Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The Philippines were a colony. I know the Americans don't like to hear that, thinking they were superior to European colonialists, but it was as vile a colony as Malaysia or Vietnam. The natives were not consulted.

Québec isn't and will not be a US colony. And Puerto Rico is poor, so beggars can't be choosers. Québec is not poor and won't prostitute itself for a few dollars.

I'd say the odds of seeing the Stars and Stripes flying from the Rio Grande to Ellesmere Island is about as high as the odds of seeing the Tricolor flying from Strasbourg to Gatineau. Let's be serious for a second.

I dunno, man. For the first one, not the second obviously.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, but the majority of rump Canada's population would live around Québec, not in Western Canada. Manitoba to BC would make up only 42% of rump Canada's population. So Canada being a democracy, the will of the 58% is the one that will steer the country. Besides, I don't clearly see what Western Canada would have to lose if Québec is given a favorable treaty. It's not like it would take anything away from Western Canada. And vice versa, a harsh treaty where Québec would have to concede a lot would not benefit Western Canada all that much, given that they don't trade all that much with Québec.

That is the essentially the problem that Overcosc1 is pointing out. Albertans will never accept a country dominated solely by the interests of Ontario. To Albertans joining the US may actually be a more attractive option. Either powersharing will be half/half with Alberta and the Western provinces gaining veto over every constitutional item, or they'll opt to abandon the Canadian confederation. Also, I don't think Alberta is necessary vengeful to Quebec, but rather they'd be disinterested in providing Quebec with favourable terms since it doesn't impact them. To them, whether they're in good terms with Quebec or not doesn't matter, and won't see much advantage in playing nice. Rather, Alberta may purposely veto just to weaken Ontario's economy and the Laurentian elite.

In this scenario, I think it's highly plausible that Onario's economy will be devastated, and we'll see significant population flow moving West, which would be a net positive for Alberta.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Agreed, we already see this long-term realignment in play with the Supreme Court. The court will continue to be stacked with Trump loyalists, which will only mean a Conservative super-majority on the Supreme court for decades to come.

Project 2025 will also permanently remake the USA in many ways that will outlast Trump. I don't think the Western world has even fully appreciated the gravity of this change, and just assume Trump's some passing sideshow.

I wouldn't be surprised if MAGA brings out a Trump 2.0 that is much more polished and slick after Trump ends his term.

While Trump was out of office, the MAGA movement was busy codifying itself into a formal structured ideology: postliberalism. The Democratic Party is already showing signs of shifting to a postliberal outlook as well. The thing about the USA is: their political parties outlast ideological divides. US politics has had the Republican Party and the Democratic Party for generations, but the exact ideology of each party changes from generation to generation; they go through "realignments" where the two parties shift to new stances and the system is reborn. There's one happening right now, and Trump is the catalyst.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, but the majority of rump Canada's population would live around Québec, not in Western Canada. Manitoba to BC would make up only 42% of rump Canada's population. So Canada being a democracy, the will of the 58% is the one that will steer the country. Besides, I don't clearly see what Western Canada would have to lose if Québec is given a favorable treaty. It's not like it would take anything away from Western Canada. And vice versa, a harsh treaty where Québec would have to concede a lot would not benefit Western Canada all that much, given that they don't trade all that much with Québec.

It's more that Alberta will see Quebec seceding as a sign that it is now "free" from Quebec (remember that in Alberta's view, Quebec is the annoying bratty sister that's always whining and demanding stuff) and Alberta is very much going to want "that" (whatever Alberta thinks "that" is) to end with Quebec's secession. It's kind of ironic because from my POV here in Ontario, Alberta is just as much of a whiny brat as Quebec is, but that's just how it is.

And, of course, this:

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

That is the essentially the problem that Overcosc1 is pointing out. Albertans will never accept a country dominated solely by the interests of Ontario. To Albertans joining the US may actually be a more attractive option. Either powersharing will be half/half with Alberta and the Western provinces gaining veto over every constitutional item, or they'll opt to abandon the Canadian confederation. Also, I don't think Alberta is necessary vengeful to Quebec, but rather they'd be disinterested in providing Quebec with favourable terms since it doesn't impact them. To them, whether they're in good terms with Quebec or not doesn't matter, and won't see much advantage in playing nice. Rather, Alberta may purposely veto just to weaken Ontario's economy and the Laurentian elite.

In this scenario, I think it's highly plausible that Onario's economy will be devastated, and we'll see significant population flow moving West, which would be a net positive for Alberta.

New Brisavoine might not understand just how spiteful Alberta can be at times and just how much of a chip they have on their shoulder about big bad Ottawa. It runs deep. Even the progressive political opposition in Alberta talks tough about Trudeau.

[P'tit Renard]

Ontario is going to want to play nice and try to keep economic relationships intact and will prioritize political compromise to get there. Alberta is a lot less likely to be on board with this approach. And if Ontario tries to use its dominant position in the country to force Alberta's hand, they might just say fuck it and seek to join America.

Yep, that's why I tend to agree that ROC rump state won't survive long, and eventually all the English provinces will end up seeking union with the United States, even if it doesn't all happen on the same timeline.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

New Brisavoine might not understand just how spiteful Alberta can be at times and just how much of a chip they have on their shoulder about big bad Ottawa. It runs deep. Even the progressive political opposition in Alberta talks tough about Trudeau.

Yes, even those who have not spent significant time in Western Canada don't understand how much Alberta hates the Laurentian Elite, and would love every opportunity to decimate and permanently handicap their hold on the country. Quebec sovereignty would present the perfect opportunity for Alberta and Western Reform conservatives to take a permanent sledgehammer at the power centres in Toronto and Montreal. In a post-Quebec Anglo-Canada, there is no way Calgary would ever accept a country where the big5 banks and national oligopolies are all concentrated in Toronto.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Albertans will never accept a country dominated solely by the interests of Ontario.

Ontario + New Brunswick + Nova Scotia + PEI + Newfoundland. That's a lot of provinces...

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Rather, Alberta may purposely veto just to weaken Ontario's economy and the Laurentian elite.

That's a bit too Machiavellian I'd say. Most politicians are too concerned by day-to-day and short-term stuff and not clever enough for that level of 'grand politics' Machiavellianism. Only guys like Putin with 20 years in power and absolute cynicism play in that category.

More likely it would be: yes to the treaty you guys want, but in exchange you grant more federal support to our potato farmers (I'm making that one up, you replace with any category of concern to the Albertan politicians here).

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

That's a bit too Machiavellian I'd say. Most politicians are too concerned by day-to-day and short-term stuff and not clever enough for that level of 'grand politics' Machiavellianism. Only guys like Putin with 20 years in power and absolute cynicism play in that category.

More likely it would be: yes to the treaty you guys want, but in exchange you grant more federal support to our potato farmers (I'm making that one up, you replace with any category of concern to the Albertan politicians here).

Nope, Albertan politicians are an unique breed. They will never just settle with support for potato farmers, not even in today's Canada.

Alberta, as leader of the Western pact, will undoubtedly drive a hard bargain.. perhaps 3 of the 5 big banks and half the national financial sector have to be re-domiciled to Calgary in order for concessions on Quebec trade for starters.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Ontario + New Brunswick + Nova Scotia + PEI + Newfoundland. That's a lot of provinces...

Cut off in the middle physically, so this arrangement won't survive long anyways.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Yep, that's why I tend to agree that ROC rump state won't survive long, and eventually all the English provinces will end up seeking union with the United States, even if it doesn't all happen on the same timeline.

If the only thing that prevents Canada from falling apart like a sand castle and being absorbed by the US is Québec, that's a pretty serious indictment of Canada, don't you think?

Anyway, we won't know for sure unless and if it happens, but personally I don't believe that Canada would fall apart and be absorbed by the US if Québec left. There are ties, habits, practical aspects, to say nothing of culture, that make it very unlikely. It's like people in London who keep imagining that the UE is falling apart tomorrow (after the Euro crisis, after Brexit, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, etc). It hasn't. Its cohesion is much stronger than what outsiders imagine. And I believe it's the same for Anglophone Canada. No, really the only weak link in Canada is Québec, for well known reasons, just as the UK was really the only weak link in the EU, for also well known reasons.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Alberta, as leader of the Western pact, will undoubtedly drive a hard bargain.. perhaps 3 of the 5 big banks and half the national financial sector have to be re-domiciled to Calgary in order for concessions on Quebec trade for starters.

What if the bankers don't want to move to frozen Alberta? This isn't the Soviet Union. You can't force them. After Brexit, most bankers at US banks refused to move from London to Frankfurt (dull, boring, uninteresting). That's why the US banks eventually moved to Paris, despite their perception of France as a tax-crazy country. When there's nearly full employment, it's hard for a company to move to somewhere the current or future employees don't want to live.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What if the bankers don't want to move to frozen Alberta? This isn't the Soviet Union. You can't force them. After Brexit, most bankers at US banks refused to move from London to Frankfurt (dull, boring, uninteresting). That's why the US banks eventually moved to Paris, despite their perception of France as a tax-crazy country. When there's nearly full employment, it's hard for a company to move to somewhere the current or future employees don't want to live.

They could always propose dual Vancouver-Calgary as the alternative, that would still be within the Western pact.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

If the only thing that prevents Canada from falling apart like a sand castle and being absorbed by the US is Québec, that's a pretty serious indictment of Canada, don't you think?

Personally I agree, and I've been pretty vocal that Canada can't become a cohesive country just by pushing the cult of diversity and multiculturalism to its extremes and continue its misguided ideology of a "post-national identity".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

That is the essentially the problem that Overcosc1 is pointing out.

Originally Posted by Acajack

An interesting scenario for this was proposed by Overosc1 in another thread a day or two ago.

Not getting his username right, is a dead giveaway that the math nerd pun flew over both your heads. /offtopic

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not getting his username right, is a dead giveaway that the math nerd pun flew over both your heads. /offtopic

Je m’assume!

[Acajack]

Most of my adult life I have flirted with the idea that maybe Quebec is what defines Canada, gives it the uniqueness it has, and is the glue that keeps it together.

Understandably, Anglo-Canadians reacted very negatively and with hostility to the idea.

So you can imagine I am a bit shocked that a majority of Anglo-Canadians on here seem to argue just that.

Quebec leaves and it all falls apart?

Aside from Ontario, would anyone really say that about any other province?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

That is the essentially the problem that Overcosc1 is pointing out. Albertans will never accept a country dominated solely by the interests of Ontario. To Albertans joining the US may actually be a more attractive option. Either powersharing will be half/half with Alberta and the Western provinces gaining veto over every constitutional item, or they'll opt to abandon the Canadian confederation. Also, I don't think Alberta is necessary vengeful to Quebec, but rather they'd be disinterested in providing Quebec with favourable terms since it doesn't impact them. To them, whether they're in good terms with Quebec or not doesn't matter, and won't see much advantage in playing nice. Rather, Alberta may purposely veto just to weaken Ontario's economy and the Laurentian elite.

In this scenario, I think it's highly plausible that Onario's economy will be devastated, and we'll see significant population flow moving West, which would be a net positive for Alberta.

But the Laurentian elite aren't Torontonians. The Laurentian elite are primarily bilingual Montrealers that run the institutions and corporations that give the Federal Liberal party a power base. These people move freely between Toronto and Montreal, it's true, but Montreal always seemed like their natural habitat and Montreal was always the city that got rewarded with the head offices of things like the BDC or PSPP or anything else kickstarted by the Federal Liberals.

I should mention that the Laurentian elite is not to be confused with Montreal-based corporations founded by francophone Quebecois business leaders who, of course, are bilingual; Francois Legault is not a Laurentian elite, in my books. But, I'd argue, neither are most Bay street executives.

Anyway, my sense is that since 1993, the Conservative power base is run out of Toronto and Calgary and the Liberal power base is run out of Montreal and Toronto. Bay street changes sides, so I don't think that Ontario's influence would diminish if Quebec seceded.

[Acajack]

I mean, I know there would be challenges given the factors we have discussed, but surely the Canadian identity is stronger than that? You’d still have sovereign control over one of the largest landmasses in the world.

Quebec contributed a lot to historic and foundational Canada but in terms of the contemporary Canadian identity it is actually the weakest link of all the provinces.

It is also interesting here that in terms of identity no one here thinks Quebec would ever join the USA even if it could. So people actually have more faith in the strength of the Quebecois identity than in the Canadian one.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But the Laurentian elite aren't Torontonians. The Laurentian elite are primarily bilingual Montrealers that run the institutions and corporations that give the Federal Liberal party a power base. These people move freely between Toronto and Montreal, it's true, but Montreal always seemed like their natural habitat and Montreal was always the city that got rewarded with the head offices of things like the BDC or PSPP or anything else kickstarted by the Federal Liberals.

I should mention that the Laurentian elite is not to be confused with Montreal-based corporations founded by francophone Quebecois business leaders who, of course, are bilingual; Francois Legault is not a Laurentian elite, in my books. But, I'd argue, neither are most Bay street executives.

Anyway, my sense is that since 1993, the Conservative power base is run out of Toronto and Calgary and the Liberal power base is run out of Montreal and Toronto. Bay street changes sides, so I don't think that Ontario's influence would diminish if Quebec seceded.

That's the nuance that we would exercise out here in Toronto, but out in Alberta and the west that nuance is lost and Laurentian elite is just a catch all for Bay Street and all of the National oligopolies located between Toronto and Montreal. I found that out the hard way when I worked for two Calgary based firms in the past. If Alberta and the west constituted at least 40% of the population, why wouldn't they challenge the current Ontario centric Bay Street concentration. Even accepting Ottawa as the capital of this rump state is a big question mark, one that won't sit well with the west.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

...Alberta, as leader of the Western pact, will undoubtedly drive a hard bargain...

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

They could always propose dual Vancouver-Calgary as the alternative, that would still be within the Western pact.

By "western pact" are you referring to just the Prairie provinces? Otherwise, I think you may be seriously mistaken about BC's relationship with Alberta.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What if the bankers don't want to move to frozen Alberta? This isn't the Soviet Union. You can't force them. After Brexit, most bankers at US banks refused to move from London to Frankfurt (dull, boring, uninteresting). That's why the US banks eventually moved to Paris, despite their perception of France as a tax-crazy country. When there's nearly full employment, it's hard for a company to move to somewhere the current or future employees don't want to live.

Calgary is actually a really nice city to live in.