Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

If we're going to assume that the decline of minority languages is political priority #1 and is addressed primarily by carving up any political entity but Quebec, shouldn't we jump to the conclusion that France should be carved up along with other European countries like Spain and Belgium?

Your childish reaction shows you already consider Québec as a foreign country somehow. If you can't see the difference between creating a new province inside Canada, and carving out bits of independent countries, then what does it say about Canada exactly?

In India new states are routinely created based on linguistic minorities, and it's a non issue over there really. For example Hindi-speaking Haryana separated from Punjabi-speaking Punjab. In Switzerland the French-speaking canton of Jura was created out of the German-speaking canton of Bern (and recently again the French-speaking Bernese city of Moutier voted to leave the canton of Bern and join the canton of Jura, which the authorities of Bern, in a very adult and statesmanly way, said they wouldn't oppose).

The fact that a linguistically different people with such a strong identity as the Acadiens to this day don't have a province of their own in Canada, and that the mere mention of the creation of a province of Acadie triggers aggressive responses, says much about the English domination in Canada really.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

That's as long as the CAQ remains a big party sitting on the fence. As soon as the CAQ implodes (or opts for secession from Canada), then PLQ should rise again I assume.

Sure, but that's like saying "if the parties of Macron and Le Pen and Zemmour all moved to the most extreme left for some reason, then Mélenchon would get elected Président de la République in a landslide next election as the most centrist and reasonable option".

It's basically a truism.

[New Brisavoine]

CAQ won't remain the biggest party forever. At some point either corruption or infighting will kick in. Perhaps a weakened party due to corruption scandals will see one aisle of the CAQ pushing for a more sovereignist agenda (say, after Canada's Supreme Court strikes down this or that very important law for Québec, or after the 2026 census shows an even more pronounced decline of the French language in Québec eliciting alarmed articles in the press), perhaps this will lead to an explosion of the CAQ, with the pro-sovereignists seceding and allying with PQ. Who knows. Lots of things can happen.

There are certainly more chances to see this happen than to see Zemmour or Macron becoming extreme-left. One simply cannot happen, as it is opposed to their very identity. Whereas neither corruption nor sovereignism is something outlandish for CAQ.

In such circumstances, surely the PLQ would rise again (unless a new pro-federation party supersedes them).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Your childish reaction shows you already consider Québec as a foreign country somehow. If you can't see the difference between creating a new province inside Canada, and carving out bits of independent countries, then what does it say about Canada exactly?

I'm just a person posting on the internet. I don't speak for Canada and you can't necessarily infer a lot from my opinions. You're wildly extrapolating if you go from what I post to some kind of conclusion about Anglo imperialism or whatever.

The fact that a linguistically different people with such a strong identity as the Acadiens to this day don't have a province of their own in Canada, and that the mere mention of the creation of a province of Acadie triggers aggressive responses, says much about the English domination in Canada really.

Maybe it depends on other factors too like historical boundaries, economics, and the specific nature of federalism in Canada (provinces being relatively "heavyweight" political structures here). I'm not sure Acadian separation is major political issue, and a lot of those regions have significant economic and demographic issues that wouldn't necessarily be helped by carving up NB. Furthermore I believe NB has a very linguistically mixed population outside of a few quite small regions. Moncton isn't a majority Francophone city, for example, and the Acadian Peninsula or area around Edmundston and so on are not very developed. It's possible that Acadians would actually have worse institutions as separate province than what they have now. IMO the Maritime provinces already have problems related to being too small and rural.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Maybe it depends on other factors too like historical boundaries, economics, and the specific nature of federalism in Canada (provinces being relatively "heavyweight" political structures here).

Relative to the size of Switzerland, cantons are also heavyweights. In fact much more so than in Canada. Swiss cantons are little sovereign republics, they wield far more powers than Canadian provinces. The country was built bottom-up, not top-down like Canada. Some entirely independent little alpines republics agreed to share some powers between themselves, until in the 19th century they formed a true federation (although still officially called confederation), but the unwritten rule is it's a federation based on the will of its constituent cantons.

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure Acadian separation is major political issue, and a lot of those regions have significant economic and demographic issues that wouldn't necessarily be helped by carving up NB.

Not everything is about the economy. The economy is only a mean to an end, not an end in itself.

Surely a province of Acadie, which would be unilingual French like Québec, would help prevent the disappearance of the French language and Acadian identity in those regions. Just as the province of Québec saved (at least until know) the French fact in the St Lawrence valley. If Lower Canada hadn't been separated from Upper Canada to form a province of Québec, where would the French language and the Francophone identity be in the Lower St Lawrence valley nowadays? Probably not doing much better than in Louisiana.

Originally Posted by someone123

Furthermore I believe NB has a very linguistically mixed population outside of a few quite small regions. Moncton isn't a majority Francophone city, for example, and the Acadian Peninsula or area around Edmundston and so on are not very developed.

These things are never easy when it comes to drawing borders, but with good will on both sides, and considering that it's not like drawing an international border, but merely a provincial border, it should be doable. In India in some cases they have drawn very meandering borders to delineate new states and separate populations. In the case of Jura in Switzerland, it was a long, protracted endeavor, and not all of the French-speaking Bernese areas joined the new canton of Jura (they had a vote small territory by small territory to decide, as they usually do in Switzerland). This was of course decided locally and not at a "conference of cantons" in the federal capital or whatnot.

In the case of a province of Acadie, one possibility could be a province that would be made up of 2 (or 3?) non contiguous territories, in order to leave the pockets of Anglophones inside New Brunswick. After all Canada already has a province made up of two non-contiguous territories. In a very liberal and dispassionate environment, such a province could even include the last pockets of Francophones in PEI and Nova Scotia, to save them from complete assimilation. Exclave and non-contiguous territories has never been a problem for domestic divisions*.

I of course doubt it will ever happen.

*(In India the union territory (akin to a state) of Puducherry, which corresponds to the former French colonies in India, is actually made up of small enclaves separated from each other by hundred of miles of land, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. The union territory of Puducherry, by the way, has 5 times more inhabitants than what a province of Acadie would have.)

[someone123]

Why would creating a demographically and economically tiny province out of a patchwork of Francophone-ish (?) towns and villages around the Maritimes help prevent the disappearance of the French language relative to what's there now? It could easily backfire and result in a basket case rural rump province with declining demographics, while giving ammo to political forces in the primary Maritime provinces that want to cut back French funding. If you carved off Dieppe or whatever you would get His Majesty's Province of Saint John.

(Part of the historical reality in the Maritimes is that the Acadians were displaced to less economically desirable areas away from the rivers, ports, and farmland where bigger cities and towns grew. I think what happened was a big tragedy, but alas, it was done in the 1750's and I had no say.)

This doesn't offend me but I don't think it's workable or something the actual people living in these places want. And I don't think you can arrive at good plans in the abstract by reasoning from the languages people speak without knowing the political and cultural details on the ground or following the politics. And I am really skeptical about people who say they can stay awake while following NB politics.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

CAQ won't remain the biggest party forever. At some point either corruption or infighting will kick in. Perhaps a weakened party due to corruption scandals will see one aisle of the CAQ pushing for a more sovereignist agenda (say, after Canada's Supreme Court strikes down this or that very important law for Québec, or after the 2026 census shows an even more pronounced decline of the French language in Québec eliciting alarmed articles in the press), perhaps this will lead to an explosion of the CAQ, with the pro-sovereignists seceding and allying with PQ. Who knows. Lots of things can happen.

There are certainly more chances to see this happen than to see Zemmour or Macron becoming extreme-left. One simply cannot happen, as it is opposed to their very identity. Whereas neither corruption nor sovereignism is something outlandish for CAQ.

In such circumstances, surely the PLQ would rise again (unless a new pro-federation party supersedes them).

I was addressing your point about the CAQ becoming sovereigntist (and leaving all the federalist ground to the Libs). Not going to happen. The CAQ is nationalist/populist/unsovereigntist (by the latter, I mean they're not formally federalist but they also don't want to consider sovereignty) and given that they're quite populist, if they ever change their position on the latter it's because it's become so overwhelmingly popular that even if the PLQ gets the monopoly among voters who oppose it, it won't matter. (And that level of support just isn't happening ever.)

Now, yes, there's the other option: the party eventually dies due to scandals and corruption. Then yes, something will emerge to replace it -- and that something could well be a reborn PLQ, as you say. At that point, this is far enough into the future that absolutely anything is possible. If it's the PLQ, then it's going to be a different PLQ, that doesn't share much with their present iteration. While at it, we could also (and it's almost equally likely) envision that maybe by the time the CAQ is toast, the PQ might have switched to "third way" in order to replace the CAQ. Or that the PCQ will bump the CAQ as the new nonsovereigntist centrist "party of business".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think what happened was a big tragedy, but alas, it was done in the 1750's and I had no say.

Sure, but if some of your ancestors played a role in it, I'm pretty sure it's okay to blame you personally

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, but if some of your ancestors played a role in it, I'm pretty sure it's okay to blame you personally

What happens if some of my ancestors deported some of my other ancestors?

Another point is that a lot of Francophones have become Anglicized, some recently, and in the Maritimes the population is very heavily mixed (maybe 40%+ Francophone ancestry of some kind; not just Acadian but Foreign Protestant as well, although far far back in many of those cases). When you talk about partitioning out the Francophone villages from the cities you can be talking about partitioning the Francphone grandmas away from their Anglo-imperialist grandkids. There are probably thousands of families in places like Moncton that speak English but consider themselves ethnically Acadian and have known living Francophone relatives. I'm not sure how they tend to categorize themselves in the census.

[Acajack]

Contrary to Switzerland, Canada never had as a guiding principle the establishment of zones where minorities could be themselves and thrive. That is, until Nunavut was created in 1999.

Even Québec contrary to popular belief was not an attempt to reserve a province for francophones but was more of a containment strategy to prevent French from spreading to the rest of the country too much.

The expectation was that with time English would come to prevail in Québec as well.

The hostility to Québec preserving its French character today is rooted in this mindset, i.e. that francophones don't really have any more right than anyone else to do as they wish with Québec.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Why would creating a demographically and economically tiny province out of a patchwork of Francophone-ish (?) towns and villages around the Maritimes help prevent the disappearance of the French language relative to what's there now? It could easily backfire and result in a basket case rural rump province with declining demographics, while giving ammo to political forces in the primary Maritime provinces that want to cut back French funding. If you carved off Dieppe or whatever you would get His Majesty's Province of Saint John.

(Part of the historical reality in the Maritimes is that the Acadians were displaced to less economically desirable areas away from the rivers, ports, and farmland where bigger cities and towns grew. I think what happened was a big tragedy, but alas, it was done in the 1750's and I had no say.)

With the same reasoning, the canton of Jura would never have been created. First of all, a province of Acadie wouldn't be a collection of small isolated, disconnected villages. It would be essentially two large territories, with some cities in it (such as Edmunston). And it's not as poor as you make it to me.

The canton of Jura also encompasses territories that were essentially rural, isolated parts of the canton of Berne, and less well-off than the rest of the canton of Bern ("bumpkin territory", so to speak, looked down upon by Bern), but since its inception the canton of Jura has been thriving. In 2019 the canton of Jura had a GDP per capita of 60,469 PPP US dollars, which was nearly the same as Saskatchewan, and higher than Ontario, British Columbia, Québec, Manitoba and the Maritimes (New Brunswick's GDP per capita in 2019 was only 41,084 PPP US dollars).

A province of Acadie would be both larger and more populated than the canton of Jura, and with a access to the ocean. The largest agglomeration in the canton of Jura is Delémont, with 31,000 inhabitants, and in a province of Acadie that would be either Bathurst or Dieppe, which both have also around 31,000 inhabitants.

[someone123]

Bathurst and Dieppe are more like "bilingual" towns, while Edmundston is heavily majority French speaking. Farther afield areas like Argyle in NS which show up as part of Acadia on region maps are more like 1/3 French speaking. There would have to be a strong supermajority of support in the Francophone population of a place like Dieppe while in Argyle the vote would probably just be blocked unless you want to start allowing individual villages or houses to pick which province they will be in.

This reminds me a bit of "Kansas City should get a supertall" type discussions. It's all possible but what are the trade-offs, and do the people whose opinions matter on this issue really think of this as an important political goal? Even Quebec separatism doesn't feel very vibrant these days. Maybe they will manage to reanimate René Lévesque someday.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Bathurst and Dieppe are more like "bilingual" towns, while Edmundston is heavily majority French speaking. Farther afield areas like Argyle in NS which show up as part of Acadia on region maps are more like 1/3 French speaking. There would have to be a strong supermajority of support in the Francophone population of a place like Dieppe while in Argyle the vote would probably just be blocked unless you want to start allowing individual villages or houses to pick which province they will be in.

I broadly agree though Argyle is on one side of the town of Yarmouth, but on the other side you have Clare (Baie-Ste-Marie) which is probably 70% francophone or so. I still don't think they'd join NB Acadiens in a new province made up of disparate parts but it's definitely more Acadien and francophone in character than the Wedgeport, Ste-Anne-du-Ruisseau and Pubnico(s) region to the south, on the other side of Yarmouth.

You're right about places like Bathurst and Dieppe being quite bilingual functionally, though Bathurst even if 50-50 franco-anglo in the city, aside from a few small anglo villages nearby is in the middle of a very francophone region. With a significant amount of locals who use the city for services being unilingual French.

Dieppe of course is immediately adjacent to Moncton so there is that linguistic aspect plus SE NB is more mixed and not as wholly francophone as the NE of the province. That said, in terms of psychology and spirit Dieppe is still very much "Moncton's francophone suburb" and is seen as such throughout the region. It will be interesting to see how things will play out if (and when) it becomes a majority anglophone municipality in the future. Orléans (Orleans) a suburb in the east end of Ottawa was once spoken of in the same terms as Dieppe, but its francophone character has faded greatly in recent decades.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Even Quebec separatism doesn't feel very vibrant these days. Maybe they will manage to reanimate René Lévesque someday.

Again, confusing secession from a country with creation of a new province inside Canada.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The mere fact that it was proposed...

...by one councillor.

In a democracy, ideas can be presented and voted upon, and the majority decides whether to pursue that idea or not. In this case the majority ruled against it, which is how it is supposed to work. If you cared to read and understand the previous posts made on the topic, the reasons given for the voting down of this proposal were very well thought out and reasonable. However, it appears that in your mind, if one person in a city has a bad idea, then it's the same as the entire city supporting that idea?

The actual Quebecois who are posting in this thread appeared to accept this reasoning and move on, but you are still trying to bring it up as a point that we all should be upset about.

I'm trying to understand your motivations here. It appears that you are attempting to promote disagreements among Canadians in order to create divisions. I hope I am wrong here, but it seems like creating discourse in other countries has become a 'thing' for certain entities... and it makes me wonder if you are just trolling Canadian forums, or if you have some other purpose.

Anyhow, answers like this one make it difficult for me to take your posts seriously, and have also watered-down this discussion. However, my fondness for Quebec, its people and culture, its cities and architecture, its history, and its place within Canada is not shaken by your negativity. If anything, I'm embracing it more than I ever have, and am looking forward to visiting again in the future.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You're right about places like Bathurst and Dieppe being quite bilingual functionally, though Bathurst even if 50-50 franco-anglo in the city, aside from a few small anglo villages nearby is in the middle of a very francophone region. With a significant amount of locals who use the city for services being unilingual French.

My point was that you'd either need the French-speaking population in those areas to really really support some new political initiative (70%+) or you would need to seriously gerrymander your voting districts.

(I have no problem with French services in any of these areas and I'm not trying to say they're not worth preserving or supporting, or they're not really French, or whatever.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Again, confusing secession from a country with creation of a new province inside Canada.

Just because I relate some topics to each other doesn't mean I am confused and think they are the same.

There's always a wider political context that includes what living conditions are like at the time, regional politics, and wider geopolitics. The referendum era was pretty different from today within Quebec, Quebec politics influenced French Canadian politics elsewhere, and even foreign events like decolonization and the creation of many new states had an impact.

These days we are moving toward trade blocs and uncertain global trade, Brexit went poorly, and Scottish and Catalonian independence seem wobbly. Quebec politics don't really seem to relate to French Canadians in other regions much and the Maritimes have been developing with more of their own draw and integrating on their own terms.

It feels like Quebec separatist politics often lag behind these trends and separatist politicians struggle to answer basic questions about how they will handle political changes like the USMCA renegotiation. Yet they are asking to be at the head of a new sovereign government whose main tasks will be to handle those things.

While we can point to the census and changes in the % of mother tongue you cannot say the level of antipathy and discrimination toward French in Canada or in any specific region is the same as 2023 as it was in say 1963. However French is evolving in the Maritimes, it is evolving despite a disproportionate amount of investment that they are by and large in the driver's seat of.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

My point was that you'd either need the French-speaking population in those areas to really really support some new political initiative (70%+) or you would need to seriously gerrymander your voting districts.

(I have no problem with French services in any of these areas and I'm not trying to say they're not worth preserving or supporting, or they're not really French, or whatever.)

I don't think we're in disagreement.

BTW Clare is a bit fussy and particular in the way it expresses its Acadienneté. It's the biggest, most cohesive and dynamic collective outside of New Brunswick, and as a result has its own views on things.

For example, comprehensive French language schooling as required by the 1982 Constitution, which was a big request of francophones outside Quebec, was not an entirely smooth roll-out there with many Acadien parents wanting to retain some form of English-French bilingual schooling as in the past. (Acadiens in the region also had mostly English only schooling for a fairly long time, perhaps from the time of British Conquest up until around the 1950s or 1960s.)

The (irrational in the context of Nova Scotia) fear was that French only schooling would lead to their kids having lessened English-language skills that they'd need to thrive economically.

[harls]

Originally Posted by someone123

(I have no problem with French services in any of these areas and I'm not trying to say they're not worth preserving or supporting, or they're not really French, or whatever.)

Replace 'French' with 'English' and 'Bathurst or Dieppe' with 'Shawville, QC'.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

To clarify a bit, it's not necessarily a snub, or social exclusion. I wouldn't characterize it as inherently negative, although it may be considered less cosmopolitan if that is the goal. It can even have an endearing feel to it. It's less of a "you aren't from here, so we look down on you" and more of "you aren't from here, so you are different and we are aware of that".

I've never really heard it used non-ironically or outside of the context of discussing the term itself, but I think the controversy in NS was a tendency (or even just potential) to blame stuff on CFAs-as-a-bloc - "It's all these come-from-aways driving up the housing prices" (or taking our jobs, or all the students are CFAs, or this or that politician won/lost because of them, or whatever). It's in this context that people really don't like being called Come-From-Aways, and I think general use of the term was quashed to try to get rid of that dynamic a bit (and maybe it worked ). I would guess there were some specific controversies/legal battles that ended up being the nails in the coffin, but I don't know what those were (if anything). It's not hard to imagine things like 3rd gen Asian or Middle Eastern Haligonians getting lumped in as CFAs and getting increasingly frustrated about that as time went on.

Another way to look at it is that it's basically the inverse of Pure laine, and implies all the opposite things. Not necessarily a bad thing, but using it all the time has the side effect of reinforcing the idea that non-CFAs are Pure laine (or equivalent), even if we don't have a word for that. And I think over time people here decided that was something to be avoided.