My search shows that Quebec is on the lower-end of income inequality in Canada- meaning that the difference between high and low earners in Quebec is *less* than many other places in Canada.
We have more social programs in Québec, so there is less inequality. We've come a long way.
I haven't been able to find statistics of how Francophones actually earn less than Anglophones, though. Do you have citations?
Salaries are lower in Québec than in Canada, if you can translate. The GDP is about a fifth of Canada's while we are a fourth of the population (so less GDP per capita).
As has been noted, your Prime Ministers come from Quebec more often than not, recently? Is inequality in other offices or branches documented?
It doesn't that when a PM is from a province that he'll favor that province. Trudeau, who comes from Québec, is a good example of a Pm that didn't do us any favor. He campaign against Québec's independence during the 1980 referendum. What help tip the scale in his favor was that he promised reform so that Québécois would have a better lot in Canada. That reform took the shape of a consitution. He negociated with the other Prime Ministers of the 10 provinces including Québec's PM. Ultimately,
Québec's PM was set aside and a secret meeting was held in a kitchen to reach a deal. In Canada that is known as the Kitchen Meeting. In Québec it is a betrayal called the Night of Long Knives. Two nations, two histories. To this day, federalist and independentist PMs of Québec have not signed the 1982 constitution as it is seen as disfavorable, to say the least, to Québec.
Obama is a black president elected in the US. Does it mean racism toward black people has ended in the US?
Honestly, this comment about Québécois PMs in Ottawa, is really a comment that says there are too many Québécois politicans in Ottawa. There was even a political ad, that I cannot find, that said that in the 90s I believe.
As for inequality in other branches, this comes from the Commissioners of Official languages:
From 2004 to 2006, the OCOL published three studies on the use of the official languages in the workplace. The first showed that English remains dominant in the organizational culture of departments located in the National Capital Region, primarily because senior management does not do enough to set an example regarding the equality of the two official languages.
The letter of the law and its application are two things.
The OCOL recognized that language of work is a weak link in the implementation of the OLA. In other words, the reality on the ground fails to reflect the letter and spirit of the OLA (Official Language Act).
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0256-e.htm
You do get to a problem, though - some Francophones in Quebec have been trying to distance themselves from other Canadians for decades. When you actively try to sell yourselves as different and separate, can you really be surprised if they treat you as if you were different and separate? Minorities in America have been fighting for greater inclusion - it seems that Francophones have been fighting for exclusion. So, there may be some of what I said before in this - be careful what you wish for.
Heh, that is if you ignore that we've been treated as different and inferior for quite sometime and still are. Just look how we are called freeloaders when we aren't the one benefiting the most from qualization payments. It isn't like it only comes from us. Now we just want to rule ourselves instead of having stuff imposed. Most minorities do not have the possibility to form a different country, we do. I think that this is in part why we want independence rather than inclusiveness. Besides, it has been tried and failed many times. Inclusiveness for Canadians means being on top.
The FLQ were trying to bomb people and places since 1963, kidnapped government people in 1970, killing one of them when their demands were not met.
Laporte died by accident. He tried to flee and he was chocked when they tried to hold him back.
You want to claim the following police action was unprovoked?
Heh. I'm saying the rule of law should always apply, because when it doesn't you see innocent people getting jailed and violence used for political end. Innocent people jailed and political intimidation is exactly what happened during the October Crisis and there are no justifications for that.
If you poke a bear enough, it is hard to understand being put out that it bites.
We aren't talking about bears.
On a metric by metric basis, these things could be compared, but there is no overall objective measure of racism, so I don't know about levels of it. I can only speak to whether I think a particular reaction is justified, given the situation as I understand it. My understanding in this matter is, of course, limited. There does come a point, however, where both sides are guilty of a great deal. At that point, trying to place blame, and say that you act because of Them, becomes a weak position*, and is no longer a constructive approach.
Ultimately the Golden Rule applies, and you reap what you sow.
Like bombings and independentist movements, yes.