Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yes, the Labrador border will be the only one that will be discussed in case of independence, but that's because Québec doesn't recognize this border, so the uti possidetis principle cannot operate here?

Looking at things purely from a legalistic point of view, Quebec has zero valid argument on the Labrador border issue, as at the time the decision was made, that border was an "internal" border between two parts of the British Empire, so the UK government had the legal right to determine it. Back then, the federal government also had the right to change a province's borders without needing to get that province's consent; it was only in 1982 that the Constitution began to stipulate that a province must consent to any change of its own boundary. And 1982 was long after 1927.

But of course, the legalistic view doesn't really matter when the rubber hits the road. It will part of the negotiation.

I'm inclined to think Canada would probably be more than willing to accept Quebec's desired border (which is not that hard - Quebec only claims the space between the red and purple lines on this map, which is uninhibited wilderness) in exchange for concessions elsewhere.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Looking at things purely from a legalistic point of view, Quebec has zero valid argument on the Labrador border issue, as at the time the decision was made, that border was an "internal" border between two parts of the British Empire, so the UK government had the legal right to determine it. Back then, the federal government also had the right to change a province's borders without needing to get that province's consent; it was only in 1982 that the Constitution began to stipulate that a province must consent to any change of its own boundary. And 1982 was long after 1927.

But of course, the legalistic view doesn't really matter when the rubber hits the road. It will part of the negotiation.

I'm inclined to think Canada would probably be more than willing to accept Quebec's desired border (which is not that hard - Quebec only claims the space between the red and purple lines on this map, which is uninhibited wilderness) in exchange for concessions elsewhere.

It's an important watershed for hydro potential though, is it not?

[Acajack]

From that poll

Island of Montréal only

PQ 24
QS 23
LIB 23
CAQ 18

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's an important watershed for hydro potential though, is it not?

+ no country willingly cedes territory, even if it has no current economic potential.

The most likely outcome, in my opinion, is both countries agreeing to disagree and not recognizing any border in Labrador.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

+ no country willingly cedes territory, even if it has no current economic potential.

The most likely outcome, in my opinion, is both countries agreeing to disagree and not recognizing any border in Labrador.

I can see no advantage to Canada to settlng for (another) international boundary dispute. I can't see Quebec wanting to wait for interminable negotiations either. Although, obviously, nobody knows.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

From that poll

Island of Montréal only

PQ 24
QS 23
LIB 23
CAQ 18

In the 1995 referendum, the OUI got 34.4% of votes on the island of Montréal, and the NON got 65.6%. So there are now 47% of voters on the same island ready to vote for OUI parties...

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I can see no advantage to Canada to settlng for (another) international boundary dispute. I can't see Quebec wanting to wait for interminable negotiations either. Although, obviously, nobody knows.

You didn't understand what I said. I don't think both governments would request some international arbitration. They would just agree to disagree, and let the matter rest. There are plenty of unrecognized stretches of international borders in the world, which countries disagree on. Heck, even the international border of France is currently the matter of several disputes (a stretch of the border between France and Vanuatu is challenged by both countries, as well as a stretch of the border between France and Suriname... in both cases France occupies territory claimed by Suriname and Vanuatu). Usually it doesn't lead to tensions or wars.

Of course if in the future some mega natural resources were discovered in the disputed territory, I can imagine that Québec would bring the case to some international arbitration court, but in the short term they would probably do nothing, and Canada would continue to occupy the contested part of Labrador.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

From that poll

Island of Montréal only

PQ 24
QS 23
LIB 23
CAQ 18

I've had a look at the results of the 1994 provincial election. This was the results on the island of Montréal:
LIB 58.8%
PQ 31.9%
ADQ (CAQ ancestor) 3.9%
Independents 1.5%
New Democratic Party 1.2%
Equality Party 0.9%
Other 1.8%

The decline of the Quebec Liberal Party on the island of Montréal is shocking.

Interestingly PQ + ADQ = 35.8%, and a year later the OUI gets 34.4% of votes (with a higher turnout than in the 1994 provincial elections, probably some NON voters who didn't show up at the 1994 provincial election).

Today PQ + QS = 47%, so it looks like the OUI would get more votes than in 1995 on the island of Montréal... Of course as you said some QS voters would not vote OUI, but then some CAQ voters would vote OUI. How many of each voters (QS and CAQ) would vote OUI, I don't know. What do you think?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The border would NOT be modified. I know internet forums are places where all sorts of silly things are said, but if there is one certainty in life it is that in case of Québec (or Scotland, or Catalonia) secession, THE BORDERS WOULD NOT BE MODIFIED. One has to know nothing about international law and the mood of Western countries to pretend otherwise.

On the other hand, OF COURSE during a referendum campaign the federal government would be all to happy to hint at the fact that northern Québec could remain inside Canada in case of independence, but that's only political posturing, and not something Ottawa would ever seriously consider if the OUI won.

The Indigenous peoples of the far North would have a lot of say in their territories and there would be many issues brought to court which would take quite awhile. I would also say that First Nations in the Southern portion of the province could go the same route but with only tiny pieces of land it would not be something worth making too big of a deal. The federal constitution applies and proper consultations would need to take place as reserves legally would still have to deal with the Government of Canada. But I have also seen the Parti Québécois as being willing to offer a better deal and conditions for Indigenous Quebecers so that there wouldn't be huge disputes and that jurisdiction could transfer.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yes, the Labrador border will be the only one that will be discussed in case of independence, but that's because Québec doesn't recognize this border, so the uti possidetis principle cannot operate here.

That said, I doubt Québec would get the border they want in Labrador in case of independence. They would either have to accept the border set by Canada, or refuse to agree to a border, and so that would be one of those borders on which countries don't agree (those dotted lines on maps... such as a part of the Egyptian-Sudanese border for instance, or the Venezuelan-Guyanese border).


Blanc-Sablon voted OUI in 1995, didn't they?

I've been to Blanc-Sablon and it's majority anglophone by quite a bit. I'm betting that it went 90% NON. It has a closer association with Newfoundland and Labrador. The businesses there operate primarily in English. There are some other villages along the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Quebec that are almost totally anglophone and aren't accessible by road.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's an important watershed for hydro potential though, is it not?

Between the falling price of wind/solar and revived interest in nuclear, I'm not sure remote wilderness megadams are going to be a thing in the future.

Plus even if they are - Canada-sans-Quebec wouldn't really be in a realistic position to develop them. The only way to get power from a hypothetical dam there to populated areas of Canada would be a long cable route to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and those provinces already have huge offshore wind potential that could be developed far more cheaply.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Between the falling price of wind/solar and revived interest in nuclear, I'm not sure remote wilderness megadams are going to be a thing in the future.

Plus even if they are - Canada-sans-Quebec wouldn't really be in a realistic position to develop them. The only way to get power from a hypothetical dam there to populated areas of Canada would be a long cable route to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and those provinces already have huge offshore wind potential that could be developed far more cheaply.

I don't get this last point. If that area becomes Quebec territory then it's all Quebec-only power lines all the way to the US border. Hydro-Quebec doesn't sell much power at all to the ROC anyway. Its clients outside Quebec are all in the US.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't get this last point. If that area becomes Quebec territory then it's all Quebec-only power lines all the way to the US border. Hydro-Quebec doesn't sell much power at all to the ROC anyway. Its clients outside Quebec are all in the US.

Sorry - wasn't clear enough. What I meant what that if the disputed bit of Labrador stays in Canada, then Canada won't realistically be able to develop the hydro power of that territory if Quebec secedes. So from Canada's point of view the hydro resource value is null and there's no issue with giving it to Quebec, who actually can develop it given the reasons you mentioned

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't get this last point. If that area becomes Quebec territory then it's all Quebec-only power lines all the way to the US border. Hydro-Quebec doesn't sell much power at all to the ROC anyway. Its clients outside Quebec are all in the US.

Indeed, I didn't understand the geography of the previous post either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Sorry - wasn't clear enough. What I meant what that if the disputed bit of Labrador stays in Canada, then Canada won't realistically be able to develop the hydro power of that territory if Quebec secedes. So from Canada's point of view the hydro resource value is null and there's no issue with giving it to Quebec, who actually can develop it given the reasons you mentioned

I don't see why Canada would gift this to a Quebec leaving the federation, but it could be a bargaining chip for something else Canada wanted.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In the 1995 referendum, the OUI got 34.4% of votes on the island of Montréal, and the NON got 65.6%. So there are now 47% of voters on the same island ready to vote for OUI parties...

Not quite so cut and dry. Dig into the polls and you'll find that 50+% of QS supporters would vote no, 35% yes. Even 15% of PQ voters would apparently vote no. You may be overestimating the support for OUI at this current moment in time.

https://legermarketing.wpenginepowered.c.../2023/10/Rapport-politique-Oct.-2023.pdf

You'll see that as of a few weeks ago, the OUI is behind in every single demographic.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I've had a look at the results of the 1994 provincial election. This was the results on the island of Montréal:
LIB 58.8%
PQ 31.9%
ADQ (CAQ ancestor) 3.9%
Independents 1.5%
New Democratic Party 1.2%
Equality Party 0.9%
Other 1.8%

The decline of the Quebec Liberal Party on the island of Montréal is shocking.

Interestingly PQ + ADQ = 35.8%, and a year later the OUI gets 34.4% of votes (with a higher turnout than in the 1994 provincial elections, probably some NON voters who didn't show up at the 1994 provincial election).

Today PQ + QS = 47%, so it looks like the OUI would get more votes than in 1995 on the island of Montréal... Of course as you said some QS voters would not vote OUI, but then some CAQ voters would vote OUI. How many of each voters (QS and CAQ) would vote OUI, I don't know. What do you think?

BTW, almost 70% of francophones on the island of Montréal voted Oui, one of the highest Oui percentages of any demographic anywhere in Québec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Not quite so cut and dry. Dig into the polls and you'll find that 50+% of QS supporters would vote no, 35% yes. Even 15% of PQ voters would apparently vote no. You may be overestimating the support for OUI at this current moment in time.

https://legermarketing.wpenginepowered.c.../2023/10/Rapport-politique-Oct.-2023.pdf

It's unclear at this point if Québec solidaire's sovereignist slant is long for this world. There is currently a race for the spot of co-spokesperson left vacant by Manon Massé stepping out of it, and some of the front-runners for the job aren't even mentioning sovereignty in their top 10 list of priorities if they win.

Just like with François Legault, the rise of PSPP and the PQ is going to push QS to take a clearer position on this issue, and it's not going to be an easy road to take - either way.

But if you look at most of QS's positions on most issues, they've been increasingly aligning with contemporary North American woke politics. Take away Quebec sovereignty and nationalism (both of which they've been downplaying of late), and they're basically the provincial NDP party of Quebec.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's unclear at this point if Québec solidaire's sovereignist slant is long for this world. There is currently a race for the spot of co-spokesperson left vacant by Manon Massé stepping out of it, and some of the front-runners for the job aren't even mentioning sovereignty in their top 10 list of priorities if they win.

Just like with François Legault, the rise of PSPP and the PQ is going to push QS to take a clearer position on this issue, and it's not going to be an easy road to take - either way.

But if you look at most of QS's positions on most issues, they've been increasingly aligning with contemporary North American woke politics. Take away Quebec sovereignty and nationalism (both of which they've been downplaying of late), and they're basically the provincial NDP party of Quebec.

Agree. I recall Manon's speech at the end of the 2018 election when QS made somewhat of a break through, having been elected off-island for the first time.

The crowd at QS HQ was young and very diverse. They gave her rousing applause for almost all of her points - environmental, anti-oil, LGBTQ rights, almost everything... until she exlcaimed her unwaivering support for a sovereign Quebec. Applause still, but quite a bit more scattered. Pretty representative.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Agree. I recall Manon's speech at the end of the 2018 election when QS made somewhat of a break through, having been elected off-island for the first time.

The crowd at QS HQ was young and very diverse. They gave her rousing applause for almost all of her points - environmental, anti-oil, LGBTQ rights, almost everything... until she exlcaimed her unwaivering support for a sovereign Quebec. Applause still, but quite a bit more scattered. Pretty representative.

While the majority are still Liberal voters, I'd argue that Québec solidaire has actually become the second party of Montreal anglos. (Though anglos are not the majority of QS members either - but they make up a disproportionate chunk I'd say.)

I actually know an anglophone person quite involved with QS. They are not originally from Quebec but rather from the ROC. I have no idea why they moved to Quebec but I do know for such left-of-the-left people QS is appealling because it's probably the most purely leftist party in USA-Canada that has a decent chance of electoral success. Quebec independence is also potentially part of the appeal of QS in that a smaller country that has a strong collective sense of self and a history of being the trodden-upon little guy is at least on the surface the best option for leftist progressive policies to dominate. Especially given Quebec's history of electing at a minimum centre-left governments arguably for 50+ years.

I do think that in the ranks of Québec solidaire (especially among non-francophones) the belief in the latter statement has begun to diminish a lot, and even that a mistrust of Quebec's francophone majority (more typical of the Liberals, ironically!) and its power has begun to set in, which explains why way fewer of them now think independence would lead to socialist nirvana on the St. Lawrence.

One of the examples of the "problem" they'd have with Quebec is that it's way more resistant to "woke" stuff than elsewhere.