Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

When I meet Swiss, I always assume they are something else, same with Belgians.

I also have a lot of trouble distinguishing Swiss francophones (the ones I'd bump into most often) from people from France. Though I'd argue that Swiss culture and icons are way more well known and intuitive than Canadian ones, and interestingly seem to be more shared across the country, across the language divided.

Finally, individual Canadians definitely aren't any more identifiable with their nationality to people worldwide than the Swiss are.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

I've Always felt that Canada is inclusive of Quebec, look at our food labels. Do they do that in Switzerland?

Not sure if food labels are highly definitive proof that Canada is inclusive of Quebec (or francophones?), but yeah they are bilingual by law in Canada if products are sold across a provincial border.

Switzerland has multilingual product labelling of course, and a lot of stuff you buy in Europe can have a half-dozen or even a dozen languages on the label.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

As an actual geographical neighbour of Quebec, Atlantic Canada has been pretty badly screwed over on multiple occasions. Quebec has aggressively done things like try to buy out NB Power to block land routes to New England for Newfoundland power. And let's be honest, there's no chance that Quebec would allow things like pipelines to NB even if NB wanted them. There is a power imbalance with NB and NL being much smaller neighbours to Quebec and the amount of magnanimity from Quebec is basically 0. Have they finished twinning that one part of the Trans-Canada around Rivière-du-Loup yet?

I think there is a bit of cognitive dissonance around how great it would be for Quebec to operate on the world stage and who treats whom well or badly.

There is some truth in this but Quebec can't wage the fight for Atlantic Canada on Atlantic Canada's behalf. Everyone is looking out for their own interests.

As for the NB Power acquisition by Hydro-Québec, was it really cancelled because it was a bad deal for NB, or for political reasons?

My relatives in NB (who aren't simply Québécois who moved to NB) thought it was a good deal for NB and shook their heads when it was scrapped.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is some truth in this but Quebec can't wage the fight for Atlantic Canada on Atlantic Canada's behalf. Everyone is looking out for their own interests.

I don't think this is a good way to look at the situation. Neighbourly relations are important and can be cultivated or torpedoed by good or bad actions. It's true that they aren't the only concern but good governance always involves managing many trade-offs. There are a lot of interprovincial issues that could be improved on in Canada and have a practical impact on people's lives.

But the dissonance I saw was between the idea that Quebec is alone in Canada but has some great affinity with France that will manifest itself in some concrete way in the glorious post-Canada era. It is fine to say it is a "dog eat dog" world and everybody looks out for their own interests but this is what everybody was saying earlier about Quebec getting bad trade deals with the US or EU and so on. France doesn't even control a lot of its own foreign or economic policy. It's not that far off from where Quebec is right now within Canada. For example, they have freedom of movement with other EU member states and a shared currency.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think the more appropriate question is whether Doug Ford could be mistaken for a dude who owns an auto dealership in somewhere like Indianapolis.

It's probably easy for us to distinguish with that accent eh? Three hundred years of cultural evolution creates a bit of difference from Europe, but it's much harder to distinguish yourself from your closest neighbours who's cultures have intertwined and evolved contemporaneously, just like the Swiss & Belgians. I've had New Brunswicker and Ontarian friends who could pass for Québécois, and I even have a hard time distinguishing Nova Scotians from Nflders. sometimes. This should not necessarily be considered a flaw or shortcoming.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is definitely a "missing term" in Canada but finding a good one to replace the ROC is quite elusive. (And of course, using "Quebec" for "francophone Canada" is not ideal either.)

This one doesn't cut it anymore, I suppose: https://www.amazon.ca/Thinking-English-Canada-Philip-Resnick/dp/0773757643

....?

Too easy - “Canada” or “Canada, excluding Quebec”.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think this is a good way to look at the situation. Neighbourly relations are important and can be cultivated or torpedoed by good or bad actions. It's true that they aren't the only concern but good governance always involves managing many trade-offs. There are a lot of interprovincial issues that could be improved on in Canada and have a practical impact on people's lives.

But the dissonance I saw was between the idea that Quebec is alone in Canada but has some great affinity with France that will manifest itself in some concrete way in the glorious post-Canada era. It is fine to say it is a "dog eat dog" world and everybody looks out for their own interests but this is what everybody was saying earlier about Quebec getting bad trade deals with the US or EU and so on. France doesn't even control a lot of its own foreign or economic policy. It's not that far off from where Quebec is right now within Canada. For example, they have freedom of movement with other EU member states and a shared currency.

I think it's a misread to think that an independent Quebec would fall into the arms of France and that somehow this is a big part of the plan. Yes, I suppose that France would be expected to be an important ally, but as in all such discussions the likely reality lies somewhere in between "France will take Quebec fully under its wing" and "France will want nothing to do with Quebec because they're hillbillies, or because of... Corsica".

Also, France has shared currency and open borders with the EU because they freely decided to opt for those things.

An independent Quebec would likely be as close or closer to the US than France, at least in certain respects. (For obvious reasons, no?)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think this is a good way to look at the situation. Neighbourly relations are important and can be cultivated or torpedoed by good or bad actions. It's true that they aren't the only concern but good governance always involves managing many trade-offs. There are a lot of interprovincial issues that could be improved on in Canada and have a practical impact on people's lives.
.

I know you're not necessarily saying this but a lot of these discussions give off the impression that Quebec is absolutely atrocious and evil in its relations with its neighbours.

There are good and bad sides in any bilateral relationships.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

It's probably easy for us to distinguish with that accent eh? Three hundred years of cultural evolution creates a bit of difference from Europe, but it's much harder to distinguish yourself from your closest neighbours who's cultures have intertwined and evolved contemporaneously, just like the Swiss & Belgians. I've had New Brunswicker and Ontarian friends who could pass for Québécois, and I even have a hard time distinguishing Nova Scotians from Nflders. sometimes. This should not necessarily be considered a flaw or shortcoming.

Not saying it's a flaw or shortcoming. It's just reality.

Yes, quite a few francophones from New Brunswick or Ontario can pass for Québécois.

(I am arguably one of them, though I've lived in Quebec for a long time.)

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not saying it's a flaw or shortcoming. It's just reality.

Yes, quite a few francophones from New Brunswick or Ontario can pass for Québécois.

(I am arguably one of them, though I've lived in Quebec for a long time.)

I think it is misrepresented as a shortcoming all the time. For me to distinguish between Australians and Kiwis is a bit of a task, but not for them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Architype

It's probably easy for us to distinguish with that accent eh? Three hundred years of cultural evolution creates a bit of difference from Europe, but it's much harder to distinguish yourself from your closest neighbours who's cultures have intertwined and evolved contemporaneously, just like the Swiss & Belgians. I've had New Brunswicker and Ontarian friends who could pass for Québécois. I even have a hard time distinguishing Nova Scotians from Nflders. sometimes. This should not necessarily be considered a flaw or shortcoming.

I'm not sure I agree with the Swiss-Canadian thing. It depends on the context. A lot of Americans cannot find Switzerland on a map and there's no way they would be able to pick out Swiss from French based on their accent or appearance. Some Americans might not even go much past "European" and in other parts of the world you might get "white" or "Western".

Then on the other side Americans often pick out Canadians more than Canadians think. Doug Ford would sound like he has a stereotypical oot and aboot accent to a lot of Americans. Non-native speakers would not be able to tell the difference but that's comparable to Switzerland vs. France. And a lot of Atlantic accents are quite different.

That being said, the accents are much less important than the totality of the underlying culture and values. Language is a part of culture but not all of it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know you're not necessarily saying this but a lot of these discussions give off the impression that Quebec is absolutely atrocious and evil in its relations with its neighbours.

There are good and bad sides in any bilateral relationships.

It's not atrocious but it can be very inward looking (even Francophones elsewhere in Canada complain about that) and kind of silly as far as discounting relations with neighbours while focusing too much on language as the deciding factor in who to pay attention to. On most issues, there's very little daylight between Quebec and Ontario or the Maritimes, and Quebec is not an outlier in the overall North American context (Alberta can be more of an outlier in Canada depending on issue).

It hits ridiculous levels with people in Quebec for example demanding that they get 98% of the north around them instead of 85% (or whatever) in Labrador. It's very uncool but Quebec's ability to get along with Ontario, New Brunswick, or New Hampshire is going to have more impact on the population there than relations with France. To me these politics have the feel of flawed democracies, like what you see happening in Hungary or Turkey, and I think there is a risk that would be the future of an independent Quebec. I think any Canadian province, as a sovereign entity, would be less politically stable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure I agree with the Swiss-Canadian thing. It depends on the context. A lot of Americans cannot find Switzerland on a map and there's no way they would be able to pick out Swiss from French based on their accent or appearance. Some Americans might not even go much past "European" and in other parts of the world you might get "white" or "Western".

Then on the other side Americans often pick out Canadians more than Canadians think. Doug Ford would sound like he has a stereotypical oot and aboot accent to a lot of Americans. Non-native speakers would not be able to tell the difference but that's comparable to Switzerland vs. France. And a lot of Atlantic accents are quite different.

That being said, the accents are much less important than the totality of the underlying culture and values. Language is a part of culture but not all of it.

I'd agree that Americans are often better at identifying a Canadian accent than is generally recognized. I find other anglosphere types like Brits and Aussies can be quite clueless though, unless they have more direct experience with Canadians.

And yes, second-language English speakers around the world (including Québécois) often can't distinguish CanadiAns apart from Americans. Those who are a bit better often lump English speakers into two groups: a "Britishphere" and an "Americanosphere", with Canadians part of the latter.

I remember when I was younger a Franco-Ontarian friend of mine (who spoke really good second language English) had an Australian girlfriend, and he'd say of her and her family: "Ils parlent comme des British".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's not atrocious but it can be very inward looking (even Francophones elsewhere in Canada complain about that) and kind of silly as far as discounting relations with neighbours while focusing too much on language as the deciding factor in who to pay attention to. On most issues, there's very little daylight between Quebec and Ontario or the Maritimes, and Quebec is not an outlier in the overall North American context (Alberta can be more of an outlier in Canada depending on issue).

It hits ridiculous levels with people in Quebec for example demanding that they get 98% of the north around them instead of 85% (or whatever) in Labrador. It's very uncool but Quebec's ability to get along with Ontario, New Brunswick, or New Hampshire is going to have more impact on the population there than relations with France. To me these politics have the feel of flawed democracies, like what you see happening in Hungary or Turkey, and I think there is a risk that would be the future of an independent Quebec. I think any Canadian province, as a sovereign entity, would be less politically stable.

And I see a teeny tiny risk that with all the constant rhetoric in the ROC deploring this and that going on in Quebec, that Canada (with or without Quebec still within it) might one day act forcefully to wrest away democratic control of its affairs from the province's majority population, to save anglophones and other minorities in Quebec from unbearable tyranny.

They might even come with vehicles that have Zs painted on them.

So I guess we're even in terms of "risks"!

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know you're not necessarily saying this but a lot of these discussions give off the impression that Quebec is absolutely atrocious and evil in its relations with its neighbours.

There are good and bad sides in any bilateral relationships.

Reasonable people don't really think this, but it's partially that unrecognised boundary thing, a small thorn in the sides of those involved. Is it just because of that, that Quebec has perpetually refused any cooperation in the sale of Labrador power exports, dating back to the 70s, not to mention being ideologically aversed to any pipelines required for the economic benefit of the country and the world beyond? Cooperation is the key to success.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

The problem I've always detected with the term is that it lumps the ROC together, ignorant of any differences within the group, a foregone assumption of homogeneity, so it's a crude form of color blindness.

Every society or territory has diversity within it, especially if it's geographically large.

It's almost 2000 km between La Sarre and Natashquan. The Abitibi where La Sarre is located isn't that different from a place like Kenora ON or Prince George BC. Natashquan is more like a Newfoundland fishing village. But no one would dispute that La Sarre and Natashquan share a lot in common in terms of Québécois culture.

And no one in Quebec would suggest that. People refer to the ROC (or Anglo-Canada) as a sociological entity because that's what it feels like. None of that takes away from the diversity within it.

French Canada also has diversity "peculiarities" outside Quebec, what with the francophone communities in all of the provinces. We even have a few things in common with Franco-Americans in the NE US, and Cajuns down in Louisiana.

Just because Quebec and French Canada are fully conscious of their collective existence, doesn't mean that there isn't a considerable amount of diversity within these larger entities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

Reasonable people don't really think this, but it's partially that unrecognised boundary thing, a small thorn in the sides of those involved. Is it just because of that, that Quebec has perpetually refused any cooperation in the sale of Labrador power exports, dating back to the 70s, not to mention being ideologically aversed to any pipelines required for the economic benefit of the country and the world beyond? Cooperation is the key to success.

Another perspective is that Newfoundlanders couldn't get their shit together in order to get Churchill Falls done, and Quebec had to step in to get it done in addition to assuming all the risks, and now Newfoundland is whining about a totally legal and legitimate contract that they signed of their own free will.

Thankfully for Newfoundland it looks like François Legault is the first Quebec Premier in living memory who doesn't really share the above view. So I guess we'll see.

As for pipelines, I guess one day we'll see if Quebec was on the right side of history. There are opportunities for oil development in Quebec that would bring in $ but our government is reluctant to proceed, for the same reasons they opposed the pipeline.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another perspective is that Newfoundlanders couldn't get their shit together in order to get Churchill Falls done, and Quebec had to step in to get it done in addition to assuming all the risks, and now Newfoundland is whining about a totally legal and legitimate contract that they signed of their own free will.

Thankfully for Newfoundland it looks like François Legault is the first Quebec Premier in living memory who doesn't really share the above view. So I guess we'll see.

As for pipelines, I guess one day we'll see if Quebec was on the right side of history. There are opportunities for oil development in Quebec that would bring in $ but our government is reluctant to proceed, for the same reasons they opposed the pipeline.

The Labrador power projects needed outside backers and expertise to proceed. It wasn't supposed to turn out the way it did, but things changed in the process. So, they almost diabolically and punitively took advantage of the situation instead of showing some good will. I am not well apprised of the Quebec oil situation, it sounds unfair, but it's probably similar to the West Coast.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

The Labrador power projects needed outside backers and expertise to proceed. It wasn't supposed to turn out the way it did, but things changed in the process. So, they almost diabolically and punitively took advantage of the situation instead of showing some good will..

But this is how many such contracts work. The party that takes on the risk gets a big payoff if things work out, but they take a bath and need to clean up the mess if they don't.

At that time, Hydro-Québec becoming this huge supplier to the US NE could have been just a pipe dream, and all of those states could have found other sources of energy in their own borders, and the electricity from Churchill Falls could have had no takers.

I have no idea if the 0.2 cents per kwh in the Churchill Falls deal reflects the going rate for hydroelectricity in 1969, but I did find that in 1978 Quebec began selling electricity to New York State in a straight no-risk sale agreement for 0.8 cents per kwh.

So it's not as if the rate in the 1969 deal is that out of whack, when you consider all of the complexities and considerations.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Meanwhile, in the ROC...

https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/220111rc1582.pdf

I actually don't know if Halifax ended up putting the money forward, but tons of other Canadian municipalities did.

They didn't, and I think it was the right decision. I don't want my tax dollars going towards fighting a bill in another province that doesn't affect my province.

But Mayor Mike Savage argued against sending funds, noting that Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante, who is opposed to the bill, has raised concerns about cities using taxpayer dollars to fight laws in other provinces.

"I think it should be challenged by the government of Canada — that's who needs to fight this," said Savage.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...st-quebec-religious-symbol-ban-1.6311565

I think it's reasonable for the feds to challenge the bill based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I think municipalities in other provinces should stay out of it. This is an example of overreach, IMHO.

All that said, this still isn't an example of what the hypothetical Eastern Passage beer drinker thinks about what is happening in Quebec. It's an example of a councillor seeing what is in the news and wanting to become involved with a woke/progressive fight that doesn't really involve what his job should be focusing on.