Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Incorrect. Newfoundland was not part of the UK at the time of the Labrador boundary dispute. It was an independent Dominion just as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa were at the time.

That's right. In fact not even the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands were part of the UK.

But I think what he was alluding to is the fact Newfoundland being Anglophone, it was seen as "part of the family" in London, whereas London saw Québec with much more suspicion (especially after the WW1 conscription shenanigans), so the Privy Council was supposed to be better disposed towards an Anglophone dominion part of the family, rather than towards a 'rebellious' Francophone province whose loyalty was always in doubt. I think that's how it was perceived in Québec at the time (which is why they never accepted that ruling).

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Incorrect. Newfoundland was not part of the UK at the time of the Labrador boundary dispute. It was an independent Dominion just as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa were at the time.

Still under the British Commonwealth, it remained very loyal to Britain, (having sacrificed many young men in the war) and was put back under its rule in 1934 anyway. The boundary dispute was between Newfoundland and Canada however, not Newfoundland and Quebec, so it should be decided by Ottawa if there is any legitimate dispute. Interestingly, the prime minister of Newfoundland at the time was born in Ireland.

The Monroe government saw a successful settlement of the Labrador boundary dispute with Canada after Newfoundland successfully argued its case at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Stanley_Monroe

The key word there is "successful". Ce n'est pas incompréhensible.

Of course, all this is made worse when they try to claim all of Labrador.

[YOWetal]

[QUOTE=Acajack;10280457]

Originally Posted by Architype

What is this based on, exactly? I can't think of anything except maybe for the Labrador border dispute. Which was actually a case where something was previously part of Quebec, and was then taken away from it by the Privy Council of London, which was in fact "judge and party" to the legal case. (Newfoundland, which was given the territory as a result of the 1927 judgement, was part of the UK at the time.)

This was so confusing as I didn't remeber saying this and indeed I didn't. It was a thread glitch.

Certainly Quebec is all about double standards by thinking Canada but not Quebec is divisible.

Their claim over part of Labrador is still active is it not? Quebec has a funny border demarcation still on some maps

[Acajack]

I think one can still say that Newfoundland governance-wise and politically was a lot closer to London in 1927 than Canada (and therefore Quebec) was.

I've also read that Canada (which was the lead in Quebec's case for Labrador) made a very weak and crappy case for its province in London.

BTW, I don't actually think that Quebec's claim to Labrador (or even part of Labrador) is particularly valid or useful.

Just pointing out the history and the views on it that are out there.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This was so confusing as I didn't remeber saying this and indeed I didn't. It was a thread glitch.

Certainly Quebec is all about double standards by thinking Canada but not Quebec is divisible.

Their claim over part of Labrador is still active is it not? Quebec has a funny border demarcation still on some maps

It's like an ongoing joke, but they actually want the watershed so they can develop more hydro power.

Some see it differently.


https://www.reddit.com/r/newfoundlan...weird_looking/

Les Anglais stupides ne remarqueront même pas la différence.

[Acajack]

Fairly recently my Quebec driver's licence had a map of Quebec on it that included all of Labrador, but there was a line where the current legally-recognized border is. It had no other territory outside Quebec on it that was visible. Quite strange.

New driver's licences don't have any map at all.

Quebec history and geography books such as my kids' didn't include all of Labrador, but the border is shown as a dotted line with another dotted line a bit to the north where Quebec thinks it should be, and a mention that this is the "unrecognized 1927 London Privy Council border".

EDIT: A lot of Quebec-made maps show the border as "non-definitive".

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Fairly recently my Quebec driver's licence had a map of Quebec on it that included all of Labrador, but there was a line where the current legally-recognized border is. It had no other territory outside Quebec on it that was visible. Quite strange.

New driver's licences don't have any map at all.

Quebec history and geography books such as my kids' didn't include all of Labrador, but the border is shown as a dotted line with another dotted line a bit to the north where Quebec thinks it should be, and a mention that this is the "unrecognized 1927 London Privy Council border".

EDIT: A lot of Quebec-made maps show the border as "non-definitive".

As if drawn by Donald Le Trump with a sharpie?

This was my first geography book cover in elementary school.

[MolsonExport]

Quebec did get most of the part of Rupert's Land that was immediately to the north of what was then Quebec.

[New Brisavoine]

Where Québec was wronged was much earlier anyway, when the British government and the USA agreed to set the 45th parallel as the border border between the newly-born USA and the province of Québec. I have never been able to figure out where that 45th parallel border came from. French Canada extended slightly more to the south.

And they were wronged again when the border with upper Canada was set so far north and so close to Montréal.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Where Québec was wronged was much earlier anyway, when the British government and the USA agreed to set the 45th parallel as the border border between the newly-born USA and the province of Québec. I have never been able to figure out where that 45th parallel border came from. French Canada extended slightly more to the south.

And they were wronged again when the border with upper Canada was set so far north and so close to Montréal.

I don't see it as being wronged, it approximates the extent of the French Canadian homeland and population. One of these days North America will probably be one big country, boundaries will matter much less. Canadian unity is imperative if you don't want that to happen.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

"Ontario identity" doesn't really exist. To the vast majority of Ontarians, "Ontario" is nothing more than an administrative entity. So the idea of cutting up Ontario or having their home community leave it isn't out of question to them. Quebec is not like that.

I disagree with that. Even where I live most people will cling on to Ontario because of the advantages of being a part of Ontario even though they may not necessarily have a cultural attachment to Southern Ontario.

Many of our institutions, our education system give Ontarians a strong sense of identity but we only seem to talk about them when we're outside Ontario. I guess with the province being so big in area and with a large population we sometimes take things for granted. I can't see Ontarians or Ottawans supporting a federal capital district being separate from Ontario.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Fairly recently my Quebec driver's licence had a map of Quebec on it that included all of Labrador, but there was a line where the current legally-recognized border is. It had no other territory outside Quebec on it that was visible. Quite strange.

New driver's licences don't have any map at all.

Quebec history and geography books such as my kids' didn't include all of Labrador, but the border is shown as a dotted line with another dotted line a bit to the north where Quebec thinks it should be, and a mention that this is the "unrecognized 1927 London Privy Council border".

EDIT: A lot of Quebec-made maps show the border as "non-definitive".

The official road map shows that.

https://www.quebec511.info/fr/carte_routiere/

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Architype

I don't see it as being wronged, it approximates the extent of the French Canadian homeland and population.

But it didn't approximate the extent of the British colonial homeland. Vast tracts of North America were still unpopulated (or sparsely populated by native Indians). The 45th parallel was far to the north of the northernmost Anglophone settlements in New York State, whereas it ran close to the southernmost Francophone settlements in Canada. So it was a border that was greatly in favor of the US. A "fairer" border would have been along the 44th parallel, which was more equidistant between US and Canadian settlements, and also corresponded more or less to the southernmost French forts before 1760.

And as for Upper Canada, it was still largely unpopulated, so setting the border between Upper Canada (reserved to the Anglophones from the start) and the Lower Canada "reservation" for the French Canadians so close to Montréal was obviously not favoring the French Canadians. A "fair" border would have been somewhere between today's Toronto and Kingston, but obviously back then the concept of "fairness" did not exist. The goal was still to assimilate the French Canadians and not provide for their expansion. That's why so many of them had to migrate to the US.

[Architype]

France's political presence in North America disappeared rather quickly in 1763, after that it was all de facto British or American (north of Mexico). Still, Quebec is Canada's largest province, preventing total assimilation of the French culture.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territ...ica_since_1763

[1overcosc]

Quebec's border claim is amusing but could be a thorny item in an independence scenario. Quebec absolutely would not want to enter the international community with an outstanding territorial dispute. They'd probably abandon it shortly after a Oui vote. (It's not valuable enough to be leverage in negotiations, and if mediated by the ICJ they'd almost certainly rule against Quebec's claim).

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Architype

Still under the British Commonwealth, it remained very loyal to Britain, (having sacrificed many young men in the war) and was put back under its rule in 1934 anyway. The boundary dispute was between Newfoundland and Canada however, not Newfoundland and Quebec, so it should be decided by Ottawa if there is any legitimate dispute. Interestingly, the prime minister of Newfoundland at the time was born in Ireland.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Stanley_Monroe

The key word there is "successful". Ce n'est pas incompréhensible.

Of course, all this is made worse when they try to claim all of Labrador.

Ironically, Newfoundland did offer to sell Labrador to Canada (Quebec) on numerous occasions before it joined Canada. Every offer was rebuffed. If the Quebec Premier at the time, Taschereau, was not so close minded, Labrador would be part of Quebec today.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Ironically, Newfoundland did offer to sell Labrador to Canada (Quebec) on numerous occasions before it joined Canada. Every offer was rebuffed. If the Quebec Premier at the time, Taschereau, was not so close minded, Labrador would be part of Quebec today.

Why would Quebec buy Labrador from Newfoundland when it was already theirs by divine right????

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

but obviously back then the concept of "fairness" did not exist.

It existed, but it did so alongside the defeat of France by the British on the Plains of Abraham in 1759 and the defeat of the British by the Continental Army in 1776.

America > Britain > France.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It existed, but it did so alongside the defeat of France by the British on the Plains of Abraham in 1759 and the defeat of the British by the Continental Army in 1776.

America > Britain > France.

Woah there - General Montcalm was asleep when the British forces scaled the cliffs to arrive in Quebec City and when notified, refused to believe the British had made a successful landing.

That's not fair.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Architype

Still, Quebec is Canada's largest province, preventing total assimilation of the French culture.

When counting the northern and eastern wildernesses. But if you count the "pays utile", i.e. the fertile, arable plains in the south, I believe Québec has less than Ontario, and much less than the provinces in the Prairies of course.

The big mystery is why the French colonial administration never settled and developed Upper Canada. I suppose the population of French Canada was too small, and there was no demographic pressure to leave the St Lawrence valley and populate areas further south and west. Also, the government in Versailles was of course totally uninterested in Canada, or even aware of its potential beyond being a provider of cheap furs and pelts.

The only colony that really mattered to the French back then was St Domingue (Haiti), whose GDP was larger than the 13 British colonies combined (which seems crazy considering what Haiti is today, but so it was). In 1763 the French government was ready to abandon Canada to the British in order to keep St Domingue, and they thought it was a very good deal (the British had tried unsuccessfully to invade St Domingue, which was better defended and more populated than French Canada).