Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

I can't speak for the others, but I'm... semi-retired, let's call it that

Yeah, but still?

Originally Posted by lio45

The sample of Quebecois you find on this forum is skewed: we're more educated, more worldly, better-traveled, and more Anglophile in general (as New Brisavoine pointed out, we're posting in fluent English on an Anglo discussion forum).

The typical Quebecois is way less connected than us to life and culture in Anglo North America.

However, I am thinking that this would make you more of an activist, rather than just the average francophone in Quebec going about their own business, much like the average anglo living away from Quebec who is just living their life and not thinking about cultural ideals and existential threats.

Originally Posted by lio45

Not at all. Acajack was completely right when pointing out the difference between "liking you" and "wanting to become you".

Answer those sincerely, please:

Would you want Canada to merge with the USA?

Would you want Canada to merge with Mexico?

Would you want Canada to merge with the UK?

...

"Huh, so it turns out OldDartmouthMark hates Americans."

"Huh, so it turns out OldDartmouthMark hates Mexicans."

"Huh, so it turns out OldDartmouthMark hates the British."


... you agree with those conclusions, or not? I think you see our point

That's not what I was talking about, but okay.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is Quebec asking for people in the ROC to try and learn about the Québécois perspective, or simply demanding that ROCers do an MYOB?

It's more the latter 99% of the time in my observation.

Okay, but from your posts you seem to be expecting more of the former than the latter.

I think most people in Canada do the latter. The news media is guilty of bringing the more contentious stuff to the forefront, thereby making it fodder for national debate, but for all the other stuff I stand by my statement.

Originally Posted by Nashe

I find there is a general sentiment today (and it's not new) that "I'm unable to be happy until everyone else is as unhappy as I am" Someone asking for something that would empower them is automatically regarded with suspicion by others because that MUST mean they are "losing", in turn.

In reality, we have a lot to be thankful for and should be happy we can squabble over such things.

Good perspective.

Originally Posted by lio45

It's literally the other way around: in Quebec, there's a general expectation that people in other provinces would please-pretty-please NOT devote a great portion of their energy to trying to interfere with what Quebec is doing in its own internal affairs.

Exactly.

We don't ask you to understand us, we just ask you to not spend your municipal tax dollars trying to fight what Quebec democratically decides to do within Quebec. If you really have so much extra money that you don't know what to do with it, send it to Ukraine instead.

If the ROC could actually stop paying so much attention to Quebec, this would do wonders for strengthening federalism.

My above posts already say what I want to say in reply to this.

Originally Posted by Nashe

To be fair, the term is quite dismissive. Very "you people".

Yeah, there's that, but for me it is more about the assumption that everywhere outside of Quebec is some homogeneous anglosphere that is basically some sort of dumbed-down Americana. Of course Ackajack realizes this, and it's why he likes to use it.

That's also why I say that my "ROC" includes Quebec...

Originally Posted by Acajack

You do hear that in Quebec sometimes, though in my experience when it's used it's even less nice than "ROC". ROC is not really used in a mean way, though I won't deny it is dismissive in addition to being a verbal "division" (demarcation).

That's my second point (and perhaps the reason I'm posting in this thread at all these days). It's all about the divide. Let's amplify our differences rather than appreciate them.

But... whatever. It does lead to interesting conversation I suppose. After awhile one becomes desensitized to the comments that are meant to inflame, which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Loco101

I haven't really seen much evidence of woke-ish millennials and Gen Z people outside Quebec in Canada seeing Quebec as being wrong and evil on the things you mentioned. I have definitely seen it in the media but not really in society.

I think media attention is being confused for personal opinion in much of these posts, TBH.

[Acajack]

We can all have our own ROCs (SignalHillHiker uses the term to refer to the Mainland sometimes) and we can all be someone else's ROCer.

(Stolen from: "On est tous l'Indien de quelqu'un".)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Last edited by JHikka; Today at 11:37 AM. Reason: sept(?)tuple post

So you deleted most of my posts, which were answers to other posters who had quoted me (I was catching up on numerous posts that I hadn't looked at in a couple of days)? WTF?

Anyhow, I'm done here. What a waste of time.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So you deleted most of my posts, which were answers to other posters who had quoted me (I was catching up on numerous posts that I hadn't looked at in a couple of days)? WTF?

Anyhow, I'm done here. What a waste of time.

Nothing was deleted. They were all merged into the same post.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think it's reasonable for the feds to challenge the bill based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

That's actually totally unreasonable, given that the Charter is crystal clear about which sections are subject to the NWC.

It would be like the Feds using our taxpayer money to challenge Nova Scotia's right to set its own speed limits on provincial highways in court, because the Feds have decided everything should be capped at 50 km/h in that province for some reason.

They'd lose, and the whole thing would be nothing but a predictable waste of money/time/energy (i.e. "unreasonable").

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So you deleted most of my posts, which were answers to other posters who had quoted me (I was catching up on numerous posts that I hadn't looked at in a couple of days)? WTF?

Anyhow, I'm done here. What a waste of time.

JHikka likes to merge people's posts when they make several separate posts in a row.

He does it to Acajack pretty often. (Maybe JHikka is taking bribes from Coldrsx who wants to stay #1 )

If you pay attention, you'll notice that all your content is still there.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Nothing was deleted. They were all merged into the same post.

Oops... ha ha. I should have looked more carefully.

My apologies.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

JHikka likes to merge people's posts when they make several separate posts in a row.

He does it to Acajack pretty often. (Maybe JHikka is taking bribes from Coldrsx who wants to stay #1 )

If you pay attention, you'll notice that all your content is still there.

Hey, give me a break... it's the first time it happened to me.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's actually totally unreasonable, given that the Charter is crystal clear about which sections are subject to the NWC.

It would be like the Feds using our taxpayer money to challenge Nova Scotia's right to set its own speed limits on provincial highways in court, because the Feds have decided everything should be capped at 50 km/h in that province for some reason.

They'd lose, and the whole thing would be nothing but a predictable waste of money/time/energy (i.e. "unreasonable").

Regardless, entities like the Supreme Court of Canada are supposed to tackle contentious issues like this. We can disagree about whether it's reasonable or not, but I think this is a good issue to put through the legal test. Many Quebecois would undoubtedly consider this meddling, but it's exactly how the country should function (and probably why some Quebecois would want to separate from Canada).

And completely utterly different than a random speed limit cap, FWIW. Apples and elephants.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, I am thinking that this would make you more of an activist, rather than just the average francophone in Quebec going about their own business, much like the average anglo living away from Quebec who is just living their life and not thinking about cultural ideals and existential threats.

Fair point, if your particular definition of an activist is essentially "someone who cares at least a little bit", by contrast with "someone who doesn't care at all".

You're correct that I would share this trait (caring about the stuff) with an actual activist, while plenty of regular people don't, so in that sense, I could be lumped with activists (rather than with non-activists) if it's a binary question.

However, there are traits that actual activists have, that I don't share, and I would say IMO those are essential to the concept: I'm not very "active" on this subject, if at all.

For an example, it's well documented on this forum that I'm not a fan of extracting and burning tarsands oil for energy, because it's damaging to the planet (and IMO not essential), but I would never consider myself an actual "anti-oil activist", because I've never taken part in any "action" about it, and I don't care THAT much (I'll personally work on reducing my oil consumption, but I won't bother to travel to Western Canada to sabotage pipeline-building machinery).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

Fair point, if your particular definition of an activist is essentially "someone who cares at least a little bit", by contrast with "someone who doesn't care at all".

You're correct that I would share this trait (caring about the stuff) with an actual activist, while plenty of regular people don't, so in that sense, I could be lumped with activists (rather than with non-activists) if it's a binary question.

However, there are traits that actual activists have, that I don't share, and I would say IMO those are essential to the concept: I'm not very "active" on this subject, if at all.

For an example, it's well documented on this forum that I'm not a fan of extracting and burning tarsands oil for energy, because it's damaging to the planet (and IMO not essential), but I would never consider myself an actual "anti-oil activist", because I've never taken part in any "action" about it, and I don't care THAT much.

I am saying that the views you express regarding Quebec seem to more align with what could be considered 'activist' views than the 'average guy who has an opinion'. i.e. On this forum I would consider you very much to be active in pushing certain views, even if you aren't marching on the street with a sign.

That said, it's starting to stray from the original point of the remark and into the realm of possibility that it will take off into some rabbithole style tangent. No point in going there as it was a relatively unimportant comment. IMHO.

[someone123]

The thing I can't get past is how minor these complaints are.

One is apparently that the federal government is wasting its time on a court challenge it is guaranteed to lose, the wider context there being that if you believe that you believe that the (unusually permissive) Charter allows the Quebec provincial government to have its way in this legal domain, case closed.

Another complaint was that Canadians outside of Quebec backed the court challenge financially which turned out not to be true in at least one case, and likely had no impact anyway since the federal government is behind the doomed court challenge and has ample resources to fund whatever its lawyers will do. Somebody needs to make one of those Hitler bunker videos where François Legault receives a mildly disapproving letter from the Halifax city council.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But this is how many such contracts work....

This is among my souvenirs, a thorn indeed, which needs to be trotted out for inspection every now and then. That being said, Legault is showing some almost non-reptilian humanity, but I doubt it will materialize in a big way, since there is plenty of reptilian wiggle room. It won't be anything significant, that is unless they are caught over a barrel of maple syrup, so to speak. I actually don't even dislike Legault, but largesse is no longer a French word, or so they say. Let them eat gâteau eh?

Ahead of energy talks, Quebec premier says open to paying N.L. more for electricity

Under the agreement, Hydro-Quebec pays a fixed price of 0.2 cents per kilowatt hour for Churchill Falls power. By comparison, the utility made an average of 8.2 cents per kilowatt hour on power it sold outside the province in 2022, according to a Hydro-Quebec news release on Wednesday.

As of 2019, the deal has yielded close to $28 billion in profits to Quebec, and about $2 billion for Newfoundland and Labrador.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9503207/newfo...ommends-new-churchill-falls-deal-quebec/

If you do the math, that's about 41 X the cost, which Quebec makes in profit. Lots of goodwill between provinces, exploitative or predatory are better words perhaps, n'est-ce pas huh?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by someone123

The thing I can't get past is how minor these complaints are.

One is apparently that the federal government is wasting its time on a court challenge it is guaranteed to lose, the wider context there being that if you believe that you believe that the (unusually permissive) Charter allows the Quebec provincial government to have its way in this legal domain, case closed.

Another complaint was that Canadians outside of Quebec backed the court challenge financially which turned out not to be true in at least one case, and likely had no impact anyway since the federal government is behind the doomed court challenge and has ample resources to fund whatever its lawyers will do. Somebody needs to make one of those Hitler bunker videos where François Legault receives a mildly disapproving letter from the Halifax city council.

When did the federal government join the court challenge? (Am I really paying that little attention?)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

When did the federal government join the court challenge? (Am I really paying that little attention?)

They may not have officially but said they would if it got the SCC.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They may not have officially but said they would if it got the SCC.

Yes.

[TheBend]

Hi people!

I have talked with my dad and he is an Anglophone and he find the history of the name of city of Moncton is highly controversial and it causes too many debates toward the Acadians. It's an remain of the name from the general Monckton. The story is disturbing and very sensible toward the Acadians. In 1755 to 1763 Monckton did massacred and deported of thousands of Acadians to others countries or sadly they are missing and never found due of famine and diseases. But others, they did survived with the help of the natives and they were very friendly. Nobody does honor an name from an murderer. Would somebody name a city from Justin Bourque? No way. You need to name an peaceful, stable city name who it makes sense, true? The name of the city of Moncton should be changed to an neutral name: Codiac. It cause far less debate and it should end too many debates and it can give people an chance for peace and united for forever. If anybody have some questions or thoughts everybody is welcome

[TheBend]

Hi people!

I have talked with my dad and he is an Anglophone and he find the history of the name of city of Moncton is highly controversial and it causes too many debates toward the Acadians. It's an remain of the name from the general Monckton. The story is disturbing and very sensible toward the Acadians. In 1755 to 1763 Monckton did massacred and deported of thousands of Acadians to others countries or sadly they are missing and never found due of famine and diseases. But others, they did survived with the help of the natives and they were very friendly. Nobody does honor an name from an murderer. Would somebody name a city from Justin Bourque? No way. You need to name an peaceful, stable city name who it makes sense, true? The name of the city of Moncton should be changed to an neutral name: Codiac. It cause far less debate and it should end too many debates and it can give people an chance for peace and united for forever. If anybody have some questions or thoughts everybody is welcome

[Hali87]

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.

As far as I know, this is just a motion put forward by 1 of 16 council members (maybe out of principle, or maybe just "throwing things at the wall" for political points, enough of his constituents seemed to support this on Twitter, etc). I haven't heard anything about this "passing" and definitely haven't heard anything about the City adopting this as an official position or putting money towards "Fighting Quebec's Bill 21".

Also, it's not a Motion to Oppose Quebec's Bill 21 (etc), it's a motion to request a staff report on the implications of opposing Quebec's Bill 21 (etc). While I get the point that in many (nearly all?) cases, this is a formality where there is "one acceptable conclusion" and any staff who came to any other conclusion would lose their jobs for "being Islamophobic" - ergo, a motion to request a staff report of this nature is effectively the same as requesting that it formally be opposed - Halifax is a bit more of a wild card in this way than say, Brampton or Saskatoon, and I would not be surprised if a motion to make "opposition to Quebec Bill 21" an official position fails to pass here.

(Detailed reports explaining to Council that their ideas are stupid wastes of money, and recommending that they don't go through with whatever they'd been considering, are in many ways a local specialty - and for example are the main reason why we don't have rail transit, a CFL team or CFL-spec stadium, didn't host the Commonwealth Games, and don't have enough housing)

I'll admit that I haven't been following Halifax council position re: Quebec Bill 21 very closely, but to the extent that I do follow municipal politics, it does not really seem to be on the radar very much; compared to the real, ongoing crises directly affecting NS, it would seem frivolous to most for council and staff to be redirecting valuable time and resources towards deciding whether or not to officially scold Quebec for shooting themselves in the foot (Bill 21 is limiting to Quebec's own residents, civil service, and public image/reputation, not NS's). I think that most of council / the public accept that this would be virtue signaling in its purest sense (we would be spending significant time and money on something that inherently changes nothing in Halifax, and in all imaginable circumstances, also changes nothing anywhere else, including Quebec).

So while it's very clear that HRM/NS is not going to do something like Bill 21 themselves*, hand-wringing over whatever draconian inconveniences Quebec wants to impose on its own residents this time is not very high on the list of urgent concerns for most people here. With one caveat being that HRM/NS is likely the most "secular" part of the country, not in the deliberate, Quebec sense, but in the sense that religion is just something that most people are kind of indifferent about, and where religion (and even freedom of religion) simply is not a talking point in local politics or public discourse most of the time. It also seems to have the lowest rates of religious extremism/fundamentalism in Canada (possibly all of North America, as far south as Panama). The only regions I could see being "even more like this" are in the Far North - I'm thinking possibly the Territories and/or Greenland, but probably not Alaska.



*if anything, issuing an official statement declaring exactly that, and then moving on, seems like it would be the most effective approach for most jurisdictions, including HRM/NS.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

With one caveat being that HRM/NS is likely the most "secular" part of the country, not in the deliberate, Quebec sense, but in the sense that religion is just something that most people are kind of indifferent about, and where religion (and even freedom of religion) simply is not a talking point in local politics or public discourse most of the time. It also seems to have the lowest rates of religious extremism/fundamentalism in Canada (possibly all of North America, as far south as Panama).

This is part of what rubs me the wrong way sometimes about these debates. In one standard presentation, the "ROC" is a blob and it is populated by a species of quasi-American who get easily triggered by Quebec. But the regions vary a lot, they have their own motivations, and Quebec's internal rules are very far down the list of their priorities.

Your secularism point is correct and has been true for 250 years or so (you always have to adjust for contemporary norms going back in time). It means that from the local perspective there, Bill 21 is a very strange law even without looking at any modern hot button politics. But most Canadians are completely ignorant of this (and will post Stats Can statistics about the % who say they are Anglican or whatever). That is fine but it means that local politics won't necessarily be very legible to you if you live outside of the region.