Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, Petitcodiac would remain Petitcodiac and Moncton would become Groscodiac

More likely we would be shamed into using the first nations spelling and pronunciation - Petkootkweăk

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

More likely we would be shamed into using the first nations spelling and pronunciation - Petkootkweăk

Or a twist: PET-kook-weak...? JT could be the one performing the inauguration ceremony.

[suburbanite]

Quebec exports about 26 Terawatt hours to the U.S. annually, and Massachusetts consumes about 55 Twh annually. A pretty decent chunk. Obviously the U.S. wouldn't put up with being held hostage for some unfavourable terms on this alone, but I also don't see what reason Quebec would have to be anything but accommodating and reasonable when dealing with them.

One hypothetical I've always pondered when it comes to independence is how the story of Bombardier may have played out differently or could play out in the future under an independent Quebec. Canada as a nation has invested considerable resources into its survival, dollar amounts that are contentious in our current state let alone in a newly created independent Quebec. I find it interesting because Bombardier and Quebec have always been one of our only significant sources of true value-add exports.

I know there's always vague notions of Quebec being resource rich and so they would ultimately be economically successful as an independent nation. That being said if you look at Quebec's exports, even including aircraft and aircraft parts, the largest exports are aluminum, iron ore, and light petroleum distillates. When it comes to resource economies, there's oil and gas, and then everything else. They are not massive job creators or fillers of government coffers. Iron and aluminum put you closer to Brazil than they do to Norway at the end of the day. Even if they were, is there unmet global demand that is going to incentivize Quebec to ramp up production? Production which is currently only being held back by being a part of Canada? Or is Quebec, as one of the more socially and environmentally conscious jurisdictions in Canada, going throw its morals out the window and start strip mining just to maintain its economic position as an independent country? There's often a lot of hand-waving away with just general statements about "ya but resources..." but I don't know how it fits into a realistic model of sovereign Quebec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I wonder if these agreements have a sovereignty provision?

As a test, do you recall whether in 1995, Ottawa was threatening to stop us from continuing to take Churchill Falls' power until 2041 in the event of independence? Canada would stop being both parties of this dispute and start to weigh in on one side only (and they wouldn't hesitate to fully side with NL then).

I seem to recall that there was lots of discussion around 1995 about this and that no longer applying because the conditions under which these things were agreed to were that Quebec was a Canadian province - though I doubt many if any agreements, accords or contracts stipulate that Quebec must remain a Canadian province in order for it to remain valid.

In the case of Churchill Falls, the agreement is with Hydro-Québec I think, so with a registered corporate entity and not the Government of Quebec. So sounds like it's on even more solid ground.

I also think that in terms of most contracts and such, even if some might try to contest things, the République du Québec would immediately pass a law that says that it is the successor entity to the (Canadian) Province of Quebec, and as such is bound by all of its contractual obligations.

I'd add that for matters like the national debt, it would probably not be to Canada-sans-Québec's advantage at all to contest the legitimacy of the République du Québec as the legal successor of the Province of Quebec.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess I could speculate about what could happen, be done or be envisaged, but regardless I'd simply say that more rumblings about the decline of French are definitely on the horizon, if one looks about what tons of people are saying anecdotally or even the hard stats which New Brisavoine and others are sharing on here.

I guess my (simplistic) take is that sovereignty wouldn't really HELP Quebec maintain/advance French anwhere outside of Quebec itself. (unless I'm reading C13 wrong). My (brief) read on it is that it tries to advance French in the ROC in places where it already exists, but separation would kybosh that, for sure.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

One way around this problem is that they can simply merge and take the name that wasn't the core city's (...like Hull did).

(Bonus: Moncton gets to increase its lead over Freddy and Saint-John.)

Otherwise, another elegant solution is Petitcodiac becomes Upper Petitcodiac and Moncton becomes Lower Petitcodiac

If the PQ ruled New Brunswick, Moncton would be merged with Dieppe, and the whole thing renamed "Dieppe".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Quebec exports about 26 Terawatt hours to the U.S. annually, and Massachusetts consumes about 55 Twh annually. A pretty decent chunk. Obviously the U.S. wouldn't put up with being held hostage for some unfavourable terms on this alone, but I also don't see what reason Quebec would have to be anything but accommodating and reasonable when dealing with them.

One hypothetical I've always pondered when it comes to independence is how the story of Bombardier may have played out differently or could play out in the future under an independent Quebec. Canada as a nation has invested considerable resources into its survival, dollar amounts that are contentious in our current state let alone in a newly created independent Quebec. I find it interesting because Bombardier and Quebec have always been one of our only significant sources of true value-add exports.

I know there's always vague notions of Quebec being resource rich and so they would ultimately be economically successful as an independent nation. That being said if you look at Quebec's exports, even including aircraft and aircraft parts, the largest exports are aluminum, iron ore, and light petroleum distillates. When it comes to resource economies, there's oil and gas, and then everything else. They are not massive job creators or fillers of government coffers. Iron and aluminum put you closer to Brazil than they do to Norway at the end of the day. Even if they were, is there unmet global demand that is going to incentivize Quebec to ramp up production? Production which is currently only being held back by being a part of Canada? Or is Quebec, as one of the more socially and environmentally conscious jurisdictions in Canada, going throw its morals out the window and start strip mining just to maintain its economic position as an independent country? There's often a lot of hand-waving away with just general statements about "ya but resources..." but I don't know how it fits into a realistic model of sovereign Quebec.

I think a better question is what areas of Quebec's economy might dry up or decline significantly if it were independent from Canada? I don't see much in most sectors that would change significantly.

Yes, Quebec would lose some head office jobs like Air Canada and CN but how many jobs are involved, really? Also, many if not most multinationals that serve Quebec from Toronto will set up "national" offices for Quebec in Montreal after independence. Or at least, there would be give and take on that front - why would we let the ACME Internationals of the world serve Quebec entirely from Mississauga if Saputo isn't allowed to sell cheese in Ontario any more?

One sector I can see taking a hit though is the dairy industry. Quebec is hugely over-represented in Canadian dairy and supplies much of the country with these products. There are something like 85,000 jobs involved in Quebec. Interestingly enough, independence has historically always been quite popular in rural areas of Quebec where the dairy industry has a good presence. (These regions tend to be very prosperous.) I never understood that, though maybe there is something these farmers know that I don't?

In any event, if Quebec dairy ever became verboten in the ROC, they ROCers probably need to make some pretty big adjustments with respect to capacity. Buying more from the US hasn't always been that great an option, due to concern about growth hormones and other stuff they have down there.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I guess my (simplistic) take is that sovereignty wouldn't really HELP Quebec maintain/advance French anwhere outside of Quebec itself. (unless I'm reading C13 wrong). My (brief) read on it is that it tries to advance French in the ROC in places where it already exists, but separation would kybosh that, for sure.

I think the Québec sovereignty movement has already given up on French outside of Québec. They are considered lost already. What they try to save is French inside Québec. This is basically the story of how the Québécois identity superseded and replaced the French Canadian identity in the 1960s-1970s.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I guess my (simplistic) take is that sovereignty wouldn't really HELP Quebec maintain/advance French anwhere outside of Quebec itself. (unless I'm reading C13 wrong). My (brief) read on it is that it tries to advance French in the ROC in places where it already exists, but separation would kybosh that, for sure.

The whole point of Quebec sovereignty is that it's about putting a barrier to protect the house before the fire that's consuming the barn burns down the house too.

Saving the "mother ship", so to speak.

Many (but not all) Quebec sovereignists think that francophone communities are going to be assimilated whether Quebec remains in Canada or not.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The whole point of Quebec sovereignty is that it's about putting a barrier to protect the house before the fire that's consuming the barn burns down the house too. Saving the "mother ship", so to speak.

Many (but not all) Quebec sovereignists think that francophone communities are going to be assimilated whether Quebec remains in Canada or not.

That last bit is probably likely, though it might take a long time. I'm going to guess the slide from French to English in those areas is more pronounced than in Quebec itself (where it's a TINY creep, if previous stats are to be believed).

In the end, it circles back to my initial query:

What does Quebec feel it needs to remain part of Canada? Does it know?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

That last bit is probably likely, though it might take a long time. I'm going to guess the slide from French to English in those areas is more pronounced than in Quebec itself (where it's a TINY creep, if previous stats are to be believed).

In the end, it circles back to my initial query:

What does Quebec feel it needs to remain part of Canada? Does it know?

I am not the foremost authority on this nor do I have any power, but my guess is that something resembling the Meech Lake accord would probably be it. Though times have changed a lot since then, so some of the details might be somewhat different.

But the spirit would be the same, and involve some type of interpretive clause in the constitution that would allow Quebec to do its own thing in certain key areas (for it).

This was of course extremely controversial during the Meech crisis of 1990, and likely wouldn't be any less controversial in 2023.

But you asked...

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not the foremost authority on this nor do I have any power, but my guess is that something resembling the Meech Lake accord would probably be it. Though times have changed a lot since then, so some of the details might be somewhat different.

I wonder of there would be less outright opposition now. As I understand it, some of the original "asks" were:

* Recognition as a "distinct society" - I mean... this is already kinda done with the "nation within a nation", no?
* Dropping the requirement for unanimity for constitutional changes - IE: if Quebec wants to ban religious symbols, it could do so regardless of what the ROC did (just an example)
* More provincial control over immigration - Again, does this really matter if Quebec wants MORE or LESS? If they want to vet immigrants for French-language proficiency, for example, who cares?
* Compensation for any Federal programs that a province opts out of - Since Quebec "does it's own thing" on many of these, it kinda might be moot. But I think this one would be the most prone to ... examination, as it could get legally mired at every turn and interpretation, I think.
* Sentators/Judges drawn from a pool instead of the PM - does anyone care?

I guess I don't really see any of these as contentious, but maybe I'm oversimplifying it. As long as the negotiations are in good faith and don't create any adverse affects for either side.
These may have been "absolute no!" back in '87 but are they really a "thing" now? It's not in Quebec's interest to make itself TOO difficult to deal with, whether it be part of Canada or not. It wouldn't make business sense.
But does anyone in RoC really care about linguistic requirements WITHIN Quebec or how it vets immigrants?

I ask all this from a relatively ignorant place, and one that generally just "wants everyone to get along". There have been a lot of people dying on a lot of hills that... may not matter anymore?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

One hypothetical I've always pondered when it comes to independence is how the story of Bombardier may have played out differently or could play out in the future under an independent Quebec. Canada as a nation has invested considerable resources into its survival, dollar amounts that are contentious in our current state let alone in a newly created independent Quebec. I find it interesting because Bombardier and Quebec have always been one of our only significant sources of true value-add exports.

I don't know why there's so much confidence from Quebec forumers about their economic security post-independence and their ability to negotiate with the Americans no less than five years since Bombardier Aerospace - their most valued exporter - was essentially gutted and sold for parts because Boeing sold the 737-700 at a loss and got the US International Trade Commission to slap 300% duties on the C-series, forcing the program to be sold to Airbus at fire sale prices.

I don't know about you, but I'm frankly really worried about the rest of Canada's ability to compete in the 21st century, and we have 6x the economy Quebec does and we're more integrated into the American supply chain. As the C-series showed us, with a lot of 21st century technologies, even a country the size of Canada can't go it alone. Countries of our size are either part of the EU with slightly more equal partners which gives them economic superpower status, have found a value-added niche like Taiwan and guard it with their life, or they have resources that nobody else does, which - as you point out - the ROC has (to some extent), but Quebec doesn't.

I know sovereignty isn't about economics, but it's foolish to ignore the economy. When you have a bad economy, people don't come and young people with options leave. You die a slow demographic death another way - possibly faster.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I know sovereignty isn't about economics, but it's foolish to ignore the economy. When you have a bad economy, people don't come and young people with options leave. You die a slow demographic death another way - possibly faster.

A lot of statistics that get published and shared here focus on changes in values in geographical areas but we don't see a lot of statistics that focus on the people. As an example of what I mean, for Quebec you could look at the % spoken by anybody living there or you could track individuals or families over time to see if their behaviour is changing. There is a difference between new communities growing and speaking English and Anglicization of a population that used to speak French. And then there's outmigration. As you suggest it wouldn't be much of a victory if Quebec were to separate and remain majority French but its demographics weakened considerably.

Around here and in other places I wonder how native-born younger Canadians are doing in terms of education, jobs, and getting onto the property ladder where they want to live. Anecdotally I see huge outmigration of locals paired with immigration. I don't think we can say Canada is doing well if large portions of the population are experiencing stagnant or declining living standards even if it averages out when you mix in a lot of immigrants. In particular there are a lot of immigrants in the younger cohorts.

[hipster duck]

I should add that I'm not anti-Quebec and I'm concerned about the loss of French in Quebec, even if I'm not from there. I actually find that I enjoy traveling to Quebec outside Montreal a little more, since English is not a presence and I enjoy speaking French, as bad as my French is. It feels like a totally different country in a way that Montreal does not, and I know that the feeling is mutual when (if?) Quebeckers from outside Montreal visited here.

Given that we live in different worlds, I'm not against sovereignty, per se, from a cultural standpoint. I actually thought that official bilingualism was a bit of a hamfisted approach that speaks more to the values of a mandarin class of bureaucrats rather than to Francophone Quebecois - and I think it's unfortunate that a lot of English Canada conflates bilingualism with Quebecois values.

I don't like sovereignty because it will result in the physical breakup of the country - particularly Atlantic Canada from the rest of English-speaking Canada - and because there will be economic fallout to the rest of us, even though we don't get to cast a vote in a referendum. I'm bringing up economic arguments not because I'm a homer that thinks Canada is so economically mighty, but because I think that Quebeckers on this thread are kind of cavalier about the economic side-effects of separating and this will embolden them to leave.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

Around here and in other places I wonder how native-born younger Canadians are doing in terms of education, jobs, and getting onto the property ladder where they want to live. Anecdotally I see huge outmigration of locals paired with immigration. I don't think we can say Canada is doing well if large portions of the population are experiencing stagnant or declining living standards even if it averages out when you mix in a lot of immigrants. In particular there are a lot of immigrants in the younger cohorts.

This is an interesting question, although unrelated to Quebec.

You may have observed this too, but in Vancouver (and Toronto to a lesser extent), a lot of "white old-stock" professional Canadians of millennial age or younger have married Canadian-born Chinese partners who, thanks to Chinese familial practices, help them get on the property ladder and build wealth. Right now, the "ruling class" in BC is mostly white boomers that aren't stepping out of the limelight, but in 30-50 years I think you'll see that the people who run things will be an ethnically unique group of mixed Chinese-Europeans. It's kind of like how British aristocrats married the daughters of American millionaires in the late 19th century to keep the music going for a few more decades amidst huge macroeconomic changes.

It's hard to make predictions, but I think that the Canada of the future will resemble Brazil, where you see the residue of a massive immigration program that dried up decades before, and where different social classes belong to different ethnic groups - but the people at the top will not be "white" as we would qualify white people today. But maybe they will become white as Italians and Irish people did in the US, and the goalposts of ethnicity will shift...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I should add that I'm not anti-Quebec and I'm concerned about the loss of French in Quebec, even if I'm not from there. I actually find that I enjoy traveling to Quebec outside Montreal a little more, since English is not a presence and I enjoy speaking French, as bad as my French is. It feels like a totally different country in a way that Montreal does not, and I know that the feeling is mutual when (if?) Quebeckers from outside Montreal visited here.

Given that we live in different worlds, I'm not against sovereignty, per se, from a cultural standpoint. I actually thought that official bilingualism was a bit of a hamfisted approach that speaks more to the values of a mandarin class of bureaucrats rather than to Francophone Quebecois - and I think it's unfortunate that a lot of English Canada conflates bilingualism with Quebecois values.

I don't like sovereignty because it will result in the physical breakup of the country - particularly Atlantic Canada from the rest of English-speaking Canada - and because there will be economic fallout to the rest of us, even though we don't get to cast a vote in a referendum. I'm bringing up economic arguments not because I'm a homer that thinks Canada is so economically mighty, but because I think that Quebeckers on this thread are kind of cavalier about the economic side-effects of separating and this will embolden them to leave.

I at least, have been bombarded all my life with messaging about how Quebec if it became independent would be relegated to near-Third World status. For quite some time, I was among those doing the bombarding with those ideas.

At some point though I started questioning that conventional wisdom.

I don't have a crystal ball, though I do think that Quebec would almost certainly be "OK". I know that differs from the prevailing majority view on here and in Canada as a whole (mostly made up of the ROC).

I actually pay attention to what all of the leaders say. It's not very common for PQ and BQ people to say that independence will make Quebecers richer than today - overnight or at any point in the future.

It's mostly about sinking or swimming on their own terms.

I would definitely agree with you guys that a country of 38 million is probably a better counterweight against the US than two countries of 30 million and 8 million. So yeah I am mostly on board for the "better together" argument, though how much of real, impactful difference that actually makes against such a behemoth... I dunno for sure.

While I doubt it would be better, it's within the possibility that it would be about the same. Canada as it is still gets screwed by the US fairly often, and Canada in its policies, practices and negotiation tactics sometimes throws the interests of certain regions of the country under the bus in order to protect those of others.

I also can't help but come back to the argument that the best possible economic (only) decision we could make for Canadians is still to join the United States, if they'd have us.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

This is an interesting question, although unrelated to Quebec.

You may have observed this too, but in Vancouver (and Toronto to a lesser extent), a lot of "white old-stock" professional Canadians of millennial age or younger have married Canadian-born Chinese partners who, thanks to Chinese familial practices, help them get on the property ladder and build wealth. Right now, the "ruling class" in BC is mostly white boomers that aren't stepping out of the limelight, but in 30-50 years I think you'll see that the people who run things will be an ethnically unique group of mixed Chinese-Europeans. It's kind of like how British aristocrats married the daughters of American millionaires in the late 19th century to keep the music going for a few more decades amidst huge macroeconomic changes.

It's hard to make predictions, but I think that the Canada of the future will resemble Brazil, where you see the residue of a massive immigration program that dried up decades before, and where different social classes belong to different ethnic groups - but the people at the top will not be "white" as we would qualify white people today. But maybe they will become white as Italians and Irish people did in the US, and the goalposts of ethnicity will shift...

Not saying you are wrong, but forgive for not being too enthusiastic about a future where social classes are even more associated with ethnicity. Regardless of whether white people are at the top of the heap or not.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not saying you are wrong, but forgive for not being too enthusiastic about a future where social classes are even more associated with ethnicity. Regardless of whether white people are at the top of the heap or not.

I'm not being enthusiastic. The Brazil-ification of Canada and a lot of the world frankly terrifies me.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I wonder of there would be less outright opposition now. As I understand it, some of the original "asks" were:

* Recognition as a "distinct society" - I mean... this is already kinda done with the "nation within a nation", no?
* Dropping the requirement for unanimity for constitutional changes - IE: if Quebec wants to ban religious symbols, it could do so regardless of what the ROC did (just an example)
* More provincial control over immigration - Again, does this really matter if Quebec wants MORE or LESS? If they want to vet immigrants for French-language proficiency, for example, who cares?
* Compensation for any Federal programs that a province opts out of - Since Quebec "does it's own thing" on many of these, it kinda might be moot. But I think this one would be the most prone to ... examination, as it could get legally mired at every turn and interpretation, I think.
* Sentators/Judges drawn from a pool instead of the PM - does anyone care?

I guess I don't really see any of these as contentious, but maybe I'm oversimplifying it. As long as the negotiations are in good faith and don't create any adverse affects for either side.
These may have been "absolute no!" back in '87 but are they really a "thing" now? It's not in Quebec's interest to make itself TOO difficult to deal with, whether it be part of Canada or not. It wouldn't make business sense.
But does anyone in RoC really care about linguistic requirements WITHIN Quebec or how it vets immigrants?

I ask all this from a relatively ignorant place, and one that generally just "wants everyone to get along". There have been a lot of people dying on a lot of hills that... may not matter anymore?

I guess you and I don't have the same reading of tea leaves.

What I see at the moment are two bills (21 - secularism, 95 - language) passed by a democratically-elected legislature in Quebec and supported by strong majorities within the population, being hotly contested by the ROC and also the ROC's allies within Quebec itself. There is also strong opposition to the use of the notwithstanding clause (s.33) of the Constitution that is a legitimate legal mechanism.

So Quebec is exercising its powers with the mechanisms already in place, and there is vocal and legal opposition to it doing so, even under the status quo.

Somehow I doubt that there is a level of trust and appetite in the ROC to let Quebec do its own thing even more with new powers, when lots of people probably think it should urgently be reined in as it stands now.