Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

What I want is for the federal government not to meddle in provincial affairs, that way Quebec lower influence wouldn't matter that much. But I am afraid that it is not what most Canadians, especially newcomers, want.
.

This is right.

Everyone in Quebec realizes that our share of the Canadian population is going to go down considerably. Trying to keep up with the ROC in terms of population growth (inevitably through immigration) is seen as a total fool's game, especially for us. But also for the ROC, but that's another story.

The various responses to the inevitable decline here are as you say, greater power to Quebec (and the other provinces if they wish, I guess), so that decisions made in a framework where we are a smaller and smaller minority will affect us less. This is supposed to be the CAQ approach, which they only follow on occasion, and not too aggressively.

The PQ's approach is "let's get outta here before it's too late".

And the PLQ's approach, at least for the past 10-15 years, has been to bury their heads in the sand and, on occasion, to call people racist for pointing this out, even if it is reality.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Agreed about Lucien Bouchard.. he's a softer sovereignist, not that different than Francois Legault. They're cut from the same cloth essentially.

PSPP is still a bit of an unknown commodity publicly at this point in regards to economics, but he hasn't made any overtures or policy pronouncements that are pro-growth and pro-economy. so I find it hard to rule out the possibility that he is a old-school statist, which is the default setting for PQ elites.

I don't think PSPP has an amicable relationship with the Montreal tech community (which my SO is active in) to speak of, nor with any Quebecois entrepreneurs in general.

At least Marois had an ongoing flirt with PKP during her premiership.

They have had some more economic-minded leaders (Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry), but generally speaking the PQ is not an economically-driven party.

It's driven by culture and identity. Obviously they don't want Quebec's economy to tank, but it's not what tugs at their heart strings.

The PLQ is more of an economically-driven party, and so is the CAQ. In the case of the CAQ, the secret of their success has been to balance economics and identity. Something the PLQ used to be able to do under Robert Bourassa, but they lost it under Charest-Couillard-Anglade, and can't seem to find that balance again.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Bond villain indeed.

The Mad King even has a lair - it's called Mar-A-Lago.........

And, as a good villain layer, it is underwater. Well, not yet, but with climate change...

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is right.

Everyone in Quebec realizes that our share of the Canadian population is going to go down considerably. Trying to keep up with the ROC in terms of population growth (inevitably through immigration) is seen as a total fool's game, especially for us. But also for the ROC, but that's another story.

The various responses to the inevitable decline here are as you say, greater power to Quebec (and the other provinces if they wish, I guess), so that decisions made in a framework where we are a smaller and smaller minority will affect us less. This is supposed to be the CAQ approach, which they only follow on occasion, and not too aggressively.

The PQ's approach is "let's get outta here before it's too late".

And the PLQ's approach, at least for the past 10-15 years, has been to bury their heads in the sand and, on occasion, to call people racist for pointing this out, even if it is reality.

Poilievre is making overtures about making immigration even stricter. He's been flailing looking for a new message and was talking this week about ending the era of open borders. I wonder if there is a pitch he can make in Quebec that reducing immigration in the rest of Canada is also good for Quebec. Back to with Conservatives Quebec prend des force.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Poilievre is making overtures about making immigration even stricter. He's been flailing looking for a new message and was talking this week about ending the era of open borders. I wonder if there is a pitch he can make in Quebec that reducing immigration in the rest of Canada is also good for Quebec. Back to with Conservatives Quebec prend des force.

I don't think there is a way to package that so that it doesn't sound too weird and sketchy.

That said, it's noteworthy that all of the Conservative leaders going back to and including Harper have campaigned in Quebec saying that their government would meddle way less in provincial affairs and give Quebec more authorities of its own, untouched by Ottawa.

While this appears to be just what a majority of Quebecers want, for some reason it has never resonated with most voters here.

I guess people don't believe them.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Most Canadians may not scheme to undermine Québec (but they wouldn't mind if that happened...) but the federal government does (they also do that against other provinces too). International affairs are more prestigious, but healthcare and education are closer to the people. It is more fun for politicians to do both (especially if you can manage to make the provinces take the heat when things go wrong and arrive as a hero with "new" funding...).

One thing I think though is that the less well-intentioned people in Ottawa and the ROC do have a strong sense that they will soon have Quebec over a barrel, and so eventually won't have to deal with this kind of drama nearly as much.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think there is a way to package that so that it doesn't sound too weird and sketchy.

That said, it's noteworthy that all of the Conservative leaders going back to and including Harper have campaigned in Quebec saying that their government would meddle way less in provincial affairs and give Quebec more authorities of its own, untouched by Ottawa.

While this appears to be just what a majority of Quebecers want, for some reason it has never resonated with most voters here.

I guess people don't believe them.

It seems to often almost work. Then the Conservatives say or do something that shows their disdain for Quebec values and it all blows up. Something with culture in 2008 if I recall correctly. Of course getting more autonomy usually comes with cutting the purse strings too though I don't think that resonates as most Quebecers think they don't get a net subsidy from the rest of Canada. Nobody wants to think they are a welfare case. Even the Maritimes that get even more per capita have some founding myth about Upper Canada making them deindustrialize and thus they are owed what they get. More autonomy and removing intra-provincial trade barriers would make it even harder to diverge from the Canadian consensus on taxation and regulation that Quebec often wants to do.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

We cant escape the past month; he said he wants to have a forced deportation of the Palestinians in Gaza to countries that dont want them and probably dont have the resources to receive them to transform the land into a luxury resort.

He says lots of things and barely implements 2% of them. I wouldn't read too much into what he says every day.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Meech Lake accord proposed to guarantee Quebec 25% of seats in the House of Commons (basically forever, regardless of population share) but it was rejected as we all know.

Rejected by whom?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

What I want is for the federal government not to meddle in provincial affairs, that way Quebec lower influence wouldn't matter that much. But I am afraid that it is not what most Canadians, especially newcomers, want.

Most Canadians may not scheme to undermine Québec (but they wouldn't mind if that happened...) but the federal government does (they also do that against other provinces too). International affairs are more prestigious, but healthcare and education are closer to the people. It is more fun for politicians to do both (especially if you can manage to make the provinces take the heat when things go wrong and arrive as a hero with "new" funding...).

Personally I think this is bordering on paranoia given the powers that Quebec has. Your argument here is basically, "All these immigrants may want to change the deal at some point far in the future." I can't see it. They care far more about where they live than what is happening in Quebec.

Originally Posted by Acajack

It actually does not. The Meech Lake accord proposed to guarantee Quebec 25% of seats in the House of Commons (basically forever, regardless of population share) but it was rejected as we all know.

Sure you can guarantee that Quebec's number of MPs will never go below 75 or 78, but that makes no tangible difference if the number of MPs in the ROC continues to increase and Quebec's doesn't.

Right now Quebec has 78 out of 338.

In a few years it might have 78 out of 345.

And in a couple of decades it might be 78 out of 370.

And that is still incredible outsized power. Basically, you (and ToxiK) are now arguing that Quebec needs an absolute veto over the rest of the country to avoid some hypothetical threat far into the future.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

but they lost it under Charest-Couillard-Anglade, and can't seem to find that balance again.

What are Charest and Couillard doing these days? Do they still live in Québec?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Rejected by whom?

Essentially two provinces, Newfoundland and Manitoba. Though New Brunswick was initially reticent and then came on board.

Talking about the whole accord here, not just the 25% MPs provision for Quebec.

The most important (and controversial) aspect of the Meech Lake accord was enshrining Quebec as a "distinct society with a francophone majority" in the Constitution, including the guaranteed right for Quebec to be able to "preserve and protect" that.

It's noteworthy that even if only 2 ROC provinces came out officially against Meech, public opinion across the ROC was generally against it. The perception being that it was giving up too much freedom to Quebec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What are Charest and Couillard doing these days? Do they still live in Québec?

Yes I think they are both still here.

Couillard is a neurosurgeon who worked in Saudi Arabia before entering politics. But I don't think he has gone back to working abroad.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Essentially two provinces, Newfoundland and Manitoba.

And what was their justification?

Did politicians in Québec call for the boycott of Newfoundland and Manitoba goods?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

And what was their justification?

Did politicians in Québec call for the boycott of Newfoundland and Manitoba goods?

No there was no boycott. We had a referendum on independence a few years later though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And that is still incredible outsized power. Basically, you (and ToxiK) are now arguing that Quebec needs an absolute veto over the rest of the country to avoid some hypothetical threat far into the future.

Quebec's current percentage of House of Commons seats (23%) is exactly the same as its population share in Canada. How is this an incredible outsized power?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Essentially two provinces, Newfoundland and Manitoba. Though New Brunswick was initially reticent and then came on board.

Talking about the whole accord here, not just the 25% MPs provision for Quebec.

The most important (and controversial) aspect of the Meech Lake accord was enshrining Quebec as a "distinct society with a francophone majority" in the Constitution, including the guaranteed right for Quebec to be able to "preserve and protect" that.

It's noteworthy that even if only 2 ROC provinces came out officially against Meech, public opinion across the ROC was generally against it. The perception being that it was giving up too much freedom to Quebec.

The distinct society wasn't popular but the reason it was blocked were about what wasn't in the accord. All of Atlantic Canada wanted more regional representation embodied in a triple EEE (elected, equal and effective) which Quebec and Ontario were never going to agree to.

But in Manitoba it was blocked by an Indigenous MLA as it didn't address Indigenous issues at all.

These and more are why Canada is allergic to any opening of our constitutional Pandora's box.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Essentially two provinces, Newfoundland and Manitoba. Though New Brunswick was initially reticent and then came on board.

Talking about the whole accord here, not just the 25% MPs provision for Quebec.

The most important (and controversial) aspect of the Meech Lake accord was enshrining Quebec as a "distinct society with a francophone majority" in the Constitution, including the guaranteed right for Quebec to be able to "preserve and protect" that.

It's noteworthy that even if only 2 ROC provinces came out officially against Meech, public opinion across the ROC was generally against it. The perception being that it was giving up too much freedom to Quebec.

The distinct society wasn't popular but the reason it was blocked were about what wasn't in the accord. All of Atlantic Canada wanted more regional representation embodied in a triple EEE (elected, equal and effective) which Quebec and Ontario were never going to agree to.

But in Manitoba it was blocked by an Indigenous MLA as it didn't address Indigenous issues at all.

These and more grievances by others are why Canada is allergic to any opening of our constitutional Pandora's box.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The distinct society wasn't popular but the reason it was blocked were about what wasn't in the accord. All of Atlantic Canada wanted more regional representation embodied in a triple EEE (elected, equal and effective) which Quebec and Ontario were never going to agree to.

But in Manitoba it was blocked by an Indigenous MLA as it didn't address Indigenous issues at all.

These and more are why Canada is allergic to any opening of our constitutional Pandora's box.

Clyde Wells the Premier of Newfoundland was a Trudeauist centrist and he made it quite clear that he didn't like the provisions that gave more autonomy to Quebec. His opposition was being telegraphed by Pierre Elliot Trudeau (in more ways than one) behind the scenes and under the sheets via Wells' chief political advisor Deborah Coyne who was in fact sleeping with Trudeau at the time.

You are correct when it comes to Manitoba and that was the straw (actually it was a feather) that broke the camel's back.

In the end, Canada, Manitoba and opponents to Meech screwed over Elijah Harper and Indigenous people who never got anything more out of it once the Meech accord to accommodate Quebec's aspirations was dead. So they totally instrumentalized the Indigenous cause to get what they wanted (against Quebec), and then dumped it on the side of the road.

And as I said, public opinion in the ROC was clearly against it due to the perception that it gave too much to Quebec. Even if some said it was because Indigenous issues were forgotten, because it made them look and feel better.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Personally I think this is bordering on paranoia given the powers that Quebec has. Your argument here is basically, "All these immigrants may want to change the deal at some point far in the future." I can't see it. They care far more about where they live than what is happening in Quebec.

Yes, of course, no one in Canada has EVER said "why is French an official language when Punjabi and Tagalog are not?" NEVER. Right?

Also, people always focus on the powers Quebec has (or that people think it has), and not on the powers it needs.

(This can potentially apply to any province, BTW.)