Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[jamincan]

I don't know about the other columnist, but can anyone really argue that JJ McCullough is anything more than a parody of an anglo-Canadian at this point? Pretty much everyone I've encountered who has read or heard him speak despises the guy.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Basically, Quebec is never intolerant, but the rest of Canada and the world beyond is.

Gotcha.

You guys are starting to sound like Gilles Rhéaume, or Robin Philpot

S'il vous plaît, je voudrais avoir un sept en haut

If the 7up guy spent as much time on his lawsuits as liojack do their grievances on SSP, he might have won some of them

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Absolutely, and companies know this. In the case I'm familiar with, the company would send people to the United States and Canada for five year stints, to not only learn the language, but to understand the culture. They would also hire or promote executives from one of these countries to provide additional understanding.

I think it's a mistake to get caught up in the 'Anglophone vs the world' mindset, as it's not as simple as all that.

The American tourist stories are always a form of entertainment for me, though, especially the ones that are more extreme and not necessarily true...

I am just saying that English-speaking (especially) land companies are not necessarily ready to deal with a shift in language. Companies from non-English speaking world are already used to translating and adapting to survive (even if the Ikea instructions might sound weird...).

This example is not about language but culture; after Loblaw's bought Provigo, they thought they could just copy/paste their model in Québec but in French. It didn't worked as planned and after some years (thankfully for them) they backtracked. Overconfidence and miscommunication can be dangerous for a company, especially in a more and more competitive market that can adapt better.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Definitely agree with this last part especially. At one point I might have been favourable to a Schengen-style agreement for the Canada-US border, but today I am so glad we never implemented that.

That said, the border crossing process should be improved and streamlined, with more focus on criminal and illegal stuff and less on duties and taxes for perfectly legal products.

Both the American political right and left have two huge blindspots that directly affect our border security.

On the American right, it's a blindspot towards sensible gun control.

On the American left, it's a blindspot towards dealing with illegal immigration.

Since Americans are so polarized, neither side can move the conversation away from what - to me - seems like a position of total craziness on either topic. It's best to wall ourselves off from that.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I don't know about the other columnist, but can anyone really argue that JJ McCullough is anything more than a parody of an anglo-Canadian at this point? Pretty much everyone I've encountered who has read or heard him speak despises the guy.

I agree. With his A-BOOTH he does the remarkable feat of being both a clown and unfunny.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Both the American political right and left have two huge blindspots that directly affect our border security.

On the American right, it's a blindspot towards sensible gun control.

On the American left, it's a blindspot towards dealing with illegal immigration.

I'd guess that our current border doesn't do a good job of managing this stuff though. Even airport security doesn't perform well, so we can imagine how effectively the land and sea borders can find handguns or fentanyl mixed in with the millions of tons of cargo. A lot of this stuff has to be policed domestically if we care about it.

Illegal immigration is controlled with trivial checks like SIN for employment and ID at the border, and work authorization cannot be controlled by doing things like asking people what they intend to do after crossing. We could do simple things like allow the basic ID cards issued by provinces to serve as ID at the border, something we had decades ago. It could be an opt-in thing where you apply and then your ID is linked and the US border will let you use it.

Instead it's 2001 forever, plus whatever new stuff gets added like covid tests. I think there's blame on both sides, and Canada does not try hard enough to improve the border. "Tough on the border" is a version of "tough on crime" here in Canada too.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by harls

Yes.

I go to my doctor (who actually ran for the PQ) and talk French to the guy.

Maybe that tiny bit of respect for who he is and where I am actually gets him to be more compassionate.

If that was the attitude all along, there probably wouldn't even be a Bill 96. When I get out of the borders of Québec, I don’t expect any services in French (except maybe in Acadian regions), do Anglophones coming in Québec expect the same? Many businesses in downtown Montréal and other places will prefer to have employees that don't speak French instead of some that don't speak English. They prefer risk losing Francophone customers (but often those customers are very accommodating and will switch to English) than to risk upsetting an Anglophone. And as a bonus, if a Francophone complains too much, the business might just chose to play the victim to evil separatists and get a boost of publicity.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by harls

Here's an anecdote.

One time I took the 15 on my way to New York. The American customs agent took a look at our passports. My wife has a French last name and I do not have an English last name. He actually started speaking French to us - very broken French, but at least he tried.

If only more people would put in an effort like this dude instead of defaulting to the 'it's my right' shit.

I got very good services in French at many places in Walt Disney World (and not only in the France Pavillion at Epcot).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I don't know about the other columnist, but can anyone really argue that JJ McCullough is anything more than a parody of an anglo-Canadian at this point? Pretty much everyone I've encountered who has read or heard him speak despises the guy.

I have no illusions about JJ, but he writes about Canada for a serious newspaper. I doubt most readers consider him to be a parody.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd guess that our current border doesn't do a good job of managing this stuff though. Even airport security doesn't perform well, so we can imagine how effectively the land and sea borders can find handguns or fentanyl mixed in with the millions of tons of cargo. A lot of this stuff has to be policed domestically if we care about it.

Illegal immigration is controlled with trivial checks like SIN for employment and ID at the border, and work authorization cannot be controlled by doing things like asking people what they intend to do after crossing. We could do simple things like allow the basic ID cards issued by provinces to serve as ID at the border, something we had decades ago. It could be an opt-in thing where you apply and then your ID is linked and the US border will let you use it.

Instead it's 2001 forever, plus whatever new stuff gets added like covid tests. I think there's blame on both sides, and Canada does not try hard enough to improve the border. "Tough on the border" is a version of "tough on crime" here in Canada too.

I was going to say that unofficial immigration is not much of an issue in Canada but it is here in Quebec where a "clandestine" illegal crossing (tolerated by Canadian authorities) at Roxham Rd just north of Plattsburgh NY has been seeing about 100 people coming into Quebec every day since the spring.

Tally that up it's potentially 35,000 people entering the country a year, at a single crossing.

It's definitely a political issue here in Quebec (including for the Quebec government) but if one dares bring it up the woke folk - we do have some here - will immediately accuse you of being racist.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

If that was the attitude all along, there probably wouldn't even be a Bill 96. When I get out of the borders of Québec, I don’t expect any services in French (except maybe in Acadian regions), do Anglophones coming in Québec expect the same? Many businesses in downtown Montréal and other places will prefer to have employees that don't speak French instead of some that don't speak English. They prefer risk losing Francophone customers (but often those customers are very accommodating and will switch to English) than to risk upsetting an Anglophone. And as a bonus, if a Francophone complains too much, the business might just chose to play the victim to evil separatists and get a boost of publicity.

I have only ever met one person in the Montreal service sector who did not speak English. My expectation has always been, and remains, that it’s me being served and therefore my choice of language. Outside Montreal, one adapts as required.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was going to say that unofficial immigration is not much of an issue in Canada but it is here in Quebec where a "clandestine" illegal crossing (tolerated by Canadian authorities) at Roxham Rd just north of Plattsburgh NY has been seeing about 100 people coming into Quebec every day since the spring.

Tally that up it's potentially 35,000 people entering the country a year, at a single crossing.

It's definitely a political issue here in Quebec (including for the Quebec government) but if one dares bring it up the woke folk - we do have some here - will immediately accuse you of being racist.

The issue has fallen off the radar outside Quebec. Has there been any reporting on where these people are settling? I imagine they’re pretty much tied to Quebec pending thei refugee determination.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The issue has fallen off the radar outside Quebec. Has there been any reporting on where these people are settling? I imagine they’re pretty much tied to Quebec pending thei refugee determination.

At least in the short term, they seem to going to the Montreal area. Since the spring the school board in Montreal says it has been having to set up 2-3 additional classes a week to accommodate newly-arrived kids who have crossed at Roxham Road.

I would expect that eventually a good number of them will make their way to other parts of Canada.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have no illusions about JJ, but he writes about Canada for a serious newspaper. I doubt most readers consider him to be a parody.

The fact that the most liberal major newspaper in the US chose a creepy pseudo-libertarian, with ignorant and offensive views about Quebec and who is clearly and obviously not aligned with the left at all, to be its Canadian Voice is essentially proof positive that Americans know very little about other countries.

To a comical degree. I mean, imagine the CBC hiring a Fox News-associated figure to write a column explaining America to Canadians!

Idiots.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I've always thought the interview portion of the border crossing had a very poor ROI. I'd favour rationalizing rules with the US to eliminate the crossing completely (Schengen style), but failing that it could be a pre-registered online thing where you scan your passport/Nexus or a person waves you through in a few seconds. A small percentage of people could be sent for screening at random.

Canada is a country with absurd and poorly performing bureaucracy where people argue over whether it should be in English or French or if you should be entitled to ask for service in the advertised language.

As mentioned already,

1) Canada won’t want to share a Schengen Space with ~400,000,000 guns;

2) The U.S. won’t want to share a Schengen Space with whatever goes through Canadian airports’ porous security.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

The fact that the most liberal major newspaper in the US chose a creepy pseudo-libertarian, with ignorant and offensive views about Quebec and who is clearly and obviously not aligned with the left at all, to be its Canadian Voice is essentially proof positive that Americans know very little about other countries.

To a comical degree. I mean, imagine the CBC hiring a Fox News-associated figure to write a column explaining America to Canadians!

Idiots.

Many of us SSPers would do a better job than that clown.

I’d have to train myself to say aboot all the time (looks like it’s one of the WaPo’s job requirements!)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Especially not if it's the only way to get coffee in town, and the coffee shop is funded by your taxes and mine!

Also add that the guy behind the counter of the coffee shop that advertises coffee but doesn’t have any, regularly goes through months of specialized barista training at taxpayers’ expense!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

1) Canada won’t want to share a Schengen Space with ~400,000,000 guns;

2) The U.S. won’t want to share a Schengen Space with whatever goes through Canadian airports’ porous security.

I don't think (1) matters as much as people suggest (nor would we need to legalize firearms here to open the border) and rationalizing security for (2) is almost certainly worth it from Canada's perspective. I think this is just an area where our politics is kind of unhinged, and people think there are good reasons for things being the way they are, but there aren't. This in itself can be a political barrier but it could be worked on. Sadly, we have been moving in the wrong direction, and I think it's one facet of how our society isn't doing very well lately.

(On the US side the rational policy is for them to try to get Mexico into a good state and push the border issues down into Central America. They're not anywhere near that, sadly.)

[Architype]

Originally Posted by lio45

Many of us SSPers would do a better job than that clown.

I’d have to train myself to say aboot all the time (looks like it’s one of the WaPo’s job requirements!)

He has a good point understood by all, except for the sight, hearing, and reality impaired. We in the ROC however are not blind to this, we see and hear but do not speak much about it, because to do so implies too much inconvenience and cognitive dissonance for our country.

In the American context, Bill 96 is a breach of, and antithetical to the first amendment. Perhaps the hidden reason for Bill 96 is about political ideas, to keep out those of progressive liberalism and tolerance of other cultures. In the Canadian context, it is a breach of Canadian political & ideological principles, except for those of the far right.

[Acajack]

Yeah we should follow the good old anglo example: offer the bare minimum or no services in the minority language. That way you don't have to control who has access to them!