Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That said, it's funny how people make a big deal about him being a "foreigner" and therefore not entitled to comment on Canadian affairs. When you consider how Canada is supposed to abhor "nativism".

Yeah, those accusing you of being "pure laine" are themselves pretty "pure wool", aren't they?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The world in 2023 is so different. This is really not a time for small countries to take risks. Frankly, I'm really worried about Canada's ability to assert itself on an economic stage that will be dominated by the US, China, India and - tenuously - by the Europeans banding together as a customs union/trade bloc in the EU. We all saw what's happening to the UK, a larger economy than us. The USMCA/NAFTA is not the same as the EU. The US sets the terms, and Mexico and Canada fight for favourable arrangements in select industries. If the industry is strategically important to the US, we have to roll over and die. Remember when Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act? There are about US$1.2 trillion in subsidies to American producers there; about 4x the Quebec annual GDP. When we subsidize VW and Stellantis to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, this is what we're competing against. Quebec learned this painfully when they just didn't have deep enough pockets to let Bombardier to match the subsidies and favourtism the Americans give to Boeing, and had to sell the company for parts.

And yet Iceland is doing very well indeed, despite having 20 times less inhabitants than Québec, one of the most inhospitable land in the world, virtually no natural resources (unless you count geothermal, but that adds little to the GDP), and not being part of the EU.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

We are not married, we are roommates. I am not a separatist, but I have no illusion about what the Canadian federation really is. We live together and we share some spending. Sometime, we share some values too and like the same sports (and most of us hate the Maple Leafs...).

I share your point of view. I'm not sure that some of the Anglo provinces have all that much in common with one another either, despite a common mother tongue.

I don't see what all of the fuss is about in just admitting that at this point in time, we've grown into a federation of semi-autonomous pseudo-countries. Even Alberta, without being outwardly separatist, is making moves to assert its own sovereignty within the federation. Other provinces may follow suit, though probably not in regards to the pension plan.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This a pretty big downgrade for francophones outside Quebec, hence why they tend to be so against separatism. From my experience at least the Franco-Ontarian community tends to be extremely hostile to Quebec separatism (maybe the Acadians are different).

From what I can read (Le Devoir is interesting in this respect), the point of view of Québecois pro-independence and language activists (think Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste) is this old French saying: "Quand la maison brûle, on ne cherche pas à sauver les écuries." (ironically this is the sentence that Louis XV allegedly said to explain why he did not send troops to save Canada from British conquest)

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

And yet Iceland is doing very well indeed, despite having 20 times less inhabitants than Québec, one of the most inhospitable land in the world, virtually no natural resources (unless you count geothermal, but that adds little to the GDP), and not being part of the EU.

Iceland is not an example to emulate for Quebec for obvious reasons.

I don't think 9 million people can be gainfully employed at high salaries if your export map looks like this. PS: Tourism accounts for 39% of Iceland's export revenue, but it's not a good or service sold overseas and is therefore not shown here.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, I've always thought that the buildup to the 1995 Quebec referendum was due to a perfect storm of factors, including that global trend you refer to between 1990-1995, and domestic issues going on in Canada like Meech Lake's failure, renewed fighting both political and legal over Quebec's language laws, and the federal government going through a bit of an existential crisis, sputtering, struggling financially and cutting back on services, etc.

To be honest, I think the main reason for the 1995 independence referendum was... Jacques Parizeau. If you look back at the political conversation in 1992-1994, media editorials, etc, it was not much different from today ("the days of sovereignism are over", "René Lévesque is dead", "support for sovereignty has passed its peak", "the referendum is yesterday's idea"). Support for the oui in a tentative new referendum was low, most PQ politicians advised Jacques Parizeau not to launch a new referendum. He trusted his guts, and almost won.

I think it wouldn't be much different today. What it would take is a leader ready to go against pollsters, friends and advisors, and then the polarizing nature of such an issue would probably be as strong today as it was in 1995, because the national identity in Québec is still a fact, distinct from the rest of Canada. It was the same in Scotland, a nation much more integrated with Britain than Québec with Canada, and where independence sentiment was always very low. When the Scottish nationalists launched the referendum, it polarized voters, and many more people voted YES than anyone could have imagined.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

To be honest, I think the main reason for the 1995 independence referendum was... Jacques Parizeau. If you look back at the political conversation in 1992-1994, media editorials, etc, it was not much different from today ("the days of sovereignism are over", "René Lévesque is dead", "support for sovereignty has passed its peak", "the referendum is yesterday's idea"). Support for the oui in a tentative new referendum was low, most PQ politicians advised Jacques Parizeau not to launch a new referendum. He trusted his guts, and almost won.

I think it wouldn't be much different today. What it would take is a leader ready to go against pollsters, friends and advisors, and then the polarizing nature of such an issue would probably be as strong today as it was in 1995, because the national identity in Québec is still a fact, distinct from the rest of Canada. It was the same in Scotland, a nation much more integrated with Britain than Québec with Canada, and where independence sentiment was always very low. When the Scottish nationalists launched the referendum, it polarized voters, and many more people voted YES than anyone could have imagined.

I'm not so sure Scotland is much more integrated with the UK than Quebec is with Canada.

Linguistic differences aside, a considerable amount of Canada's goings-on, particularly economic, occurs within Quebec (specifically Montreal). The same cannot be said for Scotland which accounts for a much lower share of the UK's population and ecnonomy than Quebec does for Canada's.

Even geographically, Scotland is remote in the UK context. A lot goes through Quebec. Just a lot. Your argument hinges mostly on linguistic and cultural differences, but ignores the reality on the ground. Hell, some of Canada's capital functions occur within Quebec (Environment Canada is based in Gatineau, for example).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Hell, some of Canada's capital functions occur within Quebec (Environment Canada is based in Gatineau, for example).

By law, 25% of the federal public service in the capital region is based in Gatineau.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Zeej

I'm not so sure Scotland is much more integrated with the UK than Quebec is with Canada.

Linguistic differences aside, a considerable amount of Canada's goings-on, particularly economic, occurs within Quebec (specifically Montreal). The same cannot be said for Scotland which accounts for a much lower share of the UK's population and ecnonomy than Quebec does for Canada's.

Even geographically, Scotland is remote in the UK context. A lot goes through Quebec. Just a lot. Your argument hinges mostly on linguistic and cultural differences, but ignores the reality on the ground. Hell, some of Canada's capital functions occur within Quebec (Environment Canada is based in Gatineau, for example).

A far higher percentage of natives of Scotland live in the rest of the UK than the percentage of natives of Québec who live in the rest of Canada. Also, in terms of geography, you call Scotland's location "remote", but have you seen distances in Canada??

Also, in Britain they share the same media, watch the same BBC, read the same Guardian, etc. Yes there are some regional Scottish media, and yes Scotland's media and politics have diverged a lot with England in recent years (something people in England often do not quite realize), but this is nothing to the extant of what exists in Canada where people in Québec have entirely separate media in a different language to boot.

[Truenorth00]

Scotland's argument for independence doesn't centre around cultural issues. Their arguments centre around economic concerns and self-governance. Quebec doesn't really have those concerns. It's one of the most empowered sub-national governments in the world.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

We are not married, we are roommates. I am not a separatist, but I have no illusion about what the Canadian federation really is. We live together and we share some spending.

Canada and Quebec are married. An arranged marriage, but married.

Walk away from your roommate and you're done.

Walk away from your spouse, kids, shared debts, assets, and you'll find the ghosts of your past and paperwork intruding rather frequently on your life in the future. Doubly so if you're stuck in the same location because that's where your job is.

This will prove much more problematic and require much more legal interaction. As in, nearly continually until the kids are grown.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes divorce is a good thing. However, it is rarely the clean break some fantasize.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who says I am a separatist, let alone "ardent"? If you guys think I am a separatist (even ardent) then you obviously never talk to any real ones. Without saying I am an official supporter, my positions on here line up almost perfectly with those of the CAQ - who are not considered separatist.

You're right. That was an unfair characteristization. Though, I'd say you sound closer to the separatist view than the sovereignist view these days.

Originally Posted by Acajack

As for my kids well they're quite passive about the issue. That's all I'll say about that.

This is broadly my point though. I think the internet is a major reason why young people care less about separatism. They tend to be culturally fluent across English and French with much more ease than past generations. And that gives them the confidence to worry less about erosion of language and culture.

Originally Posted by Acajack

And regarding people in the military (or anywhere else that ROCers mix with Québécois a lot) it's well known that a lot of people keep their views to themselves. Similar to how most Canadians if they were in rural Alabama wouldn't going spouting off about how Donald Trump is a dickhead all the time.

Though sure I do agree with you that most Québécois in the CAF are federalists, though it's said that CFB Valcartier went to the Oui in 1995.

I've known and still know quite a few CAF and also RCMP members and (yes Molson) even federal public servants who think Quebec should be its own country. It's not the majority view for sure but they're definitely there as a decent-sized subgroup. But they generally remain discreet for the most part.

Though not all of them.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/fi...ties-bureaucrat-ordered-rehired-1.604369

You'd be surprised about how open most separatists are, even in the military. But that aside, even if some are guarding their views, I think it's telling that they just care a lot less. And I think your own kids are a reflection of this.

Originally Posted by Acajack

This makes it sound like the Canadian federal government is this external God-like entity that showers down wealth from the sky onto the provinces and people. The feds get their money from the country's people and the resources are there in the provinces, in municipalities, on land owned by Canadian companies and individuals.

Less God like entity and more like an entity that benefits from a larger pool of resources, that is disproportionately based outside Quebec. A province with GDP per capita lower than the national average taking on substantially more expenditures of a state, isn't exactly a situation that lends itself to success.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Also, the differences among many of the top couple dozen countries in the HDI index are reasonably minimal and which one is better than the other for someone is often just a question of personal preferences. Canadians or Westerners in general could move in between the top 50 even without much change in the creature comforts they enjoy - provided you remain in the same social class. I'd rather be middle class or upper middle class in Portugal or Argentina than poor in Canada.

Sure. But this is where I think separatists should actually be honest about what the economic consequences of separation might be. You may be okay with being as poor as Portugal. What about everybody else?

Let's not forget that the last time around, they insinuated that an independent Quebec could keep the Canadian dollar and maybe even the Canadian passport. Would the result have been the same if the offer was basically, "You won't be as poor as Portugal."

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think the internet is a major reason why young people care less about Sovereignty.

Caring less about sovereignty doesn't mean caring more for the federation. People who don't care all that much about sovereignty might anyway vote OUI in a future referendum, especially young people who are more adventurous and less risk adverse than older folks. In Scotland the YES vote was stronger among young people.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You may be okay with being as poor as Portugal. What about everybody else?

Québec is never going to be as "poor" (a very relative term) as Portugal. They would probably be more or less like Finland, i.e. not the richest in town, but doing reasonably well.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The world in 2023 is so different. This is really not a time for small countries to take risks. Frankly, I'm really worried about Canada's ability to assert itself on an economic stage that will be dominated by the US, China, India and - tenuously - by the Europeans banding together as a customs union/trade bloc in the EU. We all saw what's happening to the UK, a larger economy than us. The USMCA/NAFTA is not the same as the EU. The US sets the terms, and Mexico and Canada fight for favourable arrangements in select industries. If the industry is strategically important to the US, we have to roll over and die. Remember when Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act? There are about US$1.2 trillion in subsidies to American producers there; about 4x the Quebec annual GDP. When we subsidize VW and Stellantis to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, this is what we're competing against. Quebec learned this painfully when they just didn't have deep enough pockets to let Bombardier to match the subsidies and favourtism the Americans give to Boeing, and had to sell the company for parts.

Like I said earlier, in all these discussions, the US is ignored. It might be easy to ignore the US, when sitting in France. Not so much, when sitting in Montreal. And a US that is more integrated with Mexico everyday isn't likely to be particularly generous to successor states of Canada.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Even if culture trumps the economy, the economy is pretty damn important. Culture is preserved through future generations. Young people with options in countries that have rich cultures but poor economies vote with their feet, emigrating to other countries and establishing families there, which jeopardizes the long-term preservation of that nation's culture. If grandparents in Montmagny are worried that their children are raising their grandkids in an increasingly English Montreal, then how would they feel if their children had to raise their grandkids in New Jersey or suburban Boston instead?

Canada affords Quebec strategic depth for cultural protection. We're a big enough market on everything from consumer goods to jobs, that efforts are made at bilingualism. It's why you can buy a MacBook with a French Canadian keyboard. I suspect, Quebec would get reduced to just a French outport and English Canada to an American outport, for goods and services post breakup.

[thurmas]

I think the influence of Parizeau in the 90s on here is overrated. The massive jump in popularity of sovereignty in the 90 to 95 period was because of the severe let down of Meech failing. Quebecers truly felt it was a fair deal and would erase the stab in the back PET did during the 82 constitution negotiations. Also the 2nd and major factor in sovereignty appeals comeback was Lucien Bouchard and his charisma he was miles ahead of Parizeau in popularity and a major reason why Jaques poached him from Mulroney's Tories.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Caring less about sovereignty doesn't mean caring more for the federation. People who don't care all that much about sovereignty might anyway vote OUI in a future referendum, especially young people who are more adventurous and less risk adverse than older folks. In Scotland the YES vote was stronger among young people.

We've been over this. Scotland's grievances are economic. Their young people are the hardest hit. Separation for them could be portrayed as an economic benefit. And plenty of their campaign in Scotland argued for just that (substituting the EU for the UK). Very difficult to make that argument in Quebec which has major global industries that would consider leaving if separation happened.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Québec is never going to be as "poor" (a very relative term) as Portugal. They would probably be more or less like Finland, i.e. not the richest in town, but doing reasonably well.

Go look at GDP per capita for the provinces. And then, try and remember that Quebec is in North America, before you look up GDP per capita of American states. Quebec's GDP per capita at today's exchange rate is on par with Mississippi.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Still continue to be quite shocked at how weak the Canadian identity seems to be in the minds of so many, and how a province that (in spite of its pivotal historical role I know) factors so little in the everyday lives of ROCers and which is an annoyance more often than not, is somehow the irreplaceable glue that holds Canada together?

John Lennon was the glue of the Beatles.

Quebec occupies a similar role in Canada.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Caring less about sovereignty doesn't mean caring more for the federation. People who don't care all that much about sovereignty might anyway vote OUI in a future referendum, especially young people who are more adventurous and less risk adverse than older folks. In Scotland the YES vote was stronger among young people.

Actually, in Scotland, younger folks were less likely to vote for independence:

According to Professor John Curtice, polling evidence indicates that support for independence was highest among those aged in their late-20s and early-30s, with a higher "No" vote among those aged between 16 and 24.

Exit polling indicates that in Scotland, the primary motivation for Yes voters was "dissatisfaction with Westminster [ie. UK national] politics" rather than nationalism. Hence why support for nationalism in Scotland has declined considerably with devolution. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of people in Scotland that self-identify as "British" has increased considerably:

Since then [2000], there has been a gradual increase in British national identity and a decline in Scottish national identity, with British national identity hitting a twenty-year high in Scotland in 2013 at 24% and Scottish national identity hitting a 35-year low the following year at 65%. Polling conducted since 2014 has indicated that British national identity has risen to between 31 and 36% in Scotland and that Scottish national identity has fallen to between 58 and 62%.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Actually, in Scotland, younger folks were less likely to vote for independence:



Exit polling indicates that in Scotland, the primary motivation for Yes voters was "dissatisfaction with Westminster [ie. UK national] politics" rather than nationalism. Hence why support for nationalism in Scotland has declined considerably with devolution. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of people in Scotland that self-identify as "British" has increased considerably:

The foreign agitator lying and misrepresenting the situation? Shocker.

I was really surprised when I first learned how little power even the devolved Scottish Parliament has. Regions in France or Italy have even less. So I can absolutely understand the frustration in those places where their provinces really are reduce to compromise economic colonies of the central government. We don't have anything close to this in. Canada.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am pretty sure that New Brisavoine actually is French from France, based on other forums where I've seen him in action.

That said, it's funny how people make a big deal about him being a "foreigner" and therefore not entitled to comment on Canadian affairs.

Brisavoine, contrarily to most people here, has access to the Quebec media and understands it. He can read our news sites, watch our news, understand better the point of view of Quebec commentators, etc.

His worldview isn't limited to what he reads in the Montreal Gazette, Globe & Mail, National Post or when he watches CTV news or Global.

I think it gives him the right to come and express his opinions here.

Case in point:

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

From what I can read (Le Devoir is interesting in this respect), the point of view of Québecois pro-independence and language activists (think Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste) is this old French saying: "Quand la maison brûle, on ne cherche pas à sauver les écuries." (ironically this is the sentence that Louis XV allegedly said to explain why he did not send troops to save Canada from British conquest)

I mean, you wouldn't read that in the National Post, for sure.