Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Loco101]

A Léger poll was just released:

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/...ec-octobre-2024-Version-Finale-Media.pdf

It has the usual political party support at both provincial and federal levels. But this one also asked for support for sovereignty.

For: 35%

Against: 54%

Don't know / refused: 11%


Among francophones 43% were for it and 46% against. Interestingly, there wasn't much difference between age groups. Support is highest outside the Montreal and Quebec City regions but only at 43%.

Only PQ had a majority of supporters who support sovereignty at 72% but surprisingly 24% of those who chose PQ were against it.

[New Brisavoine]

What were the percentages in October 1992?

[New Brisavoine]

Actually, I've found the polls.

All from October 1992, which is the same length of time that separates us from the 2026 Québec general election.

Createc+: Personally, do you wish to see Quebec become an independent country?
FOR: 29%
AGAINST: 61%
Don't know: 10%

Angus-Reid: Suppose in the fairly near future, there is in Quebec a referendum on independence. In that referendum, would you yourself vote for or against Quebec becoming a completely independent country, with no guarantees of political or economic ties with Canada?
FOR: 33%
AGAINST: 56%
Don't know: 12%

SOM: If a referendum too place today, would you vote for or against Québec becoming an independent country?
FOR: 30%
AGAINST: 46%
Don't know: 24%

CROP: Do you want Québec to become a sovereign state?
YES: 40%
NO: 44%
Don't know: 16%

So it seems support for independence is now slightly higher than it was 3 years before the 1995 referendum. These are going to be some interesting few years ahead...

[Acajack]

Support for the Oui was also below 40% in early 1995.

[New Brisavoine]

What's PSPP's latest position on the currency of an independent Québec? If I were a Québécois voter, I think the one thing that would hold me back from voting OUI would be the currency issue. In Québec as in the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world I presume people depend on pension funds for their retirements, so of course the voters are always afraid to see the value of the pension funds decrease. The risk with a new currency is what happens to savings and pension funds if the new currency loses lots of value?

If the PQ want to win the referendum this time, they will have to be extra-clear about what they want to do with the currency, and why it would work. Keeping the Canadian dollar as they advocated before is not a practical solution. That would tie Québec to the decisions of the Bank of Canada, which is not viable for a large economy like Québec (this works for small economies like Montenegro which uses the euro, or Ecuador which uses the US dollar, but I can't see it working for an economy the size of Québec, not to mention that Canada would have to accept it in the first place). As for an independent currency, what guarantee would voters have that it wouldn't depreciate quickly, and their savings evaporate?

I think one solution could be an independent currency but pegged to the Canadian dollar, either via a fixed exchange rate (such as exists between the euro and the CFA franc, or the euro and the Bulgarian lev) or a fluctuating exchange but within a narrow band (such as exists between the euro and the Danish krone). Another solution could be pegging the Québec currency to the a basket of the US and Canadian dollars. For example the Moroccan dirham is pegged 60% to the euro and 40% to the US dollar.

But do they highlight any of these possible solutions? Going for a totally independent new currency pegged to neither the Canadian nor the US dollar would scare most voters (I know it would make me hesitate). Perhaps one template could be Ireland: after the Republic of Ireland seceded from the UK, they replaced the Sterling Pound with the Irish Pound but they pegged the Irish Pound to the Sterling Pound at a fixed exchange rate (1 Irish Pound = 1 Sterling Pound). Later in 1978 they joined the European Monetary System and ended to 1 to 1 peg with the Sterling Pound. Québec could do the same, ending the peg to the Canadian dollar when they feel confident enough about their economy and finances.

[lio45]

Pretty sure the official plan is to have the Quebec Dollar pegged 1:1 to the loonie for the foreseeable future, which as you point out is exactly what the Irish did when they achieved their sovereignty.

It’s way too early at this point for this to matter, it’s a small detail, and there are various realistic solutions — as you yourself just pointed out. So to answer your question, nope, doesn’t get discussed much these years.

[lio45]

In the negotiations I think the best cards would be in Quebec’s hand (hardness of the border between Ontario and the Maritimes, and Seaway from the Great Lakes to the open ocean, in both cases Quebec is geographically autonomous while Canada “needs” Quebec), so we probably could keep the actual currency with the King/Queen of England on it, if we wished to and it were easier.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

so we probably could keep the actual currency with the King/Queen of England on it, if we wished to and it were easier.

Yeah, but unpractical as you couldn't have your independent monetary policy. An independent currency pegged to Canadian and/or US dollar is preferable, as it gives more flexibility if needed. I also don't think it's a small matter. They need to have all the financial and legal aspects of it ironed out and detailed BEFORE the referendum if they want to have a chance to win this time.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

In the negotiations I think the best cards would be in Quebec’s hand (hardness of the border between Ontario and the Maritimes, and Seaway from the Great Lakes to the open ocean, in both cases Quebec is geographically autonomous while Canada “needs” Quebec), so we probably could keep the actual currency with the King/Queen of England on it, if we wished to and it were easier.

You have a point on the former (Ontario-Maritimes transit) but not the latter (the Seaway). The Seaway is already an international waterway shared with the USA. Trying to mess up the Seaway isn't something Quebec can use as leverage in negotiations - they'd have to go after the Americans to do so.

At the end of the day, I feel like the Americans are going to more or less end up controlling the negotiations. I doubt the ROC will be able to get their shit together to handle it, and the US won't allow the prospect of geopolitical instability on its northern border.

[lio45]

I agree with you that the Yanks would likely force us all to play nice, but I think you’re incorrect in your belief that the Fleuve would be international waters.

Thought experiment: a sovereign Quebec decides to cheap out on the Third Link, selects a location upriver from the Port of Quebec, and sacrifices the Port of Montreal, in exchange for major savings for the Quebec taxpayers on a low bridge. That likely wouldn’t violate our international obligations, no…?

(Would be stupid, but probably not illegal. Not sure how permanently bound we are by 1950s treaties re: the Seaway. If Trump can unilaterally destroy previous deals, why couldn’t PSPP?)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

I agree with you that the Yanks would likely force us all to play nice, but I think you’re incorrect in your belief that the Fleuve would be international waters.

Thought experiment: a sovereign Quebec decides to cheap out on the Third Link, selects a location upriver from the Port of Quebec, and sacrifices the Port of Montreal, in exchange for major savings for the Quebec taxpayers on a low bridge. That likely wouldn’t violate our international obligations, no…?

(Would be stupid, but probably not illegal. Not sure how permanently bound we are by 1950s treaties re: the Seaway. If Trump can unilaterally destroy previous deals, why couldn’t PSPP?)

Almost certainly, yes. The Seaway is an international waterway.

Well, "international law" doesn't really exist anyway, you can argue (as powerful countries never have to care about it), so it's always realpolitik at the end of the day. And of course the realpolitik of it is that Quebec is never going to go after the Americans like that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Almost certainly, yes. The Seaway is an international waterway.

Well, "international law" doesn't really exist anyway, you can argue (as powerful countries never have to care about it), so it's always realpolitik at the end of the day. And of course the realpolitik of it is that Quebec is never going to go after the Americans like that.

Well, yeah, obviously the current Seaway (the Ontario and U.S. part) involves both Canada and the USA and therefore, is unarguably an international thingy, but it's not at all the same thing as the (frankly absurd) claim that in a sovereign Quebec, stuff like the Laviolette bridge and the Sorel Ferry would be "in international waters".

A post-Quebec-Sovereignty Seaway would obviously be a trinational thing with one of the three partners holding the keys to the landlocking of the whole thing.


This tends to prove me right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Seaway

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The section of the river from Montreal to the Atlantic is under Canadian jurisdiction, regulated by the offices of Transport Canada in the Port of Quebec.

Why would the Yanks accept strictly Canadian jurisdiction on the St. Lawrence River north of the 45 parallel, unless they have to because they recognize that that area is 0% part of the United States and 100% part of Canada/Quebec...?

[lio45]

Way I see it, your logic seems to be "The bridges in 1000 Islands, Ogdensburg, and Cornwall are international, which demonstrates that bridges over the St. Lawrence are international, therefore bridges over it in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City are international."

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

(Would be stupid, but probably not illegal. Not sure how permanently bound we are by 1950s treaties re: the Seaway. If Trump can unilaterally destroy previous deals, why couldn’t PSPP?)

A lot would depend on Trump I suppose, and how much he likes (or dislikes rather) the prime minister of Canada.

Although by the time Québec becomes independent, Trump may have left the White House already (or changed the Constitution and establish a semi-dictatorship?, or "démocrature" as we call it in French? ).

Do you guys worry about recent events in the US sometimes? It's only a few dozens of miles from Montréal. Here in France the US are far away, and we have our own independent nuclear deterrent, so we're pretty relaxed about what's going on in the US (at least I am). Don't know how I'd feel if I lived literally an hour drive from the US, and in a country so dependent on the US.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

This tends to prove me right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Seaway
Why would the Yanks accept strictly Canadian jurisdiction on the St. Lawrence River north of the 45 parallel, unless they have to because they recognize that that area is 0% part of the United States and 100% part of Canada/Quebec...?

There is the concept in international navigation laws of an "international strait" - a body of water that is within the territorial waters of a country (thus not international waters) but within which there is the right of transit passage to other countries. In an "international strait", the country who owns the strait can fully administer in the sense that its laws apply to the waters, it controls fishing and other resource extraction, administers safety and transport regulations, and so on - but it cannot deny other countries the right to passage through it (which includes construction projects that hinder navigability) - with some exceptions for hostile or suspicious military activity. There is no actual hard definition for what exactly qualifies a body of water as an "international strait" and there is no explicit list of such bodies**. However, the St. Lawrence River would definitely qualify as such based on precedent and custom - in a theoretical dispute between Canada & Quebec over a seaway bridge, Canada could sue Quebec in the ICJ and probably win, on that basis.

**You see this with the Northwest Passage. Most countries (the US, China, the EU) all consider the Northwest Passage to be an international strait within Canada's territorial waters. So while they accept Canadian jurisdiction over it, they assert the right to freely transit the passage with their vessels. Canada, by contrast, rejects this argument and considers the Northwest Passage to not be an international strait and thus asserts its right to block transit to any ship it wants to block. If climate change melts more of the ice up there and there's real shipping demand, the issue will probably end up in the ICJ someday.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A lot would depend on Trump I suppose, and how much he likes (or dislikes rather) the prime minister of Canada.

Although by the time Québec becomes independent, Trump may have left the White House already (or changed the Constitution and establish a semi-dictatorship?, or "démocrature" as we call it in French? ).

Do you guys worry about recent events in the US sometimes? It's only a few dozens of miles from Montréal. Here in France the US are far away, and we have our own independent nuclear deterrent, so we're pretty relaxed about what's going on in the US (at least I am). Don't know how I'd feel if I lived literally an hour drive from the US, and in a country so dependent on the US.

What is there to worry about? I was in the US last week and I’m about to go again (almost did today). Nothing’s different. If I were a low-end low-price Chinese company reliant on US exports, sure, I’d probably worry, but Canada has many cards in its hand for potential trade negotiations.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Canada could sue Quebec in the ICJ and probably win, on that basis.

Imagine the time spent to sue Québec and get a ruling from the ICJ. It would be long enough to severally disrupt the economy in Ontario. Nobody would like to go down that road. As my business law professor often said: you don't want a lawsuit. Business needs to run smoothly, and oftentimes it's better to take some loss and avoid a long lawsuit.

The mere threat of disruption on the part of Québec would be enough to deter Ottawa and have them be more amenable in the negotiations, even if they knew they could win a lawsuit in the end.

For the same reason, France didn't have to actually cut the electricity supply of the Channel Islands (which comes from France) to get them to become more amenable and sign a post-Brexit deal more favorable to French fishermen. The mere mention of it by a French minister was enough, even though cutting the electricity supply would probably have been condemned in international courts.

France threatens to cut power to Jersey amid fishing row

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56984886

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

I was in the US last week and I’m about to go again (almost did today). Nothing’s different.

Trump is not in power yet.

I was reading an article in the FT yesterday, Canada will be the prime target of the Trump administration because of its adoption of the OECD pillar II (to prevent tax evasion, essentially by big US tech companies), which the Biden administration approved, but Congress refused to pass into law, and now Trump and his entourage are absolutely opposed to it, and have warned they will severally retaliate against countries implementing it, i.e. Canada as the prime target (the EU is harder to attack).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Imagine the time spent to sue Québec and get a ruling from the ICJ. It would be long enough to severally disrupt the economy in Ontario. Nobody would like to go down that road. As my business law professor often said: you don't want a lawsuit. Business needs to run smoothly, and oftentimes it's better to take some loss and avoid a long lawsuit.

The mere threat of disruption on the part of Québec would be enough to deter Ottawa and have them be more amenable in the negotiations, even if they knew they could win a lawsuit in the end.

For the same reason, France didn't have to actually cut the electricity supply of the Channel Islands (which comes from France) to get them to become more amenable and sign a post-Brexit deal more favorable to French fishermen. The mere mention of it by a French minister was enough, even though cutting the electricity supply would probably have been condemned in international courts.

Well, the ROC doesn't have to worry about the ICJ at all in this case - we've got the Americans keeping the Seaway clear. They use it too, after all. Quebec can't actually play the Seaway card for this reason.

In practice, neither side can really play any "card" against the other, as the US will be adult in the room getting the two kids to play nice.

[New Brisavoine]

There, for you:

Both Bunn and Cui said Canada was likely to be in the US’s sights.

Along with the OECD deal, the US’s northern neighbour has also implemented a digital services tax, which levies 3 per cent on revenue exceeding C$20mn ($14.4mn) and will affect several US tech companies.

[...]

“Anyone who takes DSTs [digital services tax] forward unilaterally must expect countermeasures from the US,” Alex Cobham, chief executive of Tax Justice Network, a global campaigning group, said. “The idea it might show some restraint should not be taken very seriously.”

https://www.ft.com/content/75cd612d-55e3-41a9-9dee-9602e56137e3

Good luck!