fragmentation of media attention could have an unintended impact on Federal election results.
It’s the middle of summer and good grief! It seems to be starting again.
A show on Montréal based Radio-Canada lit into a show on Québec City based Radio X (you can listen to it here: (Radio-Canada entretient sa guerre contre CHOI)
And Radio X let into Radio-Canada. You can listen to it here: Les Salaires à Radio-Canada.
Well, at least it makes for great entertainment.
Yup, we’re seeing the two “factions” back at each other’s throats again (Sigh x 10!).
Radio-X is all over Rad-Can for what they see as leftist and political bias from 24/60 and a hate-on coming from La Soirée est encore jeune. They’re also lambasting Montréal’s media (and particularly Radio-Canada) for what they perceive as a continued news bias against anything right of centre.
As for Rad-Canada, Le Devoir, and other Montréal media plaftorms, we’re seeing the same mud being slung towards Québec City and the people of Québec for their overall right-of-centre standpoints. One Radio-Canada program when so far as to call people from Québec City “des Mongols” – “Mongolians” in English – which is an extremely derogatory term for people with down-syndrome… making fun of their eyes, facial features and intelligence. http://www.lapresse.ca/arts/medias/201506/17/01-4878745-la-soiree-est-encore-jeune-plongee-dans-une-crise-mediatique.php
Wow… really really wow! Unbelievable. Here we go again!
Post related to all of the above: Le Plateau (#72)
Separate blog which regularly writes on the above topics: http://www.cliqueduplateau.com/