Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

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.

The point of confederation was a loose union of provinces that would give up some powers (defense, international affairs, borders and a few others) to another level of government because it made the whole federation stronger. Unfortunately, the federal government started to overreach and that has to be corrected.

I am not sure all the founding fathers saw the federation as an union of provinces, I think they wanted a more unitary state with a strong central government. I think they settled for a looser union with the belief that eventually the people would see the light and let Ottawa decide for everything.

If some provinces want to give more of their powers to Ottawa, that is fine, but dont impose that model to everyone.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

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.

Good point. Most analysts say that the Charlottetown accord was defeated in the ROC because of the perception that it gave up too much to Quebec, whereas in Quebec it was defeated because it was seen as not giving it enough.

So even if Canadians both inside and outside Quebec technically came together to defeat it, it was not really a unifying moment.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Good point. Most analysts say that the Charlottetown accord was defeated in the ROC because of the perception that it gave up too much to Quebec, whereas in Quebec it was defeated because it was seen as not giving it enough.

So even if Canadians both inside and outside Quebec technically came together to defeat it, it was not really a unifying moment.

In the west Reform argued against it based on giving too much power to Quebec but also the lack of Senate reform and Mulroney's unpopularity were factors.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Good point. Most analysts say that the Charlottetown accord was defeated in the ROC because of the perception that it gave up too much to Quebec, whereas in Quebec it was defeated because it was seen as not giving it enough.

So even if Canadians both inside and outside Quebec technically came together to defeat it, it was not really a unifying moment.

The problem in a nutshell.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

In the west Reform argued against it based on giving too much power to Quebec but also the lack of Senate reform and Mulroney's unpopularity were factors.

Agreed.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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

I don't think anyone is saying that any of them is going to replace French as a Canadian official language.

But it's all still indicative of a mindset that pushes towards marginalizing French more and more as a common societal language. As I said, slowly in the direction of Irish in Ireland, for example.

Chandra Arya, as clownish as his leadership bid was, is still another example of that. "These guys and their language, they don't really matter, y'now".

I still think that French will remain an official language of Canada for a very long time (even if bilingualism becomes more of a joke than it already is), but in the unlikely event that that should change, Canada almost certainly won't replace French with other languages alongside English, it will just go for English only. (Officializing what at that point will simply be the reality on the ground.)

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think anyone is saying that any of them is going to replace French as a Canadian official language.

But it's all still indicative of a mindset that pushes towards marginalizing French more and more as a common societal language. As I said, slowly in the direction of Irish in Ireland, for example.

Chandra Arya, as clownish as his leadership bid was, is still another example of that. "These guys and their language, they don't really matter, y'now".

I still think that French will remain an official language of Canada for a very long time (even if bilingualism becomes more of a joke than it already is), but in the unlikely event that that should change, Canada almost certainly won't replace French with other languages alongside English, it will just go for English only. (Officializing what at that point will simply be the reality on the ground.)

That rapid immigration in English Canada is for sure something that erodes bilingualism. When you have such large numbers of kids struggling with English the thought of French becomes distant. You see this in French Immersion numbers but it's probably more broadly true as well. This has knock on effects as more and more MPs are elected not being able to speak French and therefore more and more ministers end up unilingual as well. The next generation of public servants if they reflect the population will also be less likely to be fluent as well making unilingual Quebecers feel even more unwelcome in the PS.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That rapid immigration in English Canada is for sure something that erodes bilingualism. When you have such large numbers of kids struggling with English the thought of French becomes distant. You see this in French Immersion numbers but it's probably more broadly true as well. This has knock on effects as more and more MPs are elected not being able to speak French and therefore more and more ministers end up unilingual as well. The next generation of public servants if they reflect the population will also be less likely to be fluent as well making unilingual Quebecers feel even more unwelcome in the PS.

Yes, I can see all of this coming.

Also noteworthy (to me at least) is how requirements for English-French bilingualism (with emphasis always on the French) are increasingly framed as non-inclusive and even racist. Or colonialist.

You hear this not only from allophone Canadians (from the ROC) but also from Indigenous Canadians who ironically don't seem to have a problem with English which is, contrary to French in almost all cases, the actual colonial language that snuffed out their ancestral tongues.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, I can see all of this coming.

Also noteworthy (to me at least) is how requirements for English-French bilingualism (with emphasis always on the French) are increasingly framed as non-inclusive and even racist. Or colonialist.

You hear this not only from allophone Canadians (from the ROC) but also from Indigenous Canadians who ironically don't seem to have a problem with English which is, contrary to French in almost all cases, the actual colonial language that snuffed out their ancestral tongues.

Well bilingualism is clearly a barrier to equity. Asian, Indigenous Canadians are far less likely to be bilingual as I said above. It's not about what was the colonial language but there clearly wasn't a qualified bilingual Indigenous leader they could find to be the GG. This is probably true at many levels. In this way a Conservative retreat from woke could actually be good for bilingualism.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well bilingualism is clearly a barrier to equity. .

Bilingualism in and of itself is also an "equity" matter fundamentally, and sacrificing it means potentially sacrificing the interests of one group for the interests of another (or others).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Asian, Indigenous Canadians are far less likely to be bilingual as I said above. It's not about what was the colonial language but there clearly wasn't a qualified bilingual Indigenous leader they could find to be the GG. This is probably true at many levels. In this way a Conservative retreat from woke could actually be good for bilingualism.

I know all of this, but the real question is what does it mean for the future of Canada?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That rapid immigration in English Canada is for sure something that erodes bilingualism. When you have such large numbers of kids struggling with English the thought of French becomes distant. You see this in French Immersion numbers but it's probably more broadly true as well. This has knock on effects as more and more MPs are elected not being able to speak French and therefore more and more ministers end up unilingual as well. The next generation of public servants if they reflect the population will also be less likely to be fluent as well making unilingual Quebecers feel even more unwelcome in the PS.

Since what we have in Canada is official bilingualism, with no expectation that individual Canadians be bilingual, except in certain defined cases, I'm not sure how immigration erodes anything.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

The point of confederation was a loose union of provinces that would give up some powers (defense, international affairs, borders and a few others) to another level of government because it made the whole federation stronger. Unfortunately, the federal government started to overreach and that has to be corrected.

I am not sure all the founding fathers saw the federation as an union of provinces, I think they wanted a more unitary state with a strong central government. I think they settled for a looser union with the belief that eventually the people would see the light and let Ottawa decide for everything.

If some provinces want to give more of their powers to Ottawa, that is fine, but dont impose that model to everyone.

Interestingly the Conservatives is best placed to deliver this looser less centralized federation, but a sizable contingent of Quebec voters still prefer to vote for the Liberals.

I'm still at a loss where the surge of support for Carney comes from:
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/02/06/menaces-de-donald-trump-un-regain-de-vie-pour-le-plc

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Interestingly the Conservatives is best placed to deliver this looser less centralized federation, but a sizable contingent of Quebec voters still prefer to vote for the Liberals.

I'm still at a loss where the surge of support for Carney comes from:
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/02/06/menaces-de-donald-trump-un-regain-de-vie-pour-le-plc

Well Quebec wants a socialist version of looser confederation. It's clear the Conservative version is more like we don't give you money for Health anymore but we cancel the GST and you can add your own sales tax if you want. Except of course Ontario won't making it hard for Quebec to without losing competitiveness with Ontario.

Carney is surging because he is seen as a steady hand in a time of economic crisis and in dealing with Trump. He's the most likely to make strategic and effective decisions and communicate them forcefully to the America public and leadership. I think actually Trudeau did a pretty good job with this. Poilievre looks lost.

Quebec was done with the Liberals so was parking votes with the Bloc as a safe place holder. Now if they feel vulnerable they want a say in how we react. Probably most importantly it's pretty clear a Conservative government is going to weigh Alberta and the West's interest more than a Liberal government would. The Block opposition won't be able to defend Quebec's interest in what will be executive decisions.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Since what we have in Canada is official bilingualism, with no expectation that individual Canadians be bilingual, except in certain defined cases, I'm not sure how immigration erodes anything.

Sure, but the state having two official languages it operates in does have practical implications for human resources, among other impacts on society. We are not entirely served by robots (yet).

And the wide array of jobs where your role is to serve Canadians in one capacity or another tends to be a relatively favoured class whose compensation is paid for collectively by everyone.

I don't think I need to go any further to demonstrate that changing demographics will have socio-political impacts on all of this.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

Agreed 100%. With Trump's threats now galvanizing Quebecois to support the building of sea-to-sea pipelines (like what the Angus Reid poll is indicating), I wonder if PSPP will still choose to obfuscate and oppose the construction of these crucial infrastructure projects.



It will again show the PQ as the party that gives lip service to the economic prosperity of Quebec, and I can only imagine that PQ led sovereignty will bestow on Quebec an era of stagnant le Nouveau Front Populaire type economic policies.

I know Legault's always been in favour of pipelines, and I hope he'll be able to leverage his secret sauce and prevail in getting developments off the ground to the benefit of Quebec's economy, including GNL Quebec which would greatly enhance Canada's trade with Europe.

Retour de GNL Québec: «La communauté le voulait, ce projet-là, à l’époque»
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/0...unaute-le-voulait-ce-projet-la-a-lepoque

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Interestingly the Conservatives is best placed to deliver this looser less centralized federation, but a sizable contingent of Quebec voters still prefer to vote for the Liberals.

I'm still at a loss where the surge of support for Carney comes from:
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/02/06/menaces-de-donald-trump-un-regain-de-vie-pour-le-plc

I was a bit surprised by that as well. I think one explanation is that we're in a bit of unique "moment", and that people are scrambling a bit in terms of how to react to it.

It may very well be that Quebecers think that the Liberals are a safe refuge against Trump and that Carney has some legs here, or it may just be a blip before things return to where they were a few months ago.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

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...

Hard disagree. What would be the economic case for TGV line that stretches only 260 kms? It is not like there aren't relatively quick ways to get from Montreal to QC...heck, there are divided highways on both sides of the Fleuve St. Laurent. Quebec is still a relatively small city, in terms of making a business case for a TGV line...there is not much population in the hinterlands that would make it justifiable. Plus there is bound to be a stop in Trois Rivieres, which has less than 200K in and around the city, adding 15-20 minutes to the duration of the trip. Maybe, just maybe, it would take a 2 hour trip and bring that down to 1 hour, but then your destination may not be either city centre, and so you'd need to spend time on either end to get to where you really want to go?

The economic case (passenger volume, financial feasibility) is sorely lacking. Unlike a Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto TGV-style line, which takes in a catchment area of more than 15 million people, and makes the case for extension to QC and Windsor much more compelling (because now there are more destinations).

Presently, there are only 2 places in Canada that have the volumes necessary to justify a TGV-style line: the QC-Windsor corridor (or more narrowly, Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto), and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor (even the latter, the volumes might not be there). That is not to say that there couldn't be TGV-style links between say, Montreal and NYC, or between Toronto and Chicago, or Vancouver and Seattle/Portland.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

"They", "they", "they" + caricature. You sound like a Trumpist.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

They can't appoint California or New York judges, or tamper with their justice system. End of the story.

A dictatorship would require a military coup not just in DC but in all major states and metro areas. That's not feasible.