Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Architype]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

If you had joined the US in the 1780s as they offered you back then, you'd have been the 10th biggest US state (out of 18 states including Québec). It's crazy that you're still the 11th biggest US state now despite the fact they have 100 times more inhabitants than in the 1780s and 50 states.

PS: Since 1790, Québec has passed in population 5 of those 9 states (namely Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, and Connecticut). Very soon you should pass New Jersey too. So that will leave only New York State, Pennsylvania, and oddly North Carolina as still more populated than Québec.

Of course, you are omitting the larger geographic trend in the US, of population shifts towards newer states in the south and west. Texas, Florida, and California are much larger. That, and Canada's population shift to the west are far more significant trends. It's plausible that if Quebec had become part of the US, it might have suffered more of a population drain towards the southern and western states. Because of the two founding nations concept, Canada has done more to protect Quebec's distinct identity than the US would have done; given that context, the French language population might have become much more depleted.

[New Brisavoine]

It's still quite fascinating that Québec has managed to be more dynamic than places like Massachusetts or Virginia since 1790. Virginia, in particular, was 4.6 times more populated than Québec in 1790, and now Québec has passed them in population! It's a testament to Québec's very high fertility for a long time, plus high immigration (but then the US also had high immigration, and Virginia benefits from bordering Washington DC).

[Architype]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It's still quite fascinating that Québec has managed to be more dynamic than places like Massachusetts or Virginia since 1790. Virginia, in particular, was 4.6 times more populated than Québec in 1790, and now Québec has passed them in population! It's a testament to Québec's very high fertility for a long time, plus high immigration (but then the US also had high immigration, and Virginia benefits from bordering Washington DC).

You are also comparing very small states (Virginia, Massachusetts) to the large area of Quebec, which gives it more abundant resources (i.e. hydro, mineral), and the unique geography of the St. Lawrence & Great Lakes corridor, which have been able to sustain a larger economy and population.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is the Canadian version of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Any attempt at analysing or understanding from an objective viewpoint labels you as one of the Bad Guys.

The only acceptable take is "BAD BAD BAD!", preferably said as loudly as possible.

I've always hated this sort of thing. Political restructuring or reform, up to and including creating new countries, is always a possibility and we should be able to debate and discuss such things. Trying to crystallize the world in it's present state until the end of time will cause more problems than it will solve.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Architype

You are also comparing very small states (Virginia, Massachusetts) to the large area of Quebec, which gives it more abundant resources (i.e. hydro, mineral), and the unique geography of the St. Lawrence & Great Lakes corridor, which have been able to sustain a larger economy and population.

On the other hand the climate is more hostile, and the livable, arable territory much smaller than the entire provincial territory (I believe it is not any larger than Virginia, right?).

[New Brisavoine]

Quick comparison. For Virginia I get 71,000 km² of flat, fertile, arable land, but for Québec only 33,000 km². Even if you include everything up to Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships, you don't get 71,000 km².

[lio45]

Those maps aren’t apples to apples. You’re excluding farmland in Quebec while including hills in Virginia.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

PS: You were too young to vote in 1995, but how did you parents vote in that referendum, if that's not too classified an information?

Both my parents voted Yes in 1980 and they also both voted Yes in 1995, but for the record, that doesn’t guarantee they’d vote Yes in a third referendum. My dad in particular has soured a bit on Quebec in general — for the same reasons as me.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Without a doubt Québec is the #1 trading partner of the ROC. That's in the very nature of being a single country. Trade is not just trade in goods by the way, it's also in services. Service trade between Québec and ROC totally eclipses service trade between Canada and the US.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quebec would be the 11th biggest US state by population

But sure maybe Ontario would halt all trade with an independent Quebec, and trade way more with Colorado and Kansas 3000 km away.

Ontario almost certainly trades more already with several, perhaps many US states. These are the exact argument made by UK Brexiteers. They need us.
The terms of trade would be negotiated but Canada isn't going to give Quebec a veto. To maintain CETA and CUSMA we would be required to control the border. It's not about spite.

The idea Ontario for example sells more to Quebec than the US is laughable.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Norway is to the EU (population-wise and economy-wise) what Prince Edward Island is to Canada. What you describe is what would happen if PEI seceded. Obviously they'd be a mere rule taker after independence, and would have to agree to whatever Canada would decide. Québec is a totally different situation, it's considerably larger, and in the middle of Canada, separating the country in two parts.

Look at a map and the UK's contribution to the EU budget pre-Brexit. Hint Ireland is seperated by the UK and like the Maritimes is a mere appendage economically. It's smaller than Quebec's share but there is also no United States next door.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Quick comparison. For Virginia I get 71,000 km² of flat, fertile, arable land, but for Québec only 33,000 km². Even if you include everything up to Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships, you don't get 71,000 km².

..

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

On the other hand the climate is more hostile, and the livable, arable territory much smaller than the entire provincial territory (I believe it is not any larger than Virginia, right?).

Originally Posted by lio45

Those maps aren’t apples to apples. You’re excluding farmland in Quebec while including hills in Virginia.

It depends upon who, or what you ask. A quick Google turns up the following, I'll admit that this could be inaccurate, since my research team is out to lunch.

The total amount of farmland in Virginia is 7.7 million acres, with 41,500 farms.

In 2006, Quebec had 8.6 million acres of farmland, which was 5.1% of the total farm area in Canada.

But, as I said, aside from the obvious climate differences, with it's vast northern territory, full of hydro, mineral, and timber resources, as well as an incredibly long coastline, the economy of Quebec is far more advantaged than a smaller state like Virginia. Quebec's proximity to the large eastern US market makes it almost as much a part of their economic sphere as an actual state.

[Acajack]

Regardless, Ontario most definitely "needs" Quebec more than the EU "needed" the UK.


Regardless, Ontario most definitely needs Quebec more than the EU needed the UK .

. The numbers make that instantly clear.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Ontario almost certainly trades more already with several, perhaps many US states. These are the exact argument made by UK Brexiteers. They need us.
The terms of trade would be negotiated but Canada isn't going to give Quebec a veto. To maintain CETA and CUSMA we would be required to control the border. It's not about spite.

The idea Ontario for example sells more to Quebec than the US is laughable.


Look at a map and the UK's contribution to the EU budget pre-Brexit. Hint Ireland is seperated by the UK and like the Maritimes is a mere appendage economically. It's smaller than Quebec's share but there is also no United States next door.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Architype

It depends upon who, or what you ask. A quick Google turns up the following, I'll admit that this could be inaccurate, since my research team is out to lunch.

But, as I said, aside from the obvious climate differences, with it's vast northern territory, full of hydro, mineral, and timber resources, as well as an incredibly long coastline, the economy of Quebec is far more advantaged than a smaller state like Virginia. Quebec's proximity to the large eastern US market makes it almost as much a part of their economic sphere as an actual state.

Not sure I follow. Virginia's economy would dwarf Quebec's. Might be larger than Ontario even depending on how you measure.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Regardless, Ontario most definitely "needs" Quebec more than the EU "needed" the UK.


Regardless, Ontario most definitely needs Quebec more than the EU needed the UK .

. The numbers make that instantly clear.

This is certainly true. Though parts of the EU specifically Ireland needed the UK more than any part of Canada even the Maritimes who would still trade more with the US than Quebec need Quebec. The EU works on consensus so any member state could block a deal. Meanwhile in Canada it will be a federal government with 25 Atlantic Canada seats.

Also importantly US-Canada trade is exponentially more than the EU has with any or actually all combined of its trade agreements.

[Acajack]

Sorry no links but did some searching.

40% of Ontario's trade within Canada is with Quebec.

Ontario gets 100 billion out of trading with Quebec.

The top US state for Ontario is Michigan: 80 billion.

For the entire USA for Ontario the total is 500 billion.

So Quebec trade for Ontario is one fifth of trade with the entire USA.

The Ontario-Quebec trade relationship is even bigger than I thought.

It is not going anywhere.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I've always hated this sort of thing. Political restructuring or reform, up to and including creating new countries, is always a possibility and we should be able to debate and discuss such things. Trying to crystallize the world in it's present state until the end of time will cause more problems than it will solve.

The current set-up has given us some of the best living conditions in the history of humanity.

That said it is incredibly naive and historically arrogant to think we have achieved some sort of perfection with the present governance structure of northern North America, and that it will never change.

The odds are way greater that it will change than it will not.

For better or worse.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Regardless, Ontario most definitely "needs" Quebec more than the EU "needed" the UK.


Regardless, Ontario most definitely needs Quebec more than the EU needed the UK .

. The numbers make that instantly clear.

Ontario certainly does... but Alberta?

This is part of why I think this:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yeah. I tend to think that if Quebec votes to secede, constitutional wrangling within the ROC will be a bigger problem for it than negotiating with Quebec will be.

Ontario is going to want to play nice and try to keep economic relationships intact and will prioritize political compromise to get there. Alberta is a lot less likely to be on board with this approach. And if Ontario tries to use its dominant position in the country to force Alberta's hand, they might just say fuck it and seek to join America.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We wouldn’t need to in order to have free trade with them, plus they wouldn’t want us as a state.

An interesting scenario for this was proposed by Overosc1 in another thread a day or two ago.

Repost. Food for thought. I thought of this is the context of the entirety of Canada being annexed by the USA, given that this is now something we're all.. thinking? panicking? (ha!) about right now.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Quebec is also never going to become a state. Quebec's language laws do not comply with the US constitution, and the Americans aren't going to amend their constitution to protect Quebec's linguistic policy just to annex them as a state.

In this fever dream scenario of US annexation [of Canada], Quebec would likely pursue a permanent Puerto Rico type situation - as an unincorporated territory with "commonwealth" status. This would mean:

1) The US constitution & US federal law do not automatically apply to Quebec
2) There would be a legally binding agreement between the US government and Quebec on what the latter's autonomy is and what powers the former retains, and this agreement could not be amended without Quebec's consent
3) For the agreement in point #2, there is enormous flexibility. Quebec wouldn't even need to commit to freedom of movement with the USA (American Samoa does not have freedom of movement to the rest of the USA despite being a US territory) so Quebec could insulate itself from the risk of 3 million hipster Americans settling in Montreal because it's "cool".
4) Quebec would have fiscal separation - Quebecois would not be subject to US federal taxes and in turn would not receive US federal government services - their own taxes would pay for their own services
5) And most of all - unlike statehood - it would not preclude full independence in the future. US territories can secede, US states cannot. (There's precedent: the Philippines, Micronesia, and Palau used to be US territories; furthermore, part of the status debate in Puerto Rico is the option of becoming independent, which is accepted as a legitimate outcome by the US if they choose it).

It's almost preferable to independence! It's having all your cakes and eating them too. Full autonomy, without the need to pay for a military or having to make your own currency.

For the Americans, simply getting some sort of guarantee of continued access to Quebec's hydropower and access to Quebec's mineral wealth is likely all they would demand in return. Quebec is too tiny relative to the colossus that an America-including-Canada would be for the Americans to really give a crap about what Quebec does internally.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not sure I follow. Virginia's economy would dwarf Quebec's. Might be larger than Ontario even depending on how you measure.
.

I'd like to see better facts and figures, but NB is trying to point out that Quebec is disadvantaged, but has done reasonably well. I am pointing out that Quebec has more advantages in terms of area and resources, so it has more potential. Economies change with time however. Virginia's economy owes much to it's central location in the eastern US, and proximity to Washington. It's not a surprise since so many US states have larger economies than most Canadian provinces, including Ontario. Perhaps the bottom line that we are all avoiding, is that Canadian provinces would be richer as part of the US. This shows how off-base Trump is about Canada taking advantage of the US; where is the statistical evidence? If we are worse off, it's the other way around. The narrative we get from the US, however, is not one of a thriving prospering country; they seem more unhappy and divided with the overall state of affairs than we are, so perhaps economy isn't everything.

Quebec, with a GDP per capita of $54,400, exceeding only Mississippi’s, would be the second-poorest U.S. state.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Quick comparison. For Virginia I get 71,000 km² of flat, fertile, arable land, but for Québec only 33,000 km². Even if you include everything up to Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships, you don't get 71,000 km².

For the record, here’s a sample of decent arable land way outside your boundaries:

https://www.centris.ca/fr/terre~a-vendre~sainte-helene-de-kamouraska/9694884?view=Summary&uc=3

[Architype]

Agriculture is a small part of the Quebec economy. The largest sectors are labelled "other" (i.e. services & finance, etc.). This is from 2008, and focuses on effects of climate, but is still similar to any other charts I found. Perhaps the vital importance of agriculture is not accurately represented in this way, but I would have expected it to be more.


Breakdown of Quebec GDP by types of economic sector affected by climate (Ministère des Transports du Québec, 2006c).

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Brea...by-climate-Ministere-des_fig14_273945230

[Acajack]

I do not think that the fact that Canada is poorer than the USA is evidence at all that we are hard-done-by in our relationship with them.

It could just be that we suck at managing our own economic affairs.

Originally Posted by Architype

I'd like to see better facts and figures, but NB is trying to point out that Quebec is disadvantaged, but has done reasonably well. I am pointing out that Quebec has more advantages in terms of area and resources, so it has more potential. Economies change with time however. Virginia's economy owes much to it's central location in the eastern US, and proximity to Washington. It's not a surprise since so many US states have larger economies than most Canadian provinces, including Ontario. Perhaps the bottom line that we are all avoiding, is that Canadian provinces would be richer as part of the US. This shows how off-base Trump is about Canada taking advantage of the US; where is the statistical evidence? If we are worse off, it's the other way around. The narrative we get from the US, however, is not one of a thriving prospering country; they seem more unhappy and divided with the overall state of affairs than we are, so perhaps economy isn't everything.