Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[theman23]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

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.

The tide has turned over the last two years.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

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.

I think these are good points. It's certainly practically very doable but the addiction is hard to break. Conservative governments have cover to come up with new schemes to get people here. Immigration has mostly been eliminated as a tension point with Quebec but the undercurrent is still there. Quebec is actually evidence a lot of our immigration problems especially the fake students are a provincial issue. The language of course is a big barrier as well but English CEGEPs could have brought in waves of tuition paying fake students if the province allowed it.

[hipster duck]

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.)

Trump is a borderline senile 78 year-old who may not live out his next term, but his Truth Social trolling around Canada being the "51st state" reminds me that we may be closer to being a Ukraine or a Taiwan than we think. At least, we are more vulnerable to this possibility than we have been since Confederation.

From 1867-1918-ish (maybe 1931), we were protected from aggressive American expansionism by being part of the British Empire. This was an era when might=right and there was no such thing as a war crime. Since that time until now we have been protected by Pax Americana that follows a rules-based consensus. The results speak for themselves: we are the only country in the Western Hemisphere that is not the United States that is a fully developed industrialized economy with a rule of law and strong democratic institutions (not counting some small Caribbean islands that are often territories of European powers). If the circumstances were different over the past 150 years, I think we would be a frigid banana republic.

Canada is a bulwark, however small, against American expansionism in an era where rules increasingly no longer apply and Quebec would be very foolish to leave now.

Whenever I hear rhetoric from Quebec separatists, it's almost always couched in cultural, ethno-nationalistic terms. They rarely mention economic development and they never think geopolitically. Carving out a sovereign ethnic nation state feels like very old news. It feels like a 20th century project. The parts of the world that still clamour for this are generally economically and politically "backward". I think Quebec separatists have been lulled into thinking sovereignty is viable because they grew up in a period of Pax Americana.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Trump is a borderline senile 78 year-old who may not live out his next term, but his Truth Social trolling around Canada being the "51st state" reminds me that we may be closer to being a Ukraine or a Taiwan than we think. At least, we are more vulnerable to this possibility than we have been since Confederation.

From 1867-1918-ish (maybe 1931), we were protected from aggressive American expansionism by being part of the British Empire. This was an era when might=right and there was no such thing as a war crime. Since that time until now we have been protected by Pax Americana that follows a rules-based consensus. The results speak for themselves: we are the only country in the Western Hemisphere that is not the United States that is a fully developed industrialized economy with a rule of law and strong democratic institutions (not counting some small Caribbean islands that are often territories of European powers). If the circumstances were different over the past 150 years, I think we would be a frigid banana republic.

Canada is a bulwark, however small, against American expansionism in an era where rules increasingly no longer apply and Quebec would be very foolish to leave now.

Whenever I hear rhetoric from Quebec separatists, it's almost always couched in cultural, ethno-nationalistic terms. They rarely mention economic development and they never think geopolitically. Carving out a sovereign ethnic nation state feels like very old news. It feels like a 20th century project. The parts of the world that still clamour for this are generally economically and politically "backward". I think Quebec separatists have been lulled into thinking sovereignty is viable because they grew up in a period of Pax Americana.

The US is of course our biggest threat and would so overwhelm us being separate wouldn't make much difference.

I think the funeral for the nation state is a bit premature. Canada is as benevolent overlord as it gets but if you still think you are your own nation it's certainly reasonable to want full sovereignty. The 40% of Francophones who voted against it in 95 are interesting. Many of them would have known they are losing their jobs or voted for other practical reasons so the diehard Francophone federalists are really a small minority. That has always seemed like a unstable situation. A draconian Conservative government obviously isn't going to be like Chinese or Soviet dominance over regions but could push more of that 40% towards independence. If Quebec can grow its way out of equalization independence seems almost certain. Even if it will never be a net payer (the program would be cancelled before that happens) being economically independent would negate the biggest argument for maintaining ties with Canada.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Trump is a borderline senile 78 year-old who may not live out his next term, but his Truth Social trolling around Canada being the "51st state" reminds me that we may be closer to being a Ukraine or a Taiwan than we think. At least, we are more vulnerable to this possibility than we have been since Confederation.

From 1867-1918-ish (maybe 1931), we were protected from aggressive American expansionism by being part of the British Empire. This was an era when might=right and there was no such thing as a war crime. Since that time until now we have been protected by Pax Americana that follows a rules-based consensus. The results speak for themselves: we are the only country in the Western Hemisphere that is not the United States that is a fully developed industrialized economy with a rule of law and strong democratic institutions (not counting some small Caribbean islands that are often territories of European powers). If the circumstances were different over the past 150 years, I think we would be a frigid banana republic.

Canada is a bulwark, however small, against American expansionism in an era where rules increasingly no longer apply and Quebec would be very foolish to leave now.

Whenever I hear rhetoric from Quebec separatists, it's almost always couched in cultural, ethno-nationalistic terms. They rarely mention economic development and they never think geopolitically. Carving out a sovereign ethnic nation state feels like very old news. It feels like a 20th century project. The parts of the world that still clamour for this are generally economically and politically "backward". I think Quebec separatists have been lulled into thinking sovereignty is viable because they grew up in a period of Pax Americana.

very good post.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The US is of course our biggest threat and would so overwhelm us being separate wouldn't make much difference.

I can think of several advantages to being part of a federation of 40 million that shares one, common border with the United States rather than a rabble of 10 different entities each with their own interests.

The first is that the US only has to maintain relations with one relatively large country rather than 10 small ones so they can devote more effort to relations with us. We also represent one market so an American corporation only has to set up one major office (and because we're a major market, it's not just a small back office), which helps cement relations between the two countries.

The second is that, historically, we have used regional economic strengths at different times to advance our interests. These strengths often don't coincide with each other, which means some provinces have to sit out while others fly high, but it spreads out the risk. When the Canadian dollar was high and the US wasn't energy independent, it sure was helpful to export Alberta oil and gas to them via a pipeline, or to supply a relatively low-input natural resource like Saskatchewan Potash. When the Canadian dollar is low and the US can generate its own energy needs, it helps to be linked to their auto supply chain in Ontario.

I wasn't going to suggest that we would win in a military contest against them, but if worse comes to worst and we have to defend ourselves against an authoritarian and aggressive United States that has thrown all global rules out the window, Canada could probably build nukes. We have uranium and we have nuclear know-how and we have enough financial resources. Not much of this is in Quebec, though, and none of this is exclusive to any one province. Hopefully this never comes to pass.

I think the funeral for the nation state is a bit premature. Canada is as benevolent overlord as it gets but if you still think you are your own nation it's certainly reasonable to want full sovereignty. The 40% of Francophones who voted against it in 95 are interesting. Many of them would have known they are losing their jobs or voted for other practical reasons so the diehard Francophone federalists are really a small minority. That has always seemed like a unstable situation.

I'm not against Quebec sovereignty. I recognize that French Quebecois are a nation with a unique culture and language that has no commonality with English Canada. Honestly, from a purely-Canadian standpoint, if they weren't standing in between Ontario and the Maritimes, if they were an appendage on one end of the country or the other, then I'd be perfectly fine with their independence.

But they're not, and more importantly, they weaken the chain at the beginning of a century where we don't know how Americans will manage their decline or don't know how Americans would redefine their notion of empire if this is just the beginning of the second act to their successful hegemony.

Leaving a country to start a new nation state based on ethnicity and culture is understandable, but I also think it's quaint. I don't think it's surprising that the last Quebec referendum took place in 1995, during the "End of History" period, and right after the amicable Czech/Slovak "Velvet Divorce" of 1992 (32nd anniversary today!).

[Architype]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

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.

You are wrong. You apparently forget that a country is not just it's population in numbers, but also its territory and cultural influence as well. Canada is essentially parallel, a part of the American sphere, whereas the Latin countries are not seen in the same way. The US may take Canada for granted, they don't even see us as foreign; sharing such a large and previously undefended porous border, it is historically an extension, an important part of their own country's culture, history, politics, and economy in a myriad of ways. Being on the other side of the ocean, you have no idea how integrated and symbiotic we really are over here.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I can think of several advantages to being part of a federation of 40 million that shares one, common border with the United States rather than a rabble of 10 different entities each with their own interests.

The first is that the US only has to maintain relations with one relatively large country rather than 10 small ones so they can devote more effort to relations with us. We also represent one market so an American corporation only has to set up one major office (and because we're a major market, it's not just a small back office), which helps cement relations between the two countries.

The second is that, historically, we have used regional economic strengths at different times to advance our interests. These strengths often don't coincide with each other, which means some provinces have to sit out while others fly high, but it spreads out the risk. When the Canadian dollar was high and the US wasn't energy independent, it sure was helpful to export Alberta oil and gas to them via a pipeline, or to supply a relatively low-input natural resource like Saskatchewan Potash. When the Canadian dollar is low and the US can generate its own energy needs, it helps to be linked to their auto supply chain in Ontario.

I wasn't going to suggest that we would win in a military contest against them, but if worse comes to worst and we have to defend ourselves against an authoritarian and aggressive United States that has thrown all global rules out the window, Canada could probably build nukes. We have uranium and we have nuclear know-how and we have enough financial resources. Not much of this is in Quebec, though, and none of this is exclusive to any one province. Hopefully this never comes to pass.



I'm not against Quebec sovereignty. I recognize that French Quebecois are a nation with a unique culture and language that has no commonality with English Canada. Honestly, from a purely-Canadian standpoint, if they weren't standing in between Ontario and the Maritimes, if they were an appendage on one end of the country or the other, then I'd be perfectly fine with their independence.

But they're not, and more importantly, they weaken the chain at the beginning of a century where we don't know how Americans will manage their decline or don't know how Americans would redefine their notion of empire if this is just the beginning of the second act to their successful hegemony.

Leaving a country to start a new nation state based on ethnicity and culture is understandable, but I also think it's quaint. I don't think it's surprising that the last Quebec referendum took place in 1995, during the "End of History" period, and right after the amicable Czech/Slovak "Velvet Divorce" of 1992 (32nd anniversary today!).

Don't disagree with most of this but still push back on the idea building a country based on ethnicity and culture is quaint. Literally every country not built on that is coming apart at the seams. While there have only been a handful of new countries since 2000 there resurgence of empire in Russia is being vigorously opposed.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by theman23

The tide has turned over the last two years.

It has? From Sept 2023 to Sept 2024 the population of Canada grew by a crazy 951,000 people. That's +2.35% in one year. That's more or less the growth rate of Nigeria. Growth rate of France is around +0.40% per year (although in 2021 it jumped to 0.60% as per the results of the 2022 census published 2 weeks ago, due to higher immigration). Growth rate of Germany is around +0.20% per year. Booming Switzerland is between 0.80% and 1.00% per year. 2.35% per year is only seen in sub-Saharan Africa.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Architype

You are wrong. You apparently forget that a country is not just it's population in numbers, but also its territory and cultural influence as well. Canada is essentially parallel, a part of the American sphere, whereas the Latin countries are not seen in the same way. The US may take Canada for granted, they don't even see us as foreign; sharing such a large and previously undefended porous border, it is historically an extension, an important part of their own country's culture, history, politics, and economy in a myriad of ways. Being on the other side of the ocean, you have no idea how integrated and symbiotic we really are over here.

I think it's reasonable to say that Mexico counts more to the US than Canada. If only because of the tens of millions of Mexicans who live in the US. Then #2, in terms of symbolism/sentimentalism, perhaps it's the UK ('special relationship' and all that nonsense). Then Canada probably (but you have no idea the number of Americans who don't know anything about Canada... I lived in the US and the country barely registered, and was never mentioned in conversations (except once by my Chinese flatmate who thought he should hoard his money in Canada because he thought the US dollar was going to collapse due to terror attacks... he expected one of these Jihadist groups to detonate a nuclear dirty bomb in the Silicon Valley sooner or later ), whereas Mexico was quite visible, and the local radio had a few (old) British hits from times to times, but Canada??).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Trump is a borderline senile 78 year-old who may not live out his next term, but his Truth Social trolling around Canada being the "51st state" reminds me that we may be closer to being a Ukraine or a Taiwan than we think. At least, we are more vulnerable to this possibility than we have been since Confederation.

Canada is currently like a hypothetical Taiwan under Chinese influence or Ukraine under Russian influence. The US doesn't have a problem invading other countries but there isn't much reason when Canada is already aligned with it. The US government would have to become much more chaotic or Canada would have to shift to being much friendlier to China. If Ottawa decided to host some Chinese nuclear weapons there would be a problem; people who think Canada has sovereignty in that domain are kidding themselves.

Whenever I hear rhetoric from Quebec separatists, it's almost always couched in cultural, ethno-nationalistic terms. They rarely mention economic development and they never think geopolitically. Carving out a sovereign ethnic nation state feels like very old news. It feels like a 20th century project. The parts of the world that still clamour for this are generally economically and politically "backward". I think Quebec separatists have been lulled into thinking sovereignty is viable because they grew up in a period of Pax Americana.

Yes. They often take economic development and security for granted. Another factor is that the outcome for elites in Quebec can be better than it would be for average people. Going from premier to dictator of a banana republic might be okay but going from a citizen of a successful democratic country to a peasant in a banana republic is awful.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I think it's reasonable to say that Mexico counts more to the US than Canada. If only because of the tens of millions of Mexicans who live in the US. Then #2, in terms of symbolism/sentimentalism, perhaps it's the UK ('special relationship' and all that nonsense). Then Canada probably (but you have no idea the number of Americans who don't know anything about Canada... I lived in the US and the country barely registered, and was never mentioned in conversations (except once by my Chinese flatmate who thought he should hoard his money in Canada because he thought the US dollar was going to collapse due to terror attacks... he expected one of these Jihadist groups to detonate a nuclear dirty bomb in the Silicon Valley sooner or later ), whereas Mexico was quite visible, and the local radio had a few (old) British hits from times to times, but Canada??).

No, Canada is more important to the US (not to say that Mexico isn't), but your perception may depend on where you live in the US. The US is full of people with Canadian heritage, and citizenship. Our natural resources are more valuable than theirs; if we joined them, they would have to actually pay us for it, it would enrich them beyond belief. Anyway, you apparently didn't understand anything I said, it went right over your head. I don't blame you too much though, being so foreign to North American culture.

[someone123]

Mexico is more closely tied to domestic American problems like immigration and crime that bubble up in the public consciousness. Syria also pops up in the news a lot but that doesn't mean it's more important than Germany.

That being said, Mexico is probably a higher priority or roughly tied now but it's important to the US, just like Canada, so it doesn't mean as much to say Canada might be below Mexico in importance. In economic terms it accounts for about 15% of trade and is the 13th largest economy in the world.

Canada is much much more important to the USA than other Latin American countries.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by theman23

The tide has turned over the last two years.

The people with power still very much want to maintain the high intake of people from abroad.

They are just trying to figure out skillful ways to prevent further backlash against it, now that the consensus has collapsed.

Just watch them.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Architype

No, Canada is more important to the US (not to say that Mexico isn't), but your perception may depend on where you live in the US. The US is full of people with Canadian heritage, and citizenship. Our natural resources are more valuable than theirs; if we joined them, they would have to actually pay us for it, it would enrich them beyond belief. Anyway, you apparently didn't understand anything I said, it went right over your head. I don't blame you too much though, being so foreign to North American culture.

Yes. North America is a moniker for the one market and culture that was especially evident for most of the 20th Century but is somewhat fading because of 9/11, immigration patterns and divergent politics partially a result of the previous. Canada is seen as a US lapdog before but we generally have stood up for key interests and mostly been left alone to return to the fold. The problem now is our populations have diverged substantially.

But yes for many Americans we aren't a real country because we seem American to them. One market for entertainment and sports and while this is seen as US dominance in Europe a lot of this was Canada punching above our weight. We co invented Gridiron football, and have long histories with baseball and basketball besides of course Hockey which is a key sport in several US states along with Canada. Americans might know nothing about Canada but the average Californian or Louisianan knows nothing about Minnesota or Maine either. In fact a standard say Montreal Anglo accent will mostly just sound Eastern or Northern respectively to them.

[Acajack]

Not sure about all the doom and gloom about the US.

And I used to be a person who was predicting their decline.

Sure their society is dysfunctional but economically they are leaving Canada and the rest of the West in the dust. And the gap is only going to get greater.

Lots of empires are internally unstable but still extremely powerful militarily and economically.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The people with power still very much want to maintain the high intake of people from abroad.

They are just trying to figure out skillful ways to prevent further backlash against it, now that the consensus has collapsed.

Just watch them.

I find that hard to reconcile with the cuts of the past six months, as well as comments from responsible ministers. Unless that's not who you mean by "people with power".

[Acajack]

A Poilievre Conservative government will not likely be hostile to Quebec but it will do a bunch of things Quebecers do not like.

We will see how that works out.

This was also the case during the Harper years, but those were slightly different times in Quebec than today. 4

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The US is of course our biggest threat and would so overwhelm us being separate wouldn't make much difference.

I think the funeral for the nation state is a bit premature. Canada is as benevolent overlord as it gets but if you still think you are your own nation it's certainly reasonable to want full sovereignty. The 40% of Francophones who voted against it in 95 are interesting. Many of them would have known they are losing their jobs or voted for other practical reasons so the diehard Francophone federalists are really a small minority. That has always seemed like a unstable situation. A draconian Conservative government obviously isn't going to be like Chinese or Soviet dominance over regions but could push more of that 40% towards independence. If Quebec can grow its way out of equalization independence seems almost certain. Even if it will never be a net payer (the program would be cancelled before that happens) being economically independent would negate the biggest argument for maintaining ties with Canada.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A Poilievre Conservative government will not likely be hostile to Quebec but it will do a bunch of things Quebecers do not like.

We will see how that works out.

This was also the case during the Harper years, but those were slightly different times in Quebec than today. 4

Examples? I'm thinking that full control over immigration and full power of taxation will go over well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Examples? I'm thinking that full control over immigration and full power of taxation will go over well.

That is if he does it.

Just climate and environmental policies will be a big point of contention. Especially if the PQ replaces the CAQ.