Action de grâce - Thanksgiving: C-545 An Act to Eliminate Poverty - Loi visant à éliminer la pauvreté

Une bonne nouvelle pour une fois, qui vaut la peine qu'on en parle, et que l'on rende grâce aux députés et aux partis qui soutiennent ce projet de loi, cette fin de semaine. Un projet de loi pour éliminer la pauvreté, soutenu par tous les trois partis d'opposition, mérite qu'on en parle, plus qu'il en est le cas jusqu'ici : Conformément aux articles 68(2) et 69(1) du Règlement, sur motion de M. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie), appuyé par M. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour), le projet de loi C-545, Loi visant à éliminer la pauvreté au Canada, est déposé, lu une première fois, l'impression en est ordonnée et la deuxième lecture en est fixée à la prochaine séance de la Chambre. DESCRIPTION Le projet de loi C-545, Loi visant à éliminer la pauvreté au Canada, a été présenté à la Chambre des communes par le député néo-démocrate Tony Martin le 16 juin 2010. Il a été appuyé par le député libéral Michael Savage et le député bloquiste Yves Lessard. Il prévoit que le gouvernement fédéral jouera un rôle de chef de fil dans la mise en place d’une stratégie globale visant à éliminer la pauvreté en partenariat avec les provinces, territoires et autres principaux intervenants. « L’élimination de la pauvreté est un processus qui participe à l’édification d’un pays, une responsabilité à laquelle nous ne devons pas nous soustraire, a déclaré le porte-parole du NPD en matière de pauvreté, Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie). Trois provinces ont déjà adopté une loi à cet égard et six provinces ont commencé à mettre en place leur propre stratégie de réduction de la pauvreté. Le projet de loi C-545 prescrit la participation d’Ottawa afin que la lutte contre la pauvreté soit l’objectif du gouvernement en place, de ses successeurs et des législatures à venir. » Parmi les éléments compris dans la stratégie d’élimination de la pauvreté, mentionnons : la grande priorité accordée à la sécurité du revenu, au logement et à l’inclusion sociale; un solide cadre de protection des droits de la personne; la sélection d’un indice de pauvreté, puisque, faute de définition, il est difficile d’agir; une analyse comparative entre les sexes, des solutions différentes pour les milieux urbains et ruraux et des façons de s’attaquer à des facteurs précis de risque, comme l’appartenance à la population autochtone, la responsabilité d’enfants à élever, la monoparentalité, les salaires bas, le statut d’immigrant ou de réfugié, le faible niveau de scolarité, ainsi que l’invalidité et la maladie prolongées; un leadership exercé par tout le gouvernement dans le cadre duquel les ministres de la Santé et de la Sécurité du revenu prendront les devants; un commissaire indépendant à l’élimination de la pauvreté chargé d’évaluer le travail du gouvernement et de lui demander des comptes, et un Conseil national du bien-être social renouvelé et renforcé appelé Conseil national sur la pauvreté et l’inclusion sociale. En plus des grandes priorités mentionnées – la sécurité du revenu, le logement et l’inclusion sociale –, le projet de loi C-545 prévoit un processus de consultation qui permettra de définir des mesures précises pour l’élimination de la pauvreté. Il prescrit également un droit de retrait pour le Québec. Ce projet de loi reconnaît que les personnes qui vivent dans la pauvreté, comme toutes les autres, sont responsables de leur bien-être, mais que cette responsabilité est souvent réduite en raison d’obstacles structurels auxquels elles se heurtent dans leurs collectivités et dans la société en général. « L’élimination de la pauvreté rendra les collectivités dynamiques et l’économie vigoureuse, a affirmé M. Martin. Si nous ne prenons pas de mesures en ce sens, non seulement devrons-nous supporter le coût humain inacceptable de l’exclusion de tant de gens, mais nous continuerons également de payer un prix énorme pour des générations à venir. » Témoignages des ONG « Cette loi contraindra le gouvernement fédéral à lutter contre la pauvreté conformément aux engagements internationaux du Canada en matière de droits de la personne, a dit Rob Rainer, directeur exécutif de Canada sans pauvreté et du Réseau de revendication CSP.  Elle obligera aussi le Canada à rendre compte de ses actes ou de son inaction. Pauvres ou riches, nous sommes tous affectés par la pauvreté; personnellement, nous avons tout intérêt à ce que cette loi déclenche une intervention fédérale robuste contre la pauvreté et contre tout ce qui en découle. » « Voilà un projet de loi très important qui contribuera à la dignité de tous les Canadiens, a affirmé Chandra Pasma, une analyste des politiques qui travaille pour Citizens for Public Justice. Nous pensons qu’une stratégie d’élimination de la pauvreté est un projet que tous les partis politiques, tous les Canadiens et tous les groupes confessionnels doivent soutenir. » CONTEXTE L’Ontario, le Québec et le Nouveau-Brunswick ont déjà des lois anti-pauvreté : Loi visant à lutter contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale (Québec, 2002), Loi de 2009 sur la réduction de la pauvreté (Ontario, 2009), Loi sur l’inclusion sociale et économique (Nouveau-Brunswick, 2010). Dans le cadre d’un mouvement anti-pauvreté grandissant, six provinces ont mis en place des stratégies pour la réduction de ce phénomène : Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, le Québec, l’Ontario, le Manitoba, le Nouveau-Brunswick et la Nouvelle-Écosse. Aux termes du projet de loi, le mandat du gouvernement fédéral s’inscrit dans un partenariat avec les provinces, les territoires, les municipalités, les organismes de la société civile et les Premières nations. Le gouvernement fédéral dispose d’instruments puissants pour contribuer à l’élimination de la pauvreté, dont le Transfert canadien en matière de programmes sociaux, le Programme de sécurité de la vieillesse, le Programmes de la sécurité du revenu, les prestations pour enfants, l’assurance-emploi et la Prestation fiscale pour le revenu de travail. Une étude de l’Ontario Association of Food Banks de 2008 révèle que le coût de la pauvreté au Canada varie entre 72 et 86 milliards de dollars chaque année, en plus  de représenter une perte de revenus fiscaux combinée des gouvernement fédéral et provinciaux de 25 milliards de dollars. Dans l’ensemble, le taux national de pauvreté a oscillé entre 9 % et environ 16 % durant les 30 dernières années malgré une croissance économique importante au cours de cette période (même en tenant compte des récessions). Cette tendance fait ressortir l’existence de conditions structurelles dans notre société qui empêchent en gros une personne sur dix d’échapper à la pauvreté.

Some good news for once, which is worth highlighting, and for which we should give thanks to the MPs and parties that are supporting it, this weekend. A law to eliminate poverty, supported by all three opposition parties, deserves more attention than it has received to date: Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie), seconded by Mr. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour), Bill C-545, An Act to Eliminate Poverty in Canada, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House. DESCRIPTION C-545, An Act to Eliminate Poverty in Canada, was introduced in the House of Commons by New Democrat MP Tony Martin on June 16, 2010. It was seconded by Liberal MP Michael Savage and Bloc MP Yves Lessard. The legislation provides for strong federal leadership to deliver a comprehensive poverty elimination strategy in partnership with provinces and territories and other key stakeholders. “Poverty elimination is an exercise in nation building, a responsibility we must not abdicate,” New Democrat Poverty critic Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) said. “Three provinces already have laws, six have started their own poverty reduction strategies and this legislation deals with bringing Ottawa onside so this and all future governments and Parliaments will make eliminating poverty their goal.” The poverty elimination strategy in the legislation includes: Core priorities of income security, housing and social inclusion; a strong human rights framework; Picking a poverty measurement, as no official definition has impeded action; Gender-based analysis, different urban and rural responses and dealing with specific factors that put some at greater risk, like aboriginal status, child rearing and single parenthood, low wage, immigration or refugee status, low education, and prolonged illness and disability. Leadership by the entire government with health and income security ministers taking the lead; An independent Poverty Elimination Commissioner to monitor and hold the government accountable, and a stronger, renewed National Council on Welfare to be called the National Council on Poverty and Social Inclusion. Other than the core priorities mentioned – income security, housing and social inclusion – the identification of specific poverty elimination measures will be identified in the consultation process spelled out in C-545. There is also an opting out clause for Quebec. The bill recognizes that those people living in poverty like everyone else bear primary responsibility for their own self care but that responsibility is often diminished by structural barriers they face in their communities and in society at large. “Ending their poverty will produce healthy communities and a strong economy,” Martin said. “If we don’t, there is not only the unacceptable human cost of leaving so many behind but we will continue to pay for it massively and for generations to come.” MORE INFO & CONTEXT HERE and from Liberal MP Michael Savage here

SHAME ON THE LPC!!! Parliamentary democracy is more important than the LPC!

The LPC "cowers pathetically" in refusing to defend Canadian democracy!
Democracy, and thus in Canada, parliamentary democracy, belongs to all Canadians, is the foundation of our society, and is not any party's plaything. Lord knows all of them have mucked with it for their own ends. But given the epic struggle we had over the past year to defend democracy, parliamentary democracy, led by the LPC, to their credit, for once, I am outraged and ashamed the LPC would have sold it out, for little or no reason, as far as I can tell. And in being weak, they have exposed themselves to further attacks. So wrong, bad, and STUPID. Always be on the offence, ready to fight an election, rather than on defence. Prepare for war, and you shall have peace, or war on your terms, which is no bad thing. But the LPC were pathetic cowards and traitors to democracy by cravenly abstaining on this motion, moved by the NDP, supported by the Bloc, which was right on the money: In light of these matters, the Committee has reason to believe that a breach of privilege may have occurred. The Committee feels it is its duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House can take such steps as it considers appropriate.

Given all the LPC did, and fought for, this past year, it never even occurred to me they would sell out democracy - I took it for granted that whatever the diversity of views within the party, they had finally understood how fundamental an issue this is, and indeed, from apparatchik point of view, "a winner", and would do the right thing, without any further prodding. I really did. How can any parliamentarian NOT support such a motion, given the CPC behaviour? Resign your seats if you're not going to stand up for the principles and institutions of Canadian democracy, which give your role meaning. Because as of now, you're meaningless empty puppets. Siksay's comment is exact: '"We can't let this one slide," Siksay says -- if the committee "drops the ball" on this one, it will be dropping said ball for all committees, current and future, which is why he thinks it's something that must be followed up on.' As O'Malley rightly noted, "You know, I'm glad Szabo isn't still in the chair for this. He shouldn't have to see his party COWER PATHETICALLY".

Not good enough, LPC, and not good enough to moan about election timing, or feel guilty but what's done is done. Bring this back, by hook or by crook, PRONTO! As always, My Democracy Before My Party.
Read all the grisly details, via O'Malley, below.
3:34
Alright, there goes the gavel; Shawn Murphy begins by guiding everyone's eyes to the report from the agenda subcommittee, which we at the media table, sadly, don't have in front of us; it sounds like they're going to hear from the various and sundry commissioners -- privacy, information, lobbying -- in the next few weeks, although the dates haven't yet been set in stone (or, in this case, official committee issue paper). Anyway, with that out of the way, it's onto the Siksay motion, which the chair doesn't think merits two *full* hours of debate. He also isn't sure about committees calling witnesses to ask questions that could be out of order -- cabinet confidences, that sort of thing -- and really, he thinks the main issue is whether this is a matter of sufficiently public interest to refer it back to the House for further action. With that out of the way, he invites Siksay - the mover of the motion - to speak thereto.
3:36
Siksay gives a very, very quick recap of how we got here, and stresses the importance of the committee's mandate, as far as access to information. It *is* in its name, after all - and no, not like the word "ethics" in the title of a certain commissioner. This one counts.
3:41
Siksay spends some time delineating the -- awkwardness that emerged when staffers began failing to show up as invited/summonsed, not to mention the subsequent uninvited appearances by their respective ministers, who would then attempt to testify on their behalf. He notes that he thought they had reached a compromise when Ryan Sparrow turned up with his minister, Diane Finley, in tow; the chair ruled that she could not answer on his behalf, but was free to stay after he was excused, and consult with him before he answered questions. That precedence, alas, did not hold, and subsequent meetings degenerated into what I described at the time as reverse hostage situations, and Siksay -- well, he's just disappointed by how it all failed to work out. When witnesses ignore invitations and refuse summons, he notes, that's a very serious issue indeed -- and despite some complaints that the witnesses were "mistreated," he doesn't believe that was the case at all.
3:43
"We can't let this one slide," Siksay says -- if the committee "drops the ball" on this one, it will be dropping said ball for all committees, current and future, which is why he thinks it's something that must be followed up on.
3:47
Over to Carole Freeman, who notes that she and Siksay worked together on the motion. Why, that sounds like .. a coalition of two! She, however, thinks the motion may need clarification, starting with the "parallel system" of dealing with ATI requests. She hopes the Liberal party "remains in solidarity" with their opposition colleagues on this, if not, she will be very disappointed, particularly since it was the Liberals who initiated the investigation in the first place. Wow, she's really ratcheting up the pressure; I wish i could see Wayne Easter's face right now, especially when Freeman suggests that it would be an offence to the population -- Canadian and Quebec -- for them to do otherwise.
3:50
Speak of the devil -- here's Wayne Easter now, who begins by noting that he "basically agrees" with the facts of the motion, and that there has been an attempt by the government to subvert the will of parliament; that said, he wants to add a few observations to the motion itself. Tognieri, he recalls, admitted having broken the law during his testimony -- which was, of course, privileged, so it's not like he would face charges solely as a result of his words on the record. Tognieri also "implicated" Jillian Andrews, Easter says, and made reference to a role played by the prime minister's office, including advice from Issues Management to ministerial staff to be "vigilant" in monitoring access requests.
3:51
The real question, as far as Easter is concerned, is where the committee goes from here: back to the House to have the speaker rule, as was the case with the detainee documents? Or do they find "another approach," and see if there's "any good will on the part of the government" to "make the system work." Uh, is that a trick question?
3:54
Wow. Easter was actually serious with that last bit -- at least, as far as eating up time until he could announce that the minutes of the Procedure and House Affairs committee have been published, and lo and behold, there to his wondering eyes do behold that motion from Yasmin Ratansi to look at guidelines for testimony from exempt staffers. So basically, the Liberals are going to pretend that they're not caving like spineless jellyfish.
3:59
Eve Marie Thi Lac notes that she is, of course, disappointed by the Liberals' refusal to support the motion; the Procedure and House Affairs study, she notes, would have the committee report back next spring, and who knows if Parliament will even be sitting then, what with our proroguing prime minister. Freeman sniffs that this is evidence of a Conservative-Liberal coalition, which prompts muted snorts from the other side; this is "a very sad day," she says -- for democracy, as well as this committee. Once again, the Conservatives have been "saved" by the Liberals, she notes. "Praise be to God." This sends Mike Wallace into a fit of giggles, and the chair notes that no translation is necessary.
4:02
Poor Bill Siksay. He makes good points -- including the need to bring this matter to the House without delay, which is a darned good point -- privilege claims must be made at the earliest possible opportunity; you can't just save them up until you want to use them. They aren't markers, which is one of the *other* words that Liberals use to disguise the fact that they've capitulated on a point of principle once again.
4:05
You know, I'm glad Szabo isn't still in the chair for this. He shouldn't have to see his party cower pathetically behind limp excuses and breathless predictions about how much better it will be at PROC. Oh, and it turns out that they don't even have the guts to vote *against* the motion -- when the chair calls the vote, Easter and Bennett "pass." That's rather fitting, isn't it?
4:08
The motion fails, of course, and that's it for today's agenda. What, no Nigel Wright motion from Wayne Easter? Oh, apparently he wants it on the list for the next agenda subcommittee meeting. Good luck with that -- unless you think you can win the Conservatives over, you may have trouble finding friends around the table in future, because the Bloc and the NDP are *not* amused at all.

PM Charest, il nous manque une 6e loi : réforme du mode de scrutin!

Cher M. le PM, et M. le ministre Fournier,
je vous avoue une grande admiration, tous les deux (chose assez rare ces jours-ci, il me semble). Or, étant donné tout ce que vous avez fait, et tout ce que vous avez à faire, vous avez sans doute, tout naturellement, oublié l'excellente initiative de revoir le mode de scrutin que vous avez entrepris pendant votre premier mandat. Puisque vous vous engagez à faire adopter cinq lois, cinq réformes démocratiques tout à fait louables, puis-je avoir la témérité de vous recommander de faire adopter une sixième du même souffle, de revenir à vos promesses électorales de premier mandat, d'être conséquents, et donner suite à l'excellent rapport du professeur Massicotte? Je prends même le soin de vous rappeller son titre, soit À la recherche d'un mode de scrutin mixte compensatoire pour le Québec. Il va sans dire que le PQ, ayant fait de la réforme électorale une visée essentielle depuis ses débuts, serait réjoui de l'initiative, et les autres partis d'opposition encore davantage. Il me semble qu'étant donné les circonstances actuelles, tout le monde y retrouverait son compte, non?

Je vous prie d'agréer de mes sentiments les plus distingués, M. le PM et M. le ministre, et afin de rafraîchir les mémoires, je vous cite, en guise de postscriptum, le premier paragraphe de la conclusion du rapport du professeur Massicotte :

Appliqué au Québec, le mode de scrutin mixte compensatoire aurait plusieurs avantages. Il réduirait le problème récurrent des distorsions. Il rapprocherait le pourcentage des sièges remportés par un parti du pourcentage des votes qu’il a recueillis. Cela procurerait une représentation plus équitable à tous les partis et pourrait ouvrir les portes du Parlement à de nouveaux partis pouvant se réclamer d’un appui populaire minimal. On observerait un plus grand pluralisme politique et partisan non seulement au sein de l’Assemblée nationale, mais dans les régions mêmes, et il deviendrait exceptionnel qu’un parti monopolise la représentation d’une région particulière. Un système compensatoire fonctionnerait de façon beaucoup plus symétrique et équitable que le mode de scrutin actuel. La possibilité d’une inversion de rang touchant les principaux partis serait fortement atténuée et il deviendrait extrêmement improbable qu’un parti, comme en 1998, puisse obtenir une majorité absolue de sièges sans même détenir la pluralité du vote populaire. De plus, ces objectifs seraient atteints sans que l’on abolisse ce que plusieurs considèrent comme l’un des avantages essentiels du mode de scrutin actuel: l’existence de circonscriptions uninominales permettant de conserver un lien plus étroit avec l’électorat.

À propos of nothing: know your audience & choose your friends-supporters carefully

This blog has rarely praised anyone as often as it has Rob Silver. Yet, back on April 26th, I admonished him: Yo Pundits Fulminating vs. C-232: Check Out Your Lovely Followers. Others might like to reflect on it, and on the importance of knowing their audience and understanding the effect their words will have.

I saw Geddes recently wrote about how useful his study of literary theory has proven, on occasion. One very important idea to remember, for any serious, decent man, is that communication is not just about what one intends to say, says, or believes one has said, but how those words will be received and interpreted. It is obviously somewhat unfair to require such constant scrutiny of oneself, but I think it is undoubtedly right, and the bigger the megaphone, the more responsibility one has, especially towards people of similar background and who may seemingly share a similar worldview, or believe they do. Knowing what they are like, one knows how they will receive one's words. And once the words are out there, they belong to the reader, not the writer. But that doesn't liberate the writer of all responsibility, quite the opposite, it seems to me. To have a clear conscience, one must be able to say to oneself that one has been as careful as possible, done all due diligence, and expressed oneself as best possible, so as to avoid, as much as possible, all perverse, even hateful, misconstructions. And as stated, the greater one's influence among the general public, the more such responsibility one has, it seems to me.

It would be nice if we could always speak completely freely, on the assumption that all our interlocutors were decent folk, but that is simply not the world, not the case, and to do so can have unwittingly awful effects. I wrote about this in regard to Fowler and his speech in Montreal, and how this is a dilemma for all decent people, including me, but best to side on the side of caution, knowing what people are like:

Fowler got it right. But I can't tell you the number of times I have ended up in the bizarre position of defending Israeli & USA govt actions with which I disagree, as I have found myself in discussions where it was pretty one-sided and decontextualised, and it made me very uncomfortable, although nothing overtly bigoted was said. So I'm a huge critic of Likudniks and USA Mideast policy, generally, and yet I end up seeming like Ariel Sharon's more extreme twin.

Lord knows some guys are completely exasperating but even the worst fool is right once in a while, and makes a good point, say about literary theory, and how texts will be received and interpreted by the general reader. And how any half-decent, half-worldly man should know that, and bears responsibility if he has not done what he can to forestall the entirely probable and forseeable worst effects, without, at the same time, overly cramping his style. For example, since I have such a good opinion of Silver, perhaps I give him too much credit, but from what I see, I very much doubt that when he's hanging out before or after synagogue, he expresses himself so lazily so as to accidently give comfort to any anti-muslim, anti-arab listeners. I would expect that given his surroundings, that is precisely when he is most careful with his language, knowing the odds of some unhappy soul overhearing him and quoting him later for his own sour ends. I'm sure that Omar Alghabra is similarly careful before and after mosque, and Kinsella about protestants before and after mass, and Scott Tribe about Catholics before and after church, etc.. In fact, from what little I've observed of these people, and decent people generally, these are the first people to fight and denounce any hint of lazy bigotry from within their group towards what some simple minds within their group conceive of as their traditional adversaries. If not them, then who?

It seems to me that it is incumbent on all of us to keep these things in mind when expressing ourselves, whether simply amongst a small group, ignorant of some of our interlocutors' views, or whether to rather larger audiences. I agree it's tiresome, a bore, etc., but would one rather be the accidental cause of a bout of bigotry, and give comfort to bigots? Reading some of the comments beneath some recent, high profile CBC politics stories, I am sure that all would feel as sickened as I at the company they might have accidently accrued as supposed supporters/friends, however much one disdains such views and such folk in reality. It is easy to start fires, once aflame, they are very hard to stop, and the cost to us, to lives and souls, is always far too high, even if they can be hosed down, cooled off, and stopped. I would think anyone who can trace their origins to lands of bitter sectarian conflict would understand this better than most.

Anyway, here's what I said back in April, and I think it bears repeating. Yo Pundits Fulminating vs. C-232: Check Out Your Lovely Followers

My reply to Silver applies to all of you:
Why, Mr. Silver, look at all the lovely people leaving lovely, Solonic comments. What a surprise, eh? Who could have imagined your post would appeal most to these kinds of lovely people, with their admirable views of the world. I'm sure, like Seinfeld, that we might well find, upon deeper inquiry, that these veritable Pericletans were also prejudiced against dental care professionals, anti-dentites as it were.

Good luck with your Steyn, Levant and anti-dentite posse. They make your argument much more convincing.

Best, EFL

PS. I thought of predicting this when I saw the post appear, but I thought I'd give it a couple of hours, to see if I would be happily disproven. Sadly, unsurprisingly, no.

From the Land of Oz, More Enragingly Accurate Wisdom

Broken promises mark foreign mining deals (ROB, Globe):
When reviewing BHP’s application, Ottawa might also want to consider comments made in 2008 by BHP’s chairman at the time, Don Argus. Calling on his fellow Australians to continue investing in domestic mining assets, he cautioned that Australia’s resource sector was at risk of becoming globally irrelevant – just like the mining sector of another former British colony.
“If we fail to remain competitive,” the BHP chairman warned, “Australia will incur a substantial opportunity cost and in the worst-case scenario, our resources will fall into overseas hands and we will also become a branch office – just like Canada.”

Retour sur l'affaire Tierney - l'incohérence inconsciente de ses critiques, conséquence du nationalisme

Lorsque la polémique sur la déclaration de Tierney faisait rage, j'ai observé une incohérence assez flagrante chez ses critiques que personne ne semble avoir répertorié. Cette incohérence, et le fait que tous en étaient inconscients, me semble en dire long sur les effets néfastes du nationalisme comme grille d'analyse, qui s'impose tranquillement, inconsciemment, finalement, comme un instinct, plus qu'un vecteur de compréhension intellectuelle. Je m'attendais à ce que d'autres en fassent mention, mais puisque ce n'est toujours pas produit, je vous en fait part.

Donc, si vous relisez les critiques dans les médias, quel que soit les sources, la Presse comme le Devoir, fédéralistes comme indépendantistes, vous retrouverez deux thèmes contradictoires reproduits dans chaque texte, sans que les auteurs s'en rendent compte. La première remarque fut de dire que c'est normal que la culture d'une société soit son miroir, et que tout naturellement, il y aurait une place prépondérante réservée au groupe majoritaire, et même, dans une ordre plus grande que sa part démographique la mériterait, en termes strictement mathématiques. Ce phénomène, tout à fait naturel ou normal, selon les auteurs, serait encore plus présent au Québec, tout naturellement et normalement, en vertu du statut minoritaire des francophones au Canada et en Amérique du Nord.

Mais dans un deuxième temps, dans chaque critique, les mêmes auteurs insistent pour dire que le Québec, c.-à-d. les Québécois, plus exactement, selon G. Bouchard et moi, les Canadiens français, sont d'une remarquable ouverture aux autres, qu'ils sont tellement chaleureux et accueillants, que toute accusation de renfermement ou de xénophobie serait sans fondement. D'ailleurs tel ou tel non-franco et/ou non-blanc aurait paru dans ceci ou cela, aurait chanté/écrit/etc. ceci ou cela, et ces exemples démontreraient à quel point toute accusation de fermeture ou de xénophobie serait fausse (il est sous-entendu que le statut minoritaire des francos/Canadiens français n'aurait donc aucun effet sur leur perception de l'Autre, ou que l'effet serait positif au lieu d'être négatif, ce qui me paraît invraisemblable à la lumière de l'histoire, des faits et de l'empire de l'idéologie nationaliste, mais passons).

Ainsi, chers lecteurs, vous aurez deviné déjà, sans doute, la contradiction interne de ces argumentaires, qui semble avoir échappé à leurs auteurs, soit, si on dit que le Québec et les francophones vivent une situation particulière en tant que minorité, et que l'effet de leur situation minoritaire historique renforcerait, tout naturellement, au Québec, la tendance normale du groupe majoritaire d'être sur-représenté dans la production culturelle, il est donc impossible de prétendre que les Canadiens français sont autant, sinon plus, ouverts à l'Autre et aux efforts artistiques de l'Autre, que quiconque. De deux choses l'une : ou bien les Canadiens français du Québec, en raison de leur statut particulier de minorité, sont plus portés à se privilégier dans la représentation artistique que les composantes démographiques majoritaires dans d'autres sociétés, ou bien les Canadiens français sont autant sinon plus ouverts aux Autres que quiconque. Mais on ne peut soutenir les deux thèses en même temps, comme ce fut le cas des critiques de Tierney. Ou on est plus fermé, plus nombriliste, que d'autres, pour des raisons tout à fait compréhensibles (quoique peu glorieuses), ou on ne l'est pas, et ceteris paribus, nous figurons parmi les champions de l'ouverture.

Les deux arguments sont respectables, mais on ne peut les soutenir en même temps, ils sont contradictoires!

Or, ce qui m'a intrigué c'est que personne n'a relevé cette incohérence. Nous, les individus, sommes comme des poissons, nageant dans l'eau, soit, la société, et nous ne nous rendons pas compte des effets nocifs sur notre capacité d'analyse que cette eau soit teintée du bleu foncé du nationalisme. La perspective nationaliste nous est tellement acquise, tellement normale, naturelle, etc., que nos commentateurs, nos médias, supposés être nos chiens de garde, de faire preuve d'un esprit critique hors pair, laissent passer et reproduisent des énormités incohérentes. Non seulement ils n'aboient pas, ils ne grognent non plus. Ou bien nos soi disant chiens de garde dorment, ou bien il suffit de leur gratter le ventre et leur répéter quelques mots doux << qu'on est bien, oui oui, qu'on est bien >>, pour qu'ils permettent aux criminels de l'incohérence et de l'irrationalité nous voler tous nos biens les plus précieux, soit, nos têtes et nos âmes, dans le silence le plus complet.

En résumé, on peut conclure en disant que l'incohérence des critiques de Tierney, et encore davantage, le fait que personne n'en a remarqué cette incohérence, représente un exemple flagrant de la subversion des capacités critiques qui se produit dans toute société nationaliste ; nationaliste au point de l'inconscience complaisante.

The Tierney Affair and Tierney's (nationalist) critics: the case of the guard dogs that didn't bark.