Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Also a Catholic tone to this

For sure. We can get rid of religion but some of the ideas and values have staying power (or may be convincing enough on their own).

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by lio45

For sure. We can get rid of religion but some of the ideas and values have staying power (or may be convincing enough on their own).

Martin Luther himself couldn't out-Protestant your average Swedish atheist.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

My sense is that Montreal's prospects as a global city are still pretty robust, either as Canada's second city or the metropolis of an independent Quebec that would have just under 10 million people.

I am not always fond of global city lists but if I look at how GAWC ranks them, aside from Dubai and Singapore which are outliers due to their specific situations, you still have places like Dublin, Vienna, Zurich, Brussels, Prague, etc. punching quite high in spite of being located in fairly small countries.

The smaller cities that rank disproportionately high tend to be tax havens or locations otherwise highly sought after by the international elite. Otherwise, cities that are geographically advantageous as trading hubs, or carry some outsized historical legacy tend to round out the rest of those types of lists. Not sure I see an independent Quebec pursuing the Switzerland model, and it's position in modern geopolitics doesn't really carry many advantages.

I think what Quebec would really benefit from is controlling its own immigration policy, making it possibly one of the premiere destinations for french-speaking immigrants across the world. No more oversight from the Feds, denying applicants from certain parts of the world, etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

The smaller cities that rank disproportionately high tend to be tax havens or locations otherwise highly sought after by the international elite. Otherwise, cities that are geographically advantageous as trading hubs, or carry some outsized historical legacy tend to round out the rest of those types of lists. Not sure I see an independent Quebec pursuing the Switzerland model, and it's position in modern geopolitics doesn't really carry many advantages.

I think what Quebec would really benefit from is controlling its own immigration policy, making it possibly one of the premiere destinations for french-speaking immigrants across the world. No more oversight from the Feds, denying applicants from certain parts of the world, etc.

My point was more that Montreal is unlikely to become like Montevideo, regardless of whether it's in Canada as number two, or number one in an independent Quebec. I think the overall takeaway is that in the "first world" the biggest city in the country, regardless of size, tends to do reasonably well.

Definitely agree with your second point, though I am eager to see what's truly up with the problems in Ottawa on that front.

There is no reason Quebec shouldn't be able to fully play that card from within Canada. (And it would actually be a plus for Canada overall.)

Eventually, someone with the feds is going to have to answer as to why that isn't happening.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by someone123

A lot of Torontonians post about it but I don't think they are upset about it. And I agree with their point that the idea that Toronto was nothing next to Montreal before a bunch of companies decamped due to language issues in the 70's is exaggerated. They were about the same size for a while and Toronto was ambitious and well-run on its own terms in the early postwar period.

What a lot of people miss out on in Toronto's growth relative to Montreal is that it required huge changes in its own culture and self-conception, which were already occurring prior to the rise of the sovereignty movement in Quebec. By all accounts, prewar Toronto was provincial, conservative and intolerant. It was a bastion for British loyalism, sectarianism and (to an extent) classism.

Just as the post-war industrial boom led to the eventual social and economic ascendance of Francophones in Quebec, it allowed for expanded social mobility among Toronto's erstwhile marginalized minority groups, eventually leading to the victory of Nathan Philips, Toronto's first Jewish mayor, over avowed orangeman incumbent Leslie Saunders in the 1955 election. Prior to the shift this electoral victory symbolized, I doubt Toronto was really in the headspace to grow into what it's since become.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

The smaller cities that rank disproportionately high tend to be tax havens or locations otherwise highly sought after by the international elite.

Or the capitals of small countries with high GDP per capita and a somewhat disproportionate number of large global companies.

To be more pointed: if you want to be Sweden, you need your Volvo, your Ericsson, your Saab, your Scania, your H&M, your Ikea, your Electrolux, your Spotify and so on.

Quebec isn't necessarily a slouch but it's not an outperformer, either. It has 3x the land of Sweden but it just doesn't have the companies. In some ways, it doesn't really have the high-end as a social, cultural and economic layer (there are historical reasons for this).

Stockholm is a wealthier city than Montreal, and in many ways -- and this hurts, because it can be a very annoying place -- a more significant one.

Montreal is better, but... it's poor. It's been poor for a while.

And it matters more than those of us who like to go to bat for it often admit.

[lio45]

All of the cities Acajack listed are in small and resource-poor countries.

Quebec has a lot of energy/resource wealth (some of it renewable, like energy and lumber and agriculture) and would be at least a midsized country, globally.

All things considered, Norway would be a better comparable than Switzerland or Singapore. Norway doesn’t provide for its citizens by being a global tax haven or trade hub or having a disproportionate number of global corporations.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

It was a bastion for British loyalism

Still is. Toronto's public and institutional culture aligns absolutely with the values held at the highest levels of the dispersed Anglophone power structure that superseded the Empire.

It is the HQ of Thomson Reuters, for heaven's sake.

They don't sound like Cecil Rhodes anymore. But they will often receive his postgraduate award.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Still is. Toronto's public and institutional culture aligns absolutely with the values held at the highest levels of the dispersed Anglophone power structure that superseded the Empire.

It is the HQ of Thomson Reuters, for heaven's sake.

They don't sound like Cecil Rhodes anymore. But they will often receive his postgraduate award.

All of which is still highly valued by "Money".

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

And it matters more than those of us who like to go to bat for it often admit.

I don't think "there's more to life than money" really cuts it as an explanation, nor does the Protestant-Catholic thing. As one example, Dutch workers average fewer hours worked per year than French workers, while the Netherlands has a higher GDP per capita. High productivity is what allows for more leisure time outside of work.

It looks like in Quebec the labour laws are not much better than in other provinces. For example many workers get 2-3 weeks of paid vacation. How come Quebec's outlier culture hasn't led to a change in this area? I think it would actually be enticing to a lot of people if you could move to Quebec and get 6 weeks off at work.

[vanatox]

Kool maudit, it is sad to say but you start to sound like MolsonExport. Your views on Montreal are totally outdated by like 15-20 years (or even more).

Sorry but the Montreal of the 90s-early 2000s you are so familiar with no longer exist.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think "there's more to life than money" really cuts it as an explanation, nor does the Protestant-Catholic thing.

If anything, people in Copenhagen and Stockholm seem more obstinate about limiting their work hours than did Montrealers. You can't do anything this month, for instance -- everyone is on vacation. Our New York office will call us and be perplexed on a sort of "are you running a lemonade stand?" level.

I really think there might be a missing layer-type thing going on. Montreal has top-notch schools, talent, all that. I am just not sure that capital is available to its companies in the same way, and wonder if this might relate in some way to the flight of the banks and the death of the Montreal Exchange.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by vanatox

Kool maudit, it is sad to say but you start to sound like MolsonExport. Your views on Montreal are totally outdated by like 15-20 years (or even more).

Sorry but the Montreal of the 90s-early 2000s you are so familiar with no longer exist.

Can you be more specific?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think "there's more to life than money" really cuts it as an explanation, nor does the Protestant-Catholic thing. As one example, Dutch workers average fewer hours worked per year than French workers, while the Netherlands has a higher GDP per capita. High productivity is what allows for more leisure time outside of work.

It looks like in Quebec the labour laws are not much better than in other provinces. For example many workers get 2-3 weeks of paid vacation. How come Quebec's culture hasn't led to European-style labour laws? In some ways Quebec gets second tier Euro level economic performance with American style social benefits. Not trying to be mean about Quebec; I have similar criticisms for all of Canada.

Quebec (like all of Canada) is limited in how Euro-like it can be in its labour perks so as not to jeopardize its competitiveness too much vis-à-vis the capitalist juggernaut next door.

I still do think Quebec offers some of the best work-life balance on this continent, and the lower cost of living on a lot of the big ticket items and generous social programs (often easing the pain of big family expenses) help offset a lot of the gap in economic performance and standard of living compared to how one might assess them based solely on cold hard stats.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I am just not sure that capital is available to its companies in the same way, and wonder if this might relate in some way to the flight of the banks and the death of the Montreal Exchange.

This aversion to risk is a Canadian phenomenon. Capital isn’t easily available to entrepreneurs, it’s all going into CMHC-backed owner-occupied grossly inflated mortgages

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by lio45

All of the cities Acajack listed are in small and resource-poor countries.

Quebec has a lot of energy/resource wealth (some of it renewable, like energy and lumber and agriculture) and would be at least a midsized country, globally.

All things considered, Norway would be a better comparable than Switzerland or Singapore. Norway doesn’t provide for its citizens by being a global tax haven or trade hub or having a disproportionate number of global corporations.

Norway isn't a good comparable for anyone who doesn't have large accessible oil reserves immediately adjacent to some of the largest markets in the world. Lithium and renewable energy are not going to build Quebec a sovereign wealth fund.

If it's not oil/gas, then the benefits from natural resources are typically felt in more subtle ways like additional blue-collar employment opportunities, some head office jobs, and spin-off benefits for financial services from publicly listed extraction companies. Think the difference between how mining benefits Toronto's economy vs. how the oil sands benefits Alberta's.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by lio45

This aversion to risk is a Canadian phenomenon. Capital isn’t easily available to entrepreneurs, it’s all going into CMHC-backed owner-occupied grossly inflated mortgages

Yeah, I think there is truth to that. But I bet it is compounded by the language and culture division. If people here had to go to Danish banks, for example, something like Spotify might not have happened. The risk-takers are risk-takier on totally familiar ground.

The growth of Banque Nationale is really good for Montreal.

[samne]

I think if Montreal were the capital of Quebec it would be a different story with all the additional institutional privileges that come with it. Montreal punches way above its weight as it is.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

This aversion to risk is a Canadian phenomenon. Capital isn’t easily available to entrepreneurs, it’s all going into CMHC-backed owner-occupied grossly inflated mortgages

Canada has its banana republic lite economy with oligopolies and orientation toward real estate. But then on the other hand Canada is a good location for high skill branch offices for American companies (e.g. Google development office in K-W) due to low wages and time zone. For those jobs you need English.

[vanatox]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Can you be more specific?

Montreal's (and Quebec's) economy has undergone tremendous changes over the last decade. Quebec has one of the highest growth rate of GDP in Canada.

Montreal has a well diversified economy and has been on fire for a number of years now, all neighborhoods are gentrifying at an incredible pace, economy is super strong. New sectors of the economy are growing fast. One of the strongest economy in the country, with among the highest increases in wages. Not only wages are increasing due to the hot economy, but labor shortage is also driving increases in productivity.

Montreal as a relatively poor and declining place is history. Old dilapidated factories that used to house parties have now been fully renovated and filed with start-ups workers.