Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd add that every time Quebec elects the PQ, there is often a subtle but still impactful move to punish Quebec economically for its political decisions. Disinvestment and just generally pushing a negative economic narrative about Quebec. Regardless of the facts on the ground or even the business climate.

It's ridiculous to see basic capitalism as "punishment". Investment is always going to avoid jurisdictions they deem risky. This happens all over the world. Not sure why you think Quebec should be an exception.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's ridiculous to see basic capitalism as "punishment". Investment is always going to avoid jurisdictions they deem risky. This happens all over the world. Not sure why you think Quebec should be an exception.

I suppose the argument would be that unjustified "Quebec bashing" exaggerates the risk. I would have thought most business would be bright enough to see through it and act in their own best interest.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I suppose the argument would be that unjustified "Quebec bashing" exaggerates the risk. I would have thought most business would be bright enough to see through it and act in their own best interest.

I mean, I assume self-interest is what brought them to Quebec in the first place, right? It only goes to follow that the same could make them leave, regardless of the reason. The stock market "blinks" for a lot less than intermittent talks of secession.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's ridiculous to see basic capitalism as "punishment". Investment is always going to avoid jurisdictions they deem risky. This happens all over the world. Not sure why you think Quebec should be an exception.

That you should allege this at this particular moment in time is interesting to say the least.

Business and money trump everything else most of the time, but not all the time.

As I've mentioned before, there have been periods where Quebec's business climate was quite favourable, and it was still treated like a pariah by lots of powerful economic interests.

In fact, the decades of opting-out and even exodus from Quebec arguably left quite a bit of room for a more homegrown Quebec economy to take root. Which explains why today it probably has the least "US branch plant" economy of all the big provinces.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

He has a Québécois accent when he speaks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDMIYj_48UQ

Lighter than many Québécois, but he definitely has an accent. Aliocha Schneider doesn't have a Québécois accent when he speaks.

I was referring to his singing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by big T

^ in fact this might happen whether there is actual intel or not. I don’t recall facts ever getting in the way of an invasion when US economic and security interests are at stake, regardless of which party happens to be in power in DC.

What would be the advantages of the US making Quebec a full state, over having some sort of association where they could do most anything they want economically (market access, resource exploitation) and use the territory militarily?

What would the additional gains for the US related to Quebec statehood? I am just not seeing them. (Especially relative to the downsides, which should be relatively apparent even if the Americans are assumed to be "dumb".)

[Acajack]

Especially since Quebec more than any other province would probably be fairly attached to the cradle-to-grave nanny state. It would be quite hard to wean us off that. Why would Washington want to be potentially on the hook financially for that?

Much better to say: you guys manage your own money (in US dollars from now on), and run your internal affairs as you wish, buy lots of our stuff and we'll buy some of yours, give us access to the natural goodies from your lands that we need, and let us set up some military bases here and there on your territory.

Deal?

[Acajack]

Quebec not being easily digestible as a state for the US isn't just about language.

Although obviously that would be a huge consideration.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

That's not really confirmed by stats. They were pretty successful economically during the first part of Lévesque's terms in power, as well as under Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry, and even during the 1st year of Pauline Marois. On the other hand Québec stagnated in the end of the Charest's years, and experienced a decline in the beginning of both Charest and Couillard's terms.

As noted in your graph, the Couillard and Legault years were quite positive to Quebec, relative to Ontario. I think the dip we see around 2012 approximates Pauline Marois' term.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What would be the advantages of the US making Quebec a full state, over having some sort of association where they could do most anything they want economically (market access, resource exploitation) and use the territory militarily?

What would the additional gains for the US related to Quebec statehood? I am just not seeing them. (Especially relative to the downsides, which should be relatively apparent even if the Americans are assumed to be "dumb".)

Even as an affiliated territory rather than a full state, how would you avoid the intrusion of the English language into Quebec under American control? Certainly any US military base in Quebec (and there certainly would be some) would be populated by troops from all over the USA, very few of whom would speak French. Other US federal offices in Quebec would be English speaking, and would have employees tranferred from all over the US working there. There would be tremendous pressure to have English speaking employees at most private companies in the territory, especially if they intend to trade or do business elsewhere in the USA. Any French language laws in Quebec might have difficulty standing with the US court system. It would be pretty difficult to mandate bilingual packaging in Quebec if it were a US territory.

These are thing just off the top of my head. I'm certain there are others.

There is no question Quebec would have a whole lot less leverage dealing with the US rather than dealing with anglo-Canada.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd add that every time Quebec elects the PQ, there is often a subtle but still impactful move to punish Quebec economically for its political decisions. Disinvestment and just generally pushing a negative economic narrative about Quebec. Regardless of the facts on the ground or even the business climate.

In some periods it was even essentially a form of sabotage practised by the Canadian business establishment and even part of the Quebec-based business establishment (before and after they leave the province).

I am sure some (especially KW!) will say it was simply a question of basic self-preservation and self-interest. I suppose that is true to some degree but spite clearly played and plays a big role in it.

So also take that into account when you look at the numbers during the PQ years.

I think it goes both ways though. The initial Loi 101 moves definitely had some levels of spite (and it's pretty obvious given the many legacy Angryphones living in the GTA whose heart is still in Montreal). But in the current environment, any business relocation is done purely for rational business reasons rather than emotional.

The PQ has always viewed the business community with suspicion, and has never seriously attempted to woo the local business community to its side. Perhaps they reject the pragmatism of entrepreneurs and see them as a threat. The PQ is much more comfortable with its traditional base the FTQ, and historically it has excelled the most at executing large state run enterprises like HydroQuebec.

For all the talk from PQ about Quebec realising Scandinavian levels of prosperity, the party doesn't seem particularly interested in implementing elements of the Swedish model to unleash Quebec's entrepreneurial potential.

For instance, Montreal has a lot of homegrown AI/tech startups and champions like Lightspeed and MoovAI. So far I haven't heard anything from the PSPP camp that says the PQ will prioritise policies that supports the resilience and stability of this sector in the event of independence. In the likely event venture capital funding dries up and the PQ doesn't bother to support the tech startups (if anything we'd expect the PQ to increase business taxes and bureaucratic burdens), it's obvious these homegrown tech companies will either decamp to Toronto or Silicon Valley en mass in order to secure funding and its future, regardless of the fact that many of these founders/executives are francophone Quebecois.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Even as an affiliated territory rather than a full state, how would you avoid the intrusion of the English language into Quebec under American control? Certainly any US military base in Quebec (and there certainly would be some) would be populated by troops from all over the USA, very few of whom would speak French. Other US federal offices in Quebec would be English speaking, and would have employees tranferred from all over the US working there. There would be tremendous pressure to have English speaking employees at most private companies in the territory, especially if they intend to trade or do business elsewhere in the USA. Any French language laws in Quebec might have difficulty standing with the US court system. It would be pretty difficult to mandate bilingual packaging in Quebec if it were a US territory.

These are thing just off the top of my head. I'm certain there are others.

There is no question Quebec would have a whole lot less leverage dealing with the US rather than dealing with anglo-Canada.

I was operating on the assumption that all services to the population would still continue to be offered by Quebec, not the US. What you are describing is near-statehood. Perhaps this is what a territory is but that is not what I am envisioning. The form of status, association and their parameters can be tailored to each situation.

As for the presence of bases, sure. The US has based all around the world. The local language isn't dying in these places due to the presence of bases, though sure there have often been tensions. (Not necessarily linguistic.)

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was operating on the assumption that all services to the population would still continue to be offered by Quebec, not the US. What you are describing is near-statehood. Perhaps this is what a territory is but that is not what I am envisioning. The form of status, association and their parameters can be tailored to each situation.

As for the presence of bases, sure. The US has based all around the world. The local language isn't dying in these places due to the presence of bases, though sure there have often been tensions. (Not necessarily linguistic.)

You would have to look to Puerto Rico as an example. I don't know how intrusive the US federal presence in Puerto Rico is, and, the island remains largely Spanish speaking. PR however is a far flung island distant from the US mainland. Quebec on the other hand is an integral part of the North American mainland. This may change the calculus somewhat.

[big T]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What would be the advantages of the US making Quebec a full state, over having some sort of association where they could do most anything they want economically (market access, resource exploitation) and use the territory militarily?

What would the additional gains for the US related to Quebec statehood? I am just not seeing them. (Especially relative to the downsides, which should be relatively apparent even if the Americans are assumed to be "dumb".)

No, I agree with you that it would be better for both parties to associate as a territory, as opposed to full statehood.

What I was saying is that in a scenario where Canada implodes under inter regional strife, Quebec might try to become fully independent but its not clear the US would tolerate that. Some sort of associated territory status with significant home rule would be a likely outcome I think.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by big T

No, I agree with you that it would be better for both parties to associate as a territory, as opposed to full statehood.

What I was saying is that in a scenario where Canada implodes under inter regional strife, Quebec might try to become fully independent but its not clear the US would tolerate that. Some sort of associated territory status with significant home rule would be a likely outcome I think.

Agreed.

Now the killer question (la question qui tue ) is: would that be a better deal for Quebec in terms of autonomy, the economy, etc. than its current presence in the Canadian federation?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That you should allege this at this particular moment in time is interesting to say the least.

Business and money trump everything else most of the time, but not all the time.

As I've mentioned before, there have been periods where Quebec's business climate was quite favourable, and it was still treated like a pariah by lots of powerful economic interests.

In fact, the decades of opting-out and even exodus from Quebec arguably left quite a bit of room for a more homegrown Quebec economy to take root. Which explains why today it probably has the least "US branch plant" economy of all the big provinces.

Sure it's complicated but the risk always remains not just of separation but of nationalistic business activity more generally. Those looking for natural gas in Quebec for example ended up suing under NAFTA (losing) as they exploration was banned rather suddenly.

I don't think Quebec is in any way the least Branch Plant economy. Unless you mean just between Ontario and Quebec. It's probably number two after Ontario. Most of the rest have very little of that at all outside pulp and paper and maybe food production. (both of which are also concentrated in Quebec) Quebec also has US owned aluminum and recently controversial investments in the arms industry as well.

[big T]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Agreed.

Now the killer question (la question qui tue ) is: would that be a better deal for Quebec in terms of autonomy, the economy, etc. than its current presence in the Canadian federation?

En effet c'est toute une question!

First of all, even if on paper a US territory deal were to grant Quebec some additional measure of sovereignty, which I think the majority of Quebeckers would welcome in the abstract -- it would still come down to relinquishing some control over to a much more powerful and ultimately dangerous overlord, compared to Federal Canada. Especially after what Trump pulled off, I think it would be a pensez-y bien for most - and will remain so probably long after Trump is gone, in fact. The whole "US is now seen as an unreliable/bad faith actor" thing.

Economically it would be a boon, no question. But Quebec independence has never been about that, and I don't see that changing much. I don't see that influencing people much if at all.

On top of that, I think it there would be a significant emotional component coming into play. There is more attachment to Canada and the Canadian identity than meets the eye, even among most so-called soft sovereignists. Certainly since this whole Trump debacle the Canadian pride is at an all time high here, like elsewhere in Canada. In this context I think leaving Canada (in ashes, no less) to jump right into the US lap would be felt by many Quebecers as treasonous. Especially considering the negative image of the US going forward, I don't know how palatable that would be to people, even if on paper the deal looked good.

But then, as we said, it probably would come down to what the US would be willing to offer/tolerate, more so than what the people of Quebec want. I would like to think they would know better than to try and push something by force to an unwilling population, but we all know that finesse is not exactly their thing in these matters.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Even as an affiliated territory rather than a full state, how would you avoid the intrusion of the English language into Quebec under American control? Certainly any US military base in Quebec (and there certainly would be some) would be populated by troops from all over the USA, very few of whom would speak French. Other US federal offices in Quebec would be English speaking, and would have employees tranferred from all over the US working there. There would be tremendous pressure to have English speaking employees at most private companies in the territory, especially if they intend to trade or do business elsewhere in the USA. Any French language laws in Quebec might have difficulty standing with the US court system. It would be pretty difficult to mandate bilingual packaging in Quebec if it were a US territory.

These are thing just off the top of my head. I'm certain there are others.

There is no question Quebec would have a whole lot less leverage dealing with the US rather than dealing with anglo-Canada.

Puerto Rico has been able to maintain Spanish as its official (national) language. All highway signage is Spanish only, the judiciary is Spanish only. All public school instruction is Spanish only. Obviously dealings with the US federal government are in English. Based on Puerto Rico, Quebec as a territory of the US could certainly function as French being its official language.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by big T

En effet c'est toute une question!

First of all, even if on paper a US territory deal were to grant Quebec some additional measure of sovereignty, which I think the majority of Quebeckers would welcome in the abstract -- it would still come down to relinquishing some control over to a much more powerful and ultimately dangerous overlord, compared to Federal Canada. Especially after what Trump pulled off, I think it would be a pensez-y bien for most - and will remain so probably long after Trump is gone, in fact. The whole "US is now seen as an unreliable/bad faith actor" thing.

Economically it would be a boon, no question. But Quebec independence has never been about that, and I don't see that changing much. I don't see that influencing people much if at all.

On top of that, I think it there would be a significant emotional component coming into play. There is more attachment to Canada and the Canadian identity than meets the eye, even among most so-called soft sovereignists. Certainly since this whole Trump debacle the Canadian pride is at an all time high here, like elsewhere in Canada. In this context I think leaving Canada (in ashes, no less) to jump right into the US lap would be felt by many Quebecers as treasonous. Especially considering the negative image of the US going forward, I don't know how palatable that would be to people, even if on paper the deal looked good.

But then, as we said, it probably would come down to what the US would be willing to offer/tolerate, more so than what the people of Quebec want. I would like to think they would know better than to try and push something by force to an unwilling population, but we all know that finesse is not exactly their thing in these matters.

A Certain economic boon seems to be very suspect. All those insurance and other income economy and Canadian corporate back office jobs would disappear. The Port may suffer. Tourism could benefit or the strong dollar and loss of the Canadian market could do the opposite.
This has been discussed in other threads but the idea that being on the periphery of the US is a successful model isn't backed by looking at the economies of Maine, upstate New York or Northern Vermont or New Hampshire.

[Acajack]

François Legault loves this stuff:

https://x.com/francoislegault/status/1887143615597515074/photo/1