Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And the francophones in Switzerland are less of a % than francophones are in Canada.

The BIG difference of course is the Francophones in Switzerland are growing as a share of the national population (the Francophones went from 22.5% of the population of Switzerland in 1960 to 25.0% now). In Canada it's the opposite, the Francophones are declining as a share of the total population.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Her French is fantastic, though I've seen Swiss presidents who could only speak German and were dubbed on francophone newscasts. I sometimes watch their news on TV5.

I don't think it's a big deal to Swiss francophones, because they manage their affairs on their own mostly. Similar to what ToxiK said: if Quebec could manage more of its own affairs, we wouldn't care as much about the bilingualism of "Canada".

Could we evolve to where Switzerland is? Do they have equalization? Is Quebec willing to openly give that up for more power. Even if they were the problem is the Maritimes could barely function without it though are doing well recently.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Growth is the raison d'être of the ROC. If there is no more growth, then what alternate "national" myth or aspiration would remain for the ROC? Just being a duller and colder version of the US without the Silicon Valley and all the fun things the US have?

Never miss a chance to slag the rest of Canada, eh?

We could easily say that about Quebec vis-a-vis France.

Both would be untrue.

You don't care for the ROC, that is fine, but it is not a terrible place. We are also a more caring, accepting and less 'dog-eat-dog' version of the US, without the gun violence, extreme politics and all the social discord problems the US have. It is thrilling to visit NYC, LA, and Chicago, but I am always glad to come back to Canada, and I don't regret for a moment choosing to stay here, despite ample opportunities to move south.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not "actually saying it", but when cities like Toronto or Calgary publish materials in something like 29 different languages but not French, this could be indicative of the attitude of actors "of consequence".

And please don't tell me that every single language that they publish in has way more speakers (first and second language) than French in their cities.

Tell me about all the publicly-funded Punjabi, Mandarin, and Arabic immersion schools in Canada.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Could we evolve to where Switzerland is? Do they have equalization?

Of course they do: https://dievolkswirtschaft.ch/fr/2024/04...ciere-du-point-de-vue-des-contribuables/

As you can see, the Francophone cantons of Valais and Jura are the biggest beneficiaries of the financial transfers between cantons. The German-speaking cantons of Zoug and Schwytz (which are tax havens) are the biggest net contributors to the financial transfers between cantons.

[New Brisavoine]

The population of Québec as a % of the population of Canada since 1960, vs the population of the French-speaking municipalities of Switzerland as a % of the population of Switzerland. It's quite understandable why there is angst in Québec, and confidence in Romandie (the French-speaking part of Switzerland).

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

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

Right now Trump is exerting revenge on everyone that made him butthurt in the U.S.. He is pushing the limit of the president's power beyond what the Constitution allows and he is turning a democracy into a dictatorship, and so on. Even if that was just 2 % of what he said (it was more than that), it is crazier than pretty much we have seen in the United States in decades, if not more.

So yes, what he says matters, unfortunately.

[ToxiK]

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.

It already started: Chandra Aria, a MP and former Liberal leader hopeful said a very contemptuous "Nope" when ask if he wanted to learn French to become Prime Minister. He doesn't seem to believe that bilingualism is important in Canada (at least when it involves French). He is not the only one.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Even if that was just 2 % of what he said (it was more than that)

I was talking of foreign affairs.

And domestically the US is still very far from being a dictatorship. In fact I think it's impossible to turn the US into a dictatorship, because of the way the country is decentralized, and enormously large.

[ToxiK]

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.

No veto, but more asymmetry. Take Bill 21, if the ROC wants to have more religious symbols in schools or in employees in position of authority, it is ok, but dont impose that model to Québec too. The reverse is also true.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Could we evolve to where Switzerland is? Do they have equalization? Is Quebec willing to openly give that up for more power. Even if they were the problem is the Maritimes could barely function without it though are doing well recently.

I would. I would also give up MPs. In exchange, the federal government will not invade provincial matters (and cut taxes accordingly since they will not need as much money) and will also decentralize more powers. Québec would end up with less money but would have more freedom to manage according to its needs, and there will be a lot of savings because there will be much less duplications of spendings.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I was talking of foreign affairs.

And domestically the US is still very far from being a dictatorship. In fact I think it's impossible to turn the US into a dictatorship, because of the way the country is decentralized, and enormously large.

It can become a dictatorship it the fail-safes and checks and balances dont work. And they wont work if the people in charge of implementing then dont do their jobs. And Trump is nominating the people in charge...

Bill Maher called it a "slow moving coup". I'm afraid that he is right.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

It can become a dictatorship it the fail-safes and checks and balances dont work. And they wont work if the people in charge of implementing then dont do their jobs. And Trump is nominating the people in charge...

Trump is only appointing federal agents. The US is a federation. Trump has no authority over the cops, judges, civil servants of New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. It's not like Putin who can hire or dismiss any judge/cop/civil servant anywhere in Russia at all levels.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Never said that.

I chalk it up to insecurity, paranoia, a certain bitterness over what might have been, and, romanticizing of a past perceived glory which might or might not have been real.

At this point it's cyclical. They have a referendum. It's close enough to scare a ton of business. Jobs and investment flee. They are broke and blame everything from immigrants to ROC. They calm down, get a bit of economic success and then go back to step 1.

The only thing new now is a very aggressive US that nobody has really had to consider before. Sure, that Bannon interview I posted in the other thread is a bit on the fringe. But it's easy to see from there, how they can justify an invasion to themselves in any scenario where Canada (as they know it) is falling apart.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Trump is only appointing federal agents. The US is a federation. Trump has no authority over the cops, judges, civil servants of New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. It's not like Putin who can hire or dismiss any judge/cop/civil servant anywhere in Russia at all levels.

See the shenaigans with his crew of incels at DOGE. A lot of what they are doing is actually illegal. They just sent the names of new China analysts and operatives at the CIA over unsecure email. They attempted to break in to the SCIF at USAID. In any other administration these actions would be jail time. Unless Congress is willing to stop him, there will be no limits.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

It already started: Chandra Aria, a MP and former Liberal leader hopeful said a very contemptuous "Nope" when ask if he wanted to learn French to become Prime Minister. He doesn't seem to believe that bilingualism is important in Canada (at least when it involves French). He is not the only one.

Man. You're really throwing anything and everything at the wall to see what sticks. Chandra Aria? Really? That clown also said he wants to get rid of the monarchy, as if it was something we could do on a whim.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Trump is only appointing federal agents. The US is a federation. Trump has no authority over the cops, judges, civil servants of New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. It's not like Putin who can hire or dismiss any judge/cop/civil servant anywhere in Russia at all levels.

Trump threatened California not to send relief money for the fires it they didn't comply with his whims. What other funding can he threatens to cut to blue states (or even red states) if they dont obey him? He wants to control everything.

Also: Truenorth00 is right on DOGE and Musk not scrupulously following the Constitution...

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

I would. I would also give up MPs. In exchange, the federal government will not invade provincial matters (and cut taxes accordingly since they will not need as much money) and will also decentralize more powers. Québec would end up with less money but would have more freedom to manage according to its needs, and there will be a lot of savings because there will be much less duplications of spendings.

Why not just be independent? A loose confederation has some advantages and you avoid the shock any actual independence would entail but this level of decentralization would leave Quebec what's the point.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

So you mean they are... very French? I'm shocked!

PS: This was not true of Lucien Bouchard though. And I don't think the new PQ leader is and old-school statist either.

PPS: Statism has also its pros though. I'm sure an independent Québec would have a Montréal-Québec City 300 km/h TGV line a century before a united Canada would finally build a Toronto-Montréal TGV line...

The Quebec government could build a TGV line on its own if it wanted to.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

The Charlottetown Accord has to be mentioned as well. I think the Canada-wide referendum took place in 1992. The Mulroney government attempted to do an improved Meech Lake but most voters rejected it. It wasn't the accord itself that was disliked most. It was the Mulroney government and the fact it was prioritizing constitutional matters during a severe economic recession with high unemployment. I was too young to vote in it but I remember going with my parents and seeing them vote. It was so different seeing a referendum being done by Elections Canada where it was just a yes or no answer rather than selecting between candidates. I believe Quebec held its own referendum provincially with the exact same question and didn't involve Elections Canada.