Could Quebecois nationalism be exported to the rest of Canada?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I've long thought that as messy as the divorce process would be (for both sides), ultimately both Quebec and Anglo-Canada would be better off if we parted ways.

Maintaining free trade and a customs union would I'm sure be a priority on both sides. Quebec would have to figure out what exactly to do with Gatineau--you can't exactly have all those now-foreigners working in Canada's civil service, so there'd be a lot of unemployed people. That could be a great thing for independent Quebec: lots of experienced people to hire as they take on responsibilities that used to be the federal government. But for that to work, Quebec would have to have Gatineau be a substantial administrative centre, which would conflict with Quebec City as the capital. In any case, Quebec would want to ensure they stay; I imagine quite a few would relocate across the river to Ottawa during the divorce period in order to secure their future careers if Quebec didn't make it clear they'd have jobs with the Quebec civil service.

Preserving linguistic minority rights on both sides would probably be important. Canada-sans-Quebec would repeal official bilingualism, but some Ontario-style solution where French-language federal services are guaranteed in areas of the country with sizeable francophone populations would be in order. Along with guaranteed continuation of OB at the provincial level in New Brunswick. In exchange, Quebec would retain the existing service rights of the Anglo-Quebecer community.

One interesting sticking point could be immigration. I imagine the two countries, after the split, would pursue pretty different immigration policies. If there's an open border (which everyone would want as part of that free trade area and customs union), it could wreck the ability of the two countries to do that. One possible solution would be to have freedom of travel between the two countries, but not freedom of migration. You could have the border open with monitoring of potential illegal immigrants.

There'd be some talk in Canada-sans-Quebec about moving the capital, but I imagine it would stay in Ottawa, due to all that has been invested in that as well as nobody being able to agree on where the new capital should be or how it should be moved (ie. people in the east coast would likely protest a plan to move it to somewhere like Winnipeg to create an east-west compromise, everybody else would get mad if it was moving to Toronto, etc.). Splitting up the metropolitan area would create interesting complexities for Ottawa. Cross-border commuting would likely collapse, removing a big and nagging transportation problem. The civil service would lose its Gatinois employees, but it would also lose a lot of its workload too. It would also lose its sizeable office space in Hull. Could end up being a wash, overall (loss of Gatinois employees and Hull office space offset by reduction in the workforce and resulting reduction in office space needs). If the process got too messy or Quebec didn't make believable job assurances for the Gatinois employees of Canada, Ottawa could be inundated with migrants, which could get really messy (as I mentioned above).

Would federal civil servants living in Gatineau become "foreigners", or would they retain dual nationality? There is at present no mechanism to permit Canada to strip them of their citizenship. I could see them continuing to commute to jobs that have shifted over to the Ontario side, over some period of time. Or perhaps the big federal office complexes in Hull could be annexed to Ottawa.

[CityTech]

As for the whole "splitting up Quebec" issue I don't really see that coming to play. Quebec would probably be able to get the Inuit and Cree communities on board with negotiated autonomy. The Mohawk communities near Montreal would be more problematic; they have a very hostile attitude towards Quebec nationalism, but I'm sure something could be done.

Splitting up the Montreal metropolitan area is just not practical. It's not like Kirkwood, etc. could stay in Canada as an enclave and the people who live there could keep taking their suburban trains across the international border to work in downtown Montreal!

The only border adjustment I could see happening is the communities of Blanc-Sablon and Rapides-des-Joachims. Both of those are anglophone-majority villages, adjacent to the borders with Labrador and Ontario, respectively, that don't even have road links to the rest of Quebec--they're sole road connections are through Labrador & Ontario.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Would federal civil servants living in Gatineau become "foreigners", or would they retain dual nationality? There is at present no mechanism to permit Canada to strip them of their citizenship. I could see them continuing to commute to jobs that have shifted over to the Ontario side, over some period of time. Or perhaps the big federal office complexes in Hull could be annexed to Ottawa.

I imagine part of the divorce negotiations would be automatic replacement of Canadian citizenship with Quebec citizenship for Quebec residents. Canada wouldn't want the "liability", so to speak, of having potentially the bulk of another country's population also be its citizens, given all that entails (voting rights, consular protection, etc.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by CityTech

As for the whole "splitting up Quebec" issue I don't really see that coming to play. Quebec would probably be able to get the Inuit and Cree communities on board with negotiated autonomy. The Mohawk communities near Montreal would be more problematic; they have a very hostile attitude towards Quebec nationalism, but I'm sure something could be done.

Splitting up the Montreal metropolitan area is just not practical. It's not like Kirkwood, etc. could stay in Canada as an enclave and the people who live there could keep taking their suburban trains across the international border to work in downtown Montreal!

The only border adjustment I could see happening is the communities of Blanc-Sablon and Rapides-des-Joachims. Both of those are anglophone-majority villages, adjacent to the borders with Labrador and Ontario, respectively, that don't even have road links to the rest of Quebec--they're sole road connections are through Labrador & Ontario.

Why not, if that's what they wanted? There are other "enclaves" in the world and they seem to function.

[MonctonRad]

This whole discussion is exhausting, irrelevant and divisive. We should be focussed on our commonalities, and not on the issues that divide us, which are generally petty. Dogmatism and ethnic nationalism are the enemies of common sense.

Canada needs to remain whole, and to continue to offer a saner more rational version of North America to the rest of the world. I'm proud to be Canadian, and I'm proud of the entirety of Canada. It's wonderful to live in a country with such a diversity in physical form and in culture. Just think of how fortunate we are to have this diversity. A divided Canada is a lesser Canada. If we were ever to let this happen, our children and grandchildren would never forgive us.

Bill 21 is not a petard I personally want to be hoisted by, and neither is a pipeline to the east coast. I wish Quebec were more cooperative in the Canadian federation, but my wishes do not indicate any particular desire to see the dissolution of Canada. We are much stronger together than we are apart.

Canada is already a loose federation, loose enough that I think each region and province can express itself in the manner that it wants. Do we really need to loosen the ties that bind us even further???

Canada is an example to the world. Let's keep it that way..............

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This whole discussion is exhausting, irrelevant and divisive. We should be focussed on our commonalities, and not on the issues that divide us, which are generally petty. Dogmatism and ethnic nationalism are the enemies of common sense.

Canada needs to remain whole, and to continue to offer a saner more rational version of North America to the rest of the world. I'm proud to be Canadian, and I'm proud of the entirety of Canada. It's wonderful to live in a country with such a diversity in physical form and in culture. Just think of how fortunate we are to have this diversity. A divided Canada is a lesser Canada. If we were ever to let this happen, our children and grandchildren would never forgive us.

Bill 21 is not a petard I personally want to be hoisted by, and neither is a pipeline to the east coast. I wish Quebec were more cooperative in the Canadian federation, but my wishes do not indicate any particular desire to see the dissolution of Canada. We are much stronger together than we are apart.

Canada is already a loose federation, loose enough that I think each region and province can express itself in the manner that it wants. Do we really need to loosen the ties that bind us even further???

Canada is an example to the world. Let's keep it that way..............

I find these discussions tend to hang on one point (carbon tax, Bill 21, etc.) but no one thinks about the other 95%+ we agree on.

If Quebec or Alberta/SK gets 90-95% of what they want, I don't see that 5-10% being worth the cost of the divorce bill. Accepting differences is part of adult life.

To use an example: Brexit was sold to the UK as a painless, easy way for the UK to 'take back control' of its own affairs from the 'evil EU'. Well, it certainly hasn't worked out that way over there. There's a lot of things that have come up that the Brexiteers sure didn't mention for the referendum. They might eventually get all the control back, but at what cost?

As an Ontarian who admittedly benefits quite handsomely from a united Canada, I definitely have my self-interest at heart by promoting a united Canada, flaws and all. I take a dim view of those (especially those with divided loyalties) trying to split Canada.

...and once you create this new 'state', what then? Sunshine and rainbows? Or do you end up squabbling among segments of itself for a different reason? History shows the latter is more common than the former. Being part of something bigger than yourself can help keep a group united within that bigger thing.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This whole discussion is exhausting, irrelevant and divisive. We should be focussed on our commonalities, and not on the issues that divide us, which are generally petty. Dogmatism and ethnic nationalism are the enemies of common sense.

Canada needs to remain whole, and to continue to offer a saner more rational version of North America to the rest of the world. I'm proud to be Canadian, and I'm proud of the entirety of Canada. It's wonderful to live in a country with such a diversity in physical form and in culture. Just think of how fortunate we are to have this diversity. A divided Canada is a lesser Canada. If we were ever to let this happen, our children and grandchildren would never forgive us.

Bill 21 is not a petard I personally want to be hoisted by, and neither is a pipeline to the east coast. I wish Quebec were more cooperative in the Canadian federation, but my wishes do not indicate any particular desire to see the dissolution of Canada. We are much stronger together than we are apart.

Canada is already a loose federation, loose enough that I think each region and province can express itself in the manner that it wants. Do we really need to loosen the ties that bind us even further???

Canada is an example to the world. Let's keep it that way..............

I agree. Acajack was saying how Canadians have anxiety about Quebec separation because it feels like it's inevitable that it'll eventually happen, whereas I am pretty confident it will never happen, and I certainly wouldn't feel any relief if it did in the sense of finally getting it over with. I know I wasn't around for 1995, and my prediction is based more on flawed intuition (there could never be a break-in at MY house), but it does just feel too extreme to really happen.

I realize that it can be interesting to talk about the logistics of various separation scenarios as a thought exercise, and I do think it's the only reason things like wexit are taken seriously at all, but should separation ever look closer to becoming reality, things would get a lot more emotional and a lot less amicable very quickly. We don't want Quebec to stay because it's ours, but because it's us. I hope, and think, that Canada will stay Canada.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. Acajack was saying how Canadians have anxiety about Quebec separation because it feels like it's inevitable that it'll eventually happen, whereas I am pretty confident it will never happen, and I certainly wouldn't feel any relief if it did in the sense of finally getting it over with. I know I wasn't around for 1995, and my prediction is based more on flawed intuition (there could never be a break-in at MY house), but it does just feel too extreme to really happen.

I realize that it can be interesting to talk about the logistics of various separation scenarios as a thought exercise, and I do think it's the only reason things like wexit are taken seriously at all, but should separation ever look closer to becoming reality, things would get a lot more emotional and a lot less amicable very quickly. We don't want Quebec to stay because it's ours, but because it's us. I hope, and think, that Canada will stay Canada.

That was certainly the case in the two Quebec referenda, but I'm not sure it would be as emotionally charged today, and I'm quite sure it would not be a source of great emotion a generation from now, when the majority of Canadians will have no emotional or historical ties to a Quebec that plays a reduced role in national life. Not to say it would be free of emotion, I just don't think a vote to secede would be terribly traumatic, as it would have been twenty or thirty years ago. What could generate much more emotion would be the "good faith negotiations" - that is something one cannot predict.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That was certainly the case in the two Quebec referenda, but I'm not sure it would be as emotionally charged today, and I'm quite sure it would not be a source of great emotion a generation from now, when the majority of Canadians will have no emotional or historical ties to a Quebec that plays a reduced role in national life. Not to say it would be free of emotion, I just don't think it would be terribly traumatic, as it would have been twenty or thirty years ago. Likewise with the West - Ontario would not be happy, but life would go on.

Generally, divorces go better when both people in the relationship admit that it's over and agree to amicably go their separate ways.

However, divorces generally need an emotional argument to them to initiate them. Without that emotional spark, you have spouses who live in the same house, but aren't really attached to each other.

That's kind of where we are now as a country.

So, we either stay amicably if somewhat distantly married, or we find the emotional spark required to get us to go our separate ways.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. Acajack was saying how Canadians have anxiety about Quebec separation because it feels like it's inevitable that it'll eventually happen, whereas I am pretty confident it will never happen, and I certainly wouldn't feel any relief if it did in the sense of finally getting it over with. I know I wasn't around for 1995, and my prediction is based more on flawed intuition (there could never be a break-in at MY house), but it does just feel too extreme to really happen.

I realize that it can be interesting to talk about the logistics of various separation scenarios as a thought exercise, and I do think it's the only reason things like wexit are taken seriously at all, but should separation ever look closer to becoming reality, things would get a lot more emotional and a lot less amicable very quickly. We don't want Quebec to stay because it's ours, but because it's us. I hope, and think, that Canada will stay Canada.

Quebec separation is a lot less practical today than it would have been back in 1950 or so. Quebec needs access to the global economic system it is plugged into through Canada if it wants to have anything resembling a modern standard of living.

I think many separatism movements (all?) are best understood in terms of the payoffs to the elites who are in the driver's seat. In the case of Brexit like with Canada's 1995 referendum there wasn't much interest on the part of the "leave" side to secure a clear democratic mandate for a specific deal. The UK is currently running off of a vague and marginal result from 3 years ago. If they really cared about what UK voters wanted they would have held multiple referendums with more details about a specific deal. Parizeau said after 1995 that he would have used his powers to unilaterally declare independence in the event of a single 50% + 1 vote. This would have involved doing things like using the QPP as a funding source. The probability of him wiping out retirement savings for a bunch of people in Quebec was much higher than his probability of success in achieving sovereignty for Quebec. I doubt many seniors in Quebec valued independence more than they valued being able to subsist on something nicer than cat food. But that was a trade-off Parizeau could live with! When you've got an estate in France and a good international investment portfolio as a backup you can afford to take some risks!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by someone123

Quebec separation is a lot less practical today than it would have been back in 1950 or so. Quebec needs access to the global economic system it is plugged into through Canada if it wants to have anything resembling a modern standard of living.

I think many separatism movements (all?) are best understood in terms of the payoffs to the elites who are in the driver's seat. In the case of Brexit like with Canada's 1995 referendum there wasn't much interest on the part of the "leave" side to secure a clear democratic mandate for a specific deal. The UK is currently running off of a marginal result from a vague referendum 3 years ago. If they really cared about what UK voters wanted they would have held multiple referendums with more details about a specific deal. Parizeau said after 1995 that he would have been happy to use his powers to unilaterally declare independence in the event of a single 50% + 1 vote. This would have involved doing things like using the QPP for strategic funding of his plans. The probability of him wiping out retirement savings for a bunch of people in Quebec was much higher than his probability of success in achieving sovereignty for Quebec. A bunch of seniors in 1997 would have been living off of cat food but he could live with that for a shot of being prime minister of a real country!

One assumes that Quebec would plug into that same global economic system, as Quebec.

The 50% + 1 discussion always fascinates me. It's a terrible idea, of course, but it would be a source of great joy for the Canadian side, if it ever came to pass, with two equal or near-equal sides fighting over Quebec's positions, one of them backed up by a vastly larger negotiating partner.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

One assumes that Quebec would plug into that same global economic system, as Quebec.

Sure, that would be the goal of an independent Quebec. But it would involve re-negotiating about 50 years worth of deals with other countries and international entities. There would be a long period of uncertainty, capital flight, and low investment. Aside from other parts of Canada, the world would be minimally impacted and wouldn't feel much sense of urgency to do anything.

I think this is an area where there is a lot of magical thinking, that all of these agreements are for show and at the end of the day somebody can just make sure it all works out. That was definitely the case in the UK. I suspect the reality of the global economy is that nobody's in charge, it's incredibly bureaucratic, and changing anything requires a lot of work. There is nobody who can "override" this trade system to quickly get Quebec back to normal in the event of separation.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sure, that would be the goal of an independent Quebec. But it would involve re-negotiating about 50 years worth of deals with other countries and international entities. There would be a long period of uncertainty, capital flight, and low investment.

The multilateral agreements already exist, so it's just a matter of becoming party. Bilateral trade agreements are pretty much set pieces nowadays and could in many cases be put in place fairly quickly (if the partner country were interested enough to make it a priority). Some countries with which Canada has a bilateral agreement might be willing just to designate Quebec as a successor state and change the name "Canada" to "Quebec".

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The multilateral agreements already exist, so it's just a matter of becoming party. Bilateral trade agreements are pretty much set pieces nowadays and could in many cases be put in place fairly quickly (if the partner country were interested enough to make it a priority). Some countries with which Canada has a bilateral agreement might be willing just to designate Quebec as a successor state and change the name "Canada" to "Quebec".

In our actual world of politics right now, Trump unilaterally imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada for over a year based on an obscure national security related provision that could be used to justify anything. Although Canadians tend to view this story in a way that exaggerates how central we are to it; he applied tariffs on a bunch of countries and Canada was one of many hapless victims in the amorphous blob outside of American borders.

Up until recently the US congress was barely passing any legislation. I bet many elected representatives in the US would have a hard time finding Quebec on a map. If their map even had Quebec on it.

But we think that if Quebec separated it would be business as usual because the US, EU, TPP signatories, UN, etc. etc. would all work things out in short order?

This reminds me of people who say that Alberta "can just join the US" if we don't build enough pipelines. Meanwhile, in the real world, Puerto Rico began the process of becoming a US state in 2012.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That was certainly the case in the two Quebec referenda, but I'm not sure it would be as emotionally charged today, and I'm quite sure it would not be a source of great emotion a generation from now, when the majority of Canadians will have no emotional or historical ties to a Quebec that plays a reduced role in national life. Not to say it would be free of emotion, I just don't think a vote to secede would be terribly traumatic, as it would have been twenty or thirty years ago. What could generate much more emotion would be the "good faith negotiations" - that is something one cannot predict.

I suppose it depends how attached people are to the cultural institution of Canada. It doesn't have to have anything to do with emotional or historical ties to Quebec, but just about the weakening of Canada. To someone more attached as myself, I can't imagine seeing the splintering of one's country as anything short of a disaster. But to those who hold a more practical view of these things, and whether or not they affect them directly, may be more relaxed in the way that you describe. I guess it comes down to how many of each type we have in Canada.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

Quebec separation is a lot less practical today than it would have been back in 1950 or so. Quebec needs access to the global economic system it is plugged into through Canada if it wants to have anything resembling a modern standard of living.

I think many separatism movements (all?) are best understood in terms of the payoffs to the elites who are in the driver's seat. In the case of Brexit like with Canada's 1995 referendum there wasn't much interest on the part of the "leave" side to secure a clear democratic mandate for a specific deal. The UK is currently running off of a vague and marginal result from 3 years ago. If they really cared about what UK voters wanted they would have held multiple referendums with more details about a specific deal. Parizeau said after 1995 that he would have used his powers to unilaterally declare independence in the event of a single 50% + 1 vote. This would have involved doing things like using the QPP as a funding source. The probability of him wiping out retirement savings for a bunch of people in Quebec was much higher than his probability of success in achieving sovereignty for Quebec. I doubt many seniors in Quebec valued independence more than they valued being able to subsist on something nicer than cat food. But that was a trade-off Parizeau could live with! When you've got an estate in France and a good international investment portfolio as a backup you can afford to take some risks!

I don't think those that support Quebec separatism are thinking about the economic practicality of it. Separation, or the broader question of sovereignty as a whole, is predominantly an emotional motivation than economic. Hence why Alberta separatism sounds to absurd, why UK Brexiteers weren't swayed by the "it'll hurt our economy" argument, and why there's a pro-con divide in the West with regards to how to treat China - it's largely an economy/culture argument.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't think those that support Quebec separatism are thinking about the economic practicality of it. Separation, or the broader question of sovereignty as a whole, is predominantly an emotional motivation than economic. Hence why Alberta separatism sounds to absurd, why UK Brexiteers weren't swayed by the "it'll hurt our economy" argument, and why there's a pro-con divide in the West with regards to how to treat China - it's largely an economy/culture argument.

I would frame this by saying that the elites who campaigned for these movements didn't have economic arguments so they resorted to emotional manipulation, a time-honoured political tradition.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

I would frame this by saying that the elites who campaigned for these movements didn't have economic arguments so they resorted to emotional manipulation, a time-honoured political tradition.

This assumes that separatist sentiment is predominantly an elite-driven phenomenon though. This would contradict the argument (that I agree with) that separation in most cases it's discussed, like Quebec or the UK, would be bad for both the wider economy as well as elites. It's elites that are the globalists after all. While there are certainly some elites that would benefit from it based on personal circumstances, the average elite would not.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I would frame this by saying that the elites who campaigned for these movements didn't have economic arguments so they resorted to emotional manipulation, a time-honoured political tradition.

But you do not seek to become or remain independent only or even primarily for economic arguments.

If it was only about economics Canada would be part of the US.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But you do not seek to become or remain independent only or even primarily for economic arguments.

If it was only about economics Canada would be part of the US.

In a sense this is what free trade/free movement are about: receiving the economic benefits of consolidation while retaining the emotional necessity of sovereignty.