Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[bobi]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, because we should continue to fight over something that happened in 1755.

Maybe they should just rename Moncton while they're at it. Though the Acadians might have to negotiate with indigenous groups on what to name it.

Great, important stuff, this...

Moncton isn't even the original name of the first (Acadian) settlement in the 1670s, it was Le Coude (The Elbow). It would be an awkward name for an institution of higher learning, but a fitting one for a college pub.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is easy to focus on the problems and forget about the parts that quietly work. IMO, it's probably a bad sign if the pro-separation side can't immediately come up with some kind of clear point that's worth a material sacrifice (see Ukrainians for an example of major sacrifice in service of a higher goal to be West-aligned). What is a goal that requires separation and is worth a person in Quebec giving up 10% of their income? The 10% loss might not happen but it might (Brexit). If the argument for separation is that there are a bunch of nagging minor issues and it's all gonna be great after separation, well, that is basically Trumpian magical thinking.

For the record I have nothing against Quebec separation per se and I'm sympathetic to a lot of arguments made by Francophones in Quebec including about collective cultural preservation measures. But I think this can be fixed within Canada and that in the end we will likely move to a world with more mobility across larger areas and stronger trading blocs, so the real impact of Quebec being "sovereign" is likely to be much more nebulous than it would have been in the now dead postwar era. A lot of people have their head in the sand when it comes to international relations, with Europeans being some of the worst. It's fashionable for them to bash the USA for example while it turns out they have built a kind of US-backed retirement village in recent years with braindead military, industrial, and energy policy. Quebec is naturally inclined to take some inspiration from those politics.

I agree that there has been a dysfunctional aspect to Canadian politics. I don't suffer from JT derangement syndrome but I think they've been a weak government for the past few years (but were better around 2016). I also think that there's an SJW wing to Canadian politics that is internally inconsistent (we value diversity but will browbeat everyone who doesn't think exactly like us) and a net negative, but they probably hit their high water mark in 2021 or so and didn't accomplish much.

The biggest risk factors would be the statistically verifiable and seemingly inexorable decline of the francophone share of the population (now happening even in Quebec), and fairly generalized indifference to that on the part of non-francophone Canadians, and even hostility to basically any measures that could be taken to arrest the phenomenon.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by bobi

Moncton isn't even the original name of the first (Acadian) settlement in the 1670s, it was Le Coude (The Elbow). It would be an awkward name for an institution of higher learning, but a fitting one for a college pub.

I believe that might actually be the name of a bar at the Université de Moncton!

There does not appear to have been an Indigenous name noted by explorers or historians for the Moncton area.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is easy to focus on the problems and forget about the parts that quietly work. IMO, it's probably a bad sign if the pro-separation side can't immediately come up with some kind of clear point that's worth a material sacrifice (see Ukrainians for an example of major sacrifice in service of a higher goal to be West-aligned). What is a goal that requires separation and is worth a person in Quebec giving up 10% of their income? The 10% loss might not happen but it might (Brexit). If the argument for separation is that there are a bunch of nagging minor issues and it's all gonna be great after separation, well, that is basically Trumpian magical thinking.

I think you're banging at the wrong door here. The Québécois in this thread are opposed to independence from what I understand, and those old enough were NON voters in 1995.

More generally, when I read some people here saying they are appalled by what the Québécois in this thread are writing and they are therefore going to abstain from reading this thread in future, I wonder whether they realize that the Québec forumers here are not only rather pro-Canada, but are also fluent English speakers, who know ROC well, and have even lived there (at least some of them). So these guys, far from being rabid sovereignists, are in fact far closer to you guys than the average Québécois. Imagine if you discussed these issues with the non-English-speaking Québécois who have never been to ROC and have very little knowledge of ROC!! Well they wouldn't even participate in this thread to start with.

So I find it odd to fume and accuse those Québécois who are closest and most open to ROC, and most favorable to a united Canada, i.e. those who participate in this thread.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There does not appear to have been an Indigenous name noted by explorers or historians for the Moncton area.

Petitcodiac, derived potentially from the Mi'kmaq Petkootkweăk (river that bends like a bow).

/exits thread again

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I actually constantly forget which one of grey/gray is US and which is UK and which Canada uses.

For program/programme I don't think I've ever seen "programme" in Canada...

"Shedule" or "skedule"?

[Architype]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I think you're banging at the wrong door here. The Québécois in this thread are opposed to independence from what I understand, and those old enough were NON voters in 1995.

...

I also think that's true, perhaps it's natural to be open to the possibility though, even for those who are opposed. Do you find separatists in PQ to be unrealistic and short on logic?

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

For program/programme I don't think I've ever seen "programme" in Canada...

I have only seen "programme" used in Canada when referring to the leaflet you receive on the way into a show or event.

To circle back to the topic of the thread, Canadian English (very rarely) uses French spellings over the American or British (e.g., "yogourt").

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Architype

I also think that's true, perhaps it's natural to be open to the possibility though, even for those who are opposed. Do you find separatists in PQ to be unrealistic and short on logic?

I think both* have their logic, and both have their pros and cons. It's only a question of what you value more, and what you value less. Just because some people value more some other things than what people in this thread value doesn't mean they are wrong, or can't see right. It's just different mindset and personal preferences.

*separation and remaining in a united Canada

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

So these guys, far from being rabid sovereignists, are in fact far closer to you guys than the average Québécois.

I'm not fuming or mad at anybody. I think you are being presumptuous here. BTW my family is about 50% from Quebec including Francophones and some who don't speak English.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The biggest risk factors would be the statistically verifiable and seemingly inexorable decline of the francophone share of the population (now happening even in Quebec), and fairly generalized indifference to that on the part of non-francophone Canadians, and even hostility to basically any measures that could be taken to arrest the phenomenon.

I think this is valid but the time scale matters (there is time when you are talking about a fraction of a % per year, and the shift will be far in the future beyond the ability of most people to know what will happen) and we would have to be clear about what these suggested measures are, why they could only work in an independent Quebec, and the trade-offs involved.

If Quebec can identify some clear requirements then there could be a referendum on those questions. The population of the province would democratically decide on what it wants, and then democratically arrive at the conclusion that it would either get those things from Canada or pursue independence with an understanding of the costs.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think the Quebecers on this thread are really overestimating their province's economic potential in the event of separation.

A lot of Quebec's economy comes from providing services to the ROC. Big names like Alimentations Couche Tard, Metro, Saputo, Power Corp etc. probably derive the majority of their business within Canada but outside Quebec. One of the reasons why Quebec has such low unemployment is because they're providing services to English Canada, which has high immigration and population growth, without growing much themselves.

Then there's the fact that Quebec doesn't really export any resources that can't be found elsewhere. There's no potash or cobalt or palladium, or even oil and gas.

Also, I don't see any reason for the US to play nice with Quebec on USMCA. I don't think they'd appreciate the loss of stability on their doorstep, and when it comes to supporting the ROC vs. Quebec's negotiators, I'm pretty sure they'll side with the ROC.

And, finally, there's the issue of currency. Do they want to keep using a CAD where they don't control the central bank, and whose value reflects the economic status of the ROC?

In a nutshell, I see Quebec having the trade bloc leverage of Britain post-Brexit and having the export competitiveness of one of the Eurozone PIGS.

As mentionned on this thread, Ontario alone probably has more employees providing good and services to Québec than Québec has to do the same for all the other provinces. Whining about equalization usually doesn't come from Ontario because they understand that a large part of that comes back in trade (and other advantages). And, also mentionned, Québec being separated doesn't mean that there wont be any trade anymore.

Maybe many resources from Québec could come from somewhere else, but would they be available at the same price? If the resources are produced in Québec it is because the cost is better than it is if they were produced somewhere else.

The United States would probably have a business-as-usual attitude. They don't want to lose a market and they don't want to lose a supplier. And they definitly wouldn't want Québec to grow too close to other countires (especially China).

Maybe if Québec separate, we would keep the name Canada (not use it but just keep it to annoy the ROC). Former Canada would be renamed Ontario and Friends...

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

The United States would probably have a business-as-usual attitude. They don't want to lose a market and they don't want to lose a supplier. And they definitly wouldn't want Québec to grow too close to other countires (especially China).

Unlike the EU, the USMCA is not an economic union but a trade pact covering specific industries. If it has favourable (or, at least, not unfavourable) terms for Canada, it's in sectors that are important for Canadian exporters, but not for Quebec exporters, like auto parts. If Quebec separates, it will have to sit at the bargaining table with the US like the rest of us did, only as a distant 4th partner and one where the number 2 trading partner can score domestic political points fucking them over.

China is 3.5% of Quebec's exports, vs. the US' 85% and getting diplomatically cozier with China on the US' doorstep is something a rogue authoritarian state would do.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by begratto

Borders are pretty much irrelevant in business. For example, Alimentation Couche-Tard / Circle K / Mac's already has way more stores outside of Canada than in Canada. Borders don't prevent them from operating in Poland, Norway, etc. I don't see what how that would change if Quebec was idependant.

But those are subsidiaries, kind of like Wal-Mart Canada or Ford of Europe.

I'm talking about companies HQed in Quebec that pay Quebec workers to manage Canadian operations. My wife works for one. She had an HR issue and it was sent to a person in Montreal. If somebody has an issue at a Circle K in Plano, Texas it's not getting kicked up to Laval.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I think you're banging at the wrong door here. The Québécois in this thread are opposed to independence from what I understand, and those old enough were NON voters in 1995.

More generally, when I read some people here saying they are appalled by what the Québécois in this thread are writing and they are therefore going to abstain from reading this thread in future, I wonder whether they realize that the Québec forumers here are not only rather pro-Canada, but are also fluent English speakers, who know ROC well, and have even lived there (at least some of them). So these guys, far from being rabid sovereignists, are in fact far closer to you guys than the average Québécois. Imagine if you discussed these issues with the non-English-speaking Québécois who have never been to ROC and have very little knowledge of ROC!! Well they wouldn't even participate in this thread to start with.

So I find it odd to fume and accuse those Québécois who are closest and most open to ROC, and most favorable to a united Canada, i.e. those who participate in this thread.

I am someone who has spoken with a number of pro-sovereignty Quebecers in French since the 1990s. After having spoken with those people the topic has been much less scary and views have really changed over the years. The internet and social media have made many people in Quebec more aware of the ROC and of other countries. So many people there aren't just focused on Quebec alone anymore.

I have some friends from Rouyn-Noranda who are instrumental musicians and speak very little English. They were hardcore separatists in the 1990s and PQ supporters. Today they support Québec-Solidaire and are still left leaning but have told me that the obsession with sovereignty that they used to have no longer exists and that they just would rather Quebec have more control over certain things and to keep its francophone identity. They are certainly still nationalist but now do gigs in various places in Ontario which they never would have considered until social media existed. They also see most anglophones of today being much more respectful and considerate of Quebec and francophones compared to the past.

One thing I can tell you about talking with pro-sovereignty and nationalist Quebecers over the years is that none of them hated Canada. All of them wanted to keep open borders. It wasn't as though we were some type of enemy. The idea of sovereignty wasn't to punish, seek revenge or anything negative. In the even of a "Oui" vote there would be peaceful and reasonable negotiations and nothing done to cause harm. And it definitely didn't mean that Quebec was absolutely 100% going to become a sovereign country.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But those are subsidiaries, kind of like Wal-Mart Canada or Ford of Europe.

I'm talking about companies HQed in Quebec that pay Quebec workers to manage Canadian operations. My wife works for one. She had an HR issue and it was sent to a person in Montreal. If somebody has an issue at a Circle K in Plano, Texas it's not getting kicked up to Laval.

Couche-Tard, based in Laval, actually owns all those other guys. Not the other way around.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But those are subsidiaries, kind of like Wal-Mart Canada or Ford of Europe.

I'm talking about companies HQed in Quebec that pay Quebec workers to manage Canadian operations. My wife works for one. She had an HR issue and it was sent to a person in Montreal. If somebody has an issue at a Circle K in Plano, Texas it's not getting kicked up to Laval.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Couche-Tard, based in Laval, actually owns all those other guys. Not the other way around.

Couche-Tard has a very decentralized management style.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Unlike the EU, the USMCA is not an economic union but a trade pact covering specific industries. If it has favourable (or, at least, not unfavourable) terms for Canada, it's in sectors that are important for Canadian exporters, but not for Quebec exporters, like auto parts. If Quebec separates, it will have to sit at the bargaining table with the US like the rest of us did, only as a distant 4th partner and one where the number 2 trading partner can score domestic political points fucking them over.

China is 3.5% of Quebec's exports, vs. the US' 85% and getting diplomatically cozier with China on the US' doorstep is something a rogue authoritarian state would do.

Politicians in the United States can score political points by screwing Canada over, and Canada still wants to be part of the trade deal. Québec would only get in a trade deal if it is beneficial, if it isn't, they will find other trading partners. Not necessarily China but China would definitely be interested, especially for resources. And as you mentioned, at 3,5 % of Québec's export, there is room for improvement.

The USA would not want to disrupt too much their supply chain, nor its market, and definitely won't want to lose access to resources that are so close to their own market. And it will not want to risk a competitor getting a foothold in its backyard. The United States gave Western Europe a good deal after World War 2 to make sure they wouldn't fall on the Soviet Union lap. The risk is not the same for Québec, but the proximity to the USA is higher however.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

"Shedule" or "skedule"?

Usually skedule, but one is not shocked by hearing schedule.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Politicians in the United States can score political points by screwing Canada over, and Canada still wants to be part of the trade deal. Québec would only get in a trade deal if it is beneficial, if it isn't, they will find other trading partners. Not necessarily China but China would definitely be interested, especially for resources. And as you mentioned, at 3,5 % of Québec's export, there is room for improvement.

The USA would not want to disrupt too much their supply chain, nor its market, and definitely won't want to lose access to resources that are so close to their own market. And it will not want to risk a competitor getting a foothold in its backyard. The United States gave Western Europe a good deal after World War 2 to make sure they wouldn't fall on the Soviet Union lap. The risk is not the same for Québec, but the proximity to the USA is higher however.

Politicians in the US get points for making fun of Francophones and nobody really complains, but it's more towards conservatives. From 2003 to 2009 it was like shooting fish in barrel.
Francophones are conquerable and can't be trusted as allies, and most Americans (especially the anti-woke conservatives) know this. It's too risky, since Americans know they might quit and Mali is the most recent example (dog gone quitters!). Plus, we like to rename their inferior foods....freedom fries n' gravy is the most recent.