Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The 3rd most read article on the website of Le Devoir. The article is a bit paradoxical, because they start by saying that sovereignism is "agonizing", because there are now more important topics that have replaced it (such as global warming, or identity... by identity I suppose they mean the Islamic veil and all that stuff, which is itself quite odd, since the whole issue of Québécois secularism is challenged by Anglo-Canada, which plays in the hands of sovereignists), but then they conclude the article saying that there's a revival of sovereignism among the younger generation. So, agony or revival? They don't seem to be certain.

The younger generation in Quebec is mainly against Quebec sovereignty. But if you go back 20-40 years ago it was the younger generation that was really for it. Times have changed, there is less of Quebec being isolated with social media and more communication on the Internet. Don't get me wrong, they aren't waving maple leafs everywhere. They see Quebec as their nation within the Canadian federation. Things can change again of course but it will never be the exact same scenario as in 1995 for example.

I don't agree that most people in other provinces dislike secularism and support it less.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You pay less federal taxes per capita than average for all kinds of tax. Thus get a subsidy from RoC greater than the equalization payment. Alberta is a huge net contributor even without equalization.




As I said it's a lot more than equalization but the US system has even more of that so Quebec if part of the US would get huge benefits from being so much poorer. Medicaid funding would about as much as the federal government gives for healthcare funding for example.

Québec ranks in 5th place among provinces for the amount of taxes paid to Ottawa per capita:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/federal-tax-paid-per-capita-across-canada/

But Canada gets more of its money's worth out of Québec. Before the new federal daycare program, Ottawa deducted in taxes part of what parents paid in daycare, but since Québec has a 7 $ daycare program (paid only by Québec taxpayers), Québécois parents barely got anything reimbursed. According to a study, Ottawa made a little less than a billion a year of savings by not having to give deductions in Québec.

Another example is higher education. To help people to get higher education (and therefore help them increase their revenues, therefore reducing equalization), Québec chose to have lower college and university fees. A consequence of that is that richer provinces can lure graduates with lower taxes (in part because they dont have to finances their own universities as much as Québec) and received fully educated workers ready-to-use. That is worth something, right?

Also, why do you think the loudest whining against equalization comes form Alberta and not from Ontario (who pays more than any other provinces into equalization, BTW)? Ontario knows that a big chunk of that money will get back to them from (very lucrative !) exportations to Québec.

Oh, let's not forget about another perk graciously offered by Québec: diversion. When something bad happens in Canada, there is almost always a way to blame it on Québec, or just to say "yeah, but Québec...". That is worth quite a bit, dont you think?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If you calculate everything equalization represents qui a bit under 3% of Quebec’s GDP.

What is the difference between the Canadian and US GDP right now?


I think it is quite a bit more than 3%.

Yep. In other words, if you think Quebec shouldn’t leave because of equalization, then you think even more that Canada should beg Trump to accept it as 51st State, as +>3% GDP >> national sovereignty to you.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I don't agree that most people in other provinces dislike secularism and support it less.

I think the view of what secularism means in the other provinces is quite different from what it means in Quebec.

Secularism in the ROC mostly means the state being religiously neutral so all religions can flourish and have their place in the sun. In this sense, even atheism is kind of considered to be a religion as it is also based on a belief.

Quebec secularism is more based on the idea of no beliefs at all.

I’ve had anti Bill 21 types argue with me that being atheist is a “belief” too, in the same way that having a religion is also a belief.

This is basically the ROC view which is to say that everyone even atheists has a religious belief of sorts. All of which tends to support religion in some form because it portends that everybody has one, even if they don’t think they do or want one.

But this is like saying that a non-beer drinker has to have a favourite beer, and that when he says he doesn’t like beer, he is still taking a position in the Greatest Beer Debate. Whereas he is completely outside of it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Québec ranks in 5th place among provinces for the amount of taxes paid to Ottawa per capita:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/federal-tax-paid-per-capita-across-canada/

But Canada gets more of its money's worth out of Québec. Before the new federal daycare program, Ottawa deducted in taxes part of what parents paid in daycare, but since Québec has a 7 $ daycare program (paid only by Québec taxpayers), Québécois parents barely got anything reimbursed. According to a study, Ottawa made a little less than a billion a year of savings by not having to give deductions in Québec.

Another example is higher education. To help people to get higher education (and therefore help them increase their revenues, therefore reducing equalization), Québec chose to have lower college and university fees. A consequence of that is that richer provinces can lure graduates with lower taxes (in part because they dont have to finances their own universities as much as Québec) and received fully educated workers ready-to-use. That is worth something, right?

Also, why do you think the loudest whining against equalization comes form Alberta and not from Ontario (who pays more than any other provinces into equalization, BTW)? Ontario knows that a big chunk of that money will get back to them from (very lucrative !) exportations to Québec.

Oh, let's not forget about another perk graciously offered by Québec: diversion. When something bad happens in Canada, there is almost always a way to blame it on Québec, or just to say "yeah, but Québec...". That is worth quite a bit, dont you think?

I don't want to get into some whine fest about Quebec being a free-loader but your link proves my point. Yes the low population provinces are even poorer than Quebec and more dependent on the central government but none of them is claiming they can do better going it alone. The per capita difference between Quebec and RoC is even bigger than I would have thought and of course already includes daycare deduction and higher education deduction.

We are a federation and in this together so I actually agree with formal equalization. The point is the loss of this is substantial in any scenario where they are on their own. The duplication boogey man doesn't really hold up either. Sending a cheque for healthcare or approving vaccines at a national level isn't exactly expensive duplication.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think the view of what secularism means in the other provinces is quite different from what it means in Quebec.

Secularism in the ROC mostly means the state being religiously neutral so all religions can flourish and have their place in the sun. In this sense, even atheism is kind of considered to be a religion as it is also based on a belief.

Quebec secularism is more based on the idea of no beliefs at all.

I’ve had anti Bill 21 types argue with me that being atheist is a “belief” too, in the same way that having a religion is also a belief.

This is basically the ROC view which is to say that everyone even atheists has a religious belief of sorts. All of which tends to support religion in some form because it portends that everybody has one, even if they don’t think they do or want one.

But this is like saying that a non-beer drinker has to have a favourite beer, and that when he says he doesn’t like beer, he is still taking a position in the Greatest Beer Debate. Whereas he is completely outside of it.

Agree that secularism and laicite are quite different. Although I'd describe secularism as religious neutrality such that all religions, or no religion, can freely express themselves, with none being favoured by the State. Laicite seems to me to be something that can only arise in reaction to Church of Rome oppression.

[New Brisavoine]

French TV tonight (channel 13, which is like our C-Span) showed "Vive le Québec !" by de Gaulle in Montréal.

[New Brisavoine]

What small countries are able to achieve (Finland has only half the population of Québec): https://x.com/MikkoIsotalo/status/1872356985318056136

[Justanothermember]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What small countries are able to achieve (Finland has only half the population of Québec): https://x.com/MikkoIsotalo/status/1872356985318056136

Continuing to bang the separatist drums al the way from France l see.

[New Brisavoine]

^^Et sur le fond sinon ?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What small countries are able to achieve (Finland has only half the population of Québec): https://x.com/MikkoIsotalo/status/1872356985318056136

Update: https://x.com/ObsDelphi/status/1873024165923484139

I don't know whether your media talk about it at all. I find it quite impressive for a country of only 5 million people.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Update: https://x.com/ObsDelphi/status/1873024165923484139

I don't know whether your media talk about it at all. I find it quite impressive for a country of only 5 million people.

Sure. The Finns have long stood up for themselves. Not sure how it's relevant to this thread though. If you mean can Quebec survive as an independent nation the answer seems clearly yes. It will probably thrive in many ways. A bit poorer and with the risk of being badly governed at some point and ending up in crisis but also likely flourishing in many other areas.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

with the risk of being badly governed at some point and ending up in crisis

Like Canada today?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Like Canada today?

I mean on one hand touché but for all our complaining we really aren`t in that much trouble and what problems we have are easily recoverable with a freeze on immigration and dial back of spending to only a few years ago. How many years of spending does France need to unwind to be on sound fiscal footing?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

How many years of spending does France need to unwind to be on sound fiscal footing?

Judging from Italy and Japan (or even the US?) I'd say we can keep pilling up debt for several more decades. That's the privilege of being an indispensable economy and nation in the world order. An independent Québec wouldn't have that privilege of course, and would have to manage its finances much more cautiously and stringently.

As to whether Canada can suddenly magically stop immigration and all will be back to normal, I think that's slightly delusional... Once immigration is high, it's hard to stop it (ask the Brexiters!).

[someone123]

Finland is in the EU and uses the Euro. They recently joined NATO. It is not a clear example of how an independent Quebec could work and Finland has been moving toward integration with its neighbours.

I wonder how different the EU even is from Canada as it stands. Generally I believe the provinces outspend the federal government (and, obviously, we have a federal setup in the first place). A lot of federal spending is transfer payments.

(For the record, I don't have a problem with Quebec separating per se. I just don't think most arguments I see in favour of it are convincing in terms of showing why people in Quebec would be better off. I'm in favour of lots of autonomy for Quebec in terms of language laws, immigration rules, etc., and Quebec seems to mostly have that stuff already. This is probably a factor in Quebec separatism not having as much wind in its sails lately.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

As to whether Canada can suddenly magically stop immigration and all will be back to normal, I think that's slightly delusional... Once immigration is high, it's hard to stop it (ask the Brexiters!).

How are the UK and Canada comparable? The UK agreed to freedom of movement from EU countries like Poland. Canada's immigration greatly ramped up recently due to students, temporary foreign workers, etc. from countries like India where citizens have no right to come to Canada.

We already see that population growth in Canada is slowing.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

...

(For the record, I don't have a problem with Quebec separating per se. I just don't think most arguments I see in favour of it are convincing in terms of showing why people in Quebec would be better off. I'm in favour of lots of autonomy for Quebec in terms of language laws, immigration rules, etc., and Quebec seems to mostly have that stuff already. This is probably a factor in Quebec separatism not having as much wind in its sails lately.)

I think we should (and most do) have a problem with Quebec separating. If that were the best solution, I think we would have already been separate historically, but instead, we chose to unite. I can't see how several little independent nations (which I predict would be more likely to follow after a Quebec exit (Quexit?)) would fare better in the shadow of the US. Separate provinces as countries would be regarded more like the countries of Central America by the US (insignificant), and it would basically exert more influence on them than it can now as one large country. I don't think the obvious answer is to join the US, the US is in a disastrous state of affairs.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

How are the UK and Canada comparable? The UK agreed to freedom of movement from EU countries like Poland. Canada's immigration greatly ramped up recently due to students, temporary foreign workers, etc. from countries like India where citizens have no right to come to Canada.

Freedom of movement stopped in 2020, and yet net migration in the UK has never been so high, despite the Conservatives saying they would reduce net migration to below +100,000 per year.

How could Canada be any more successful in reducing immigration? Like the UK, you guys are now addicted to growth via immigration, what with fake schools recruiting fake international students, companies preferring to hire cheap immigrants rather than forming Canadian-born people, municipalities eager to boost their numbers by attracting immigrants, politicians boasting about Canada having 100 million people in the future and being a very important country (), a media and public place largely favorable to immigrants, and quick to call "racist" anyone opposing immigration.

Seriously, unless very big things happen, I don't expect immigration in Canada to go seriously down anytime soon.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Architype

Separate provinces as countries would be regarded more like the countries of Central America by the US (insignificant), and it would basically exert more influence on them than it can now as one large country.

Canada is already smaller than Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina. I doubt the US consider you more important than several Latin American countries already. Besides, the US are very insular anyway. So a Canada of 50, 60, 70 million people or various independent countries of 10 million people would make very little difference to them.