The Charter’s rife with refences to collective rights - it devotes as much of its space to language rights than it does to basic civil rights.
Just to nitpick, official bilingualism was the law for quite some time before the Charter was drawn up. It does recognize that fact but isn’t what created it. If anyone’s opposed to bilingualism anymore it’d be strange to pick on the Charter specifically - which is overwhelmingly popular:
Some Quebecers are shocked by the individual rights some nonQuebecers are shocked by the collective rights. Sounds like a nice balance.
But perhaps here is where we differ. I have no problems with my decendants living and working in a Canada where Mandarin or Farsi is the dominant language. I don’t attach a core value to language as a defining characteristic of some amorphous “people” or "nation. I expect my descendants to not be like me.
The Greek word translated as “national” is ethnikos.
What’s that have to do with Quebecois separatism, you ask? More than you might think.
In my opinion, what unites Francophone Quebeckers is the sense that their national identity is bein submerged in (a) Anglophone Canada and (b) (North) American megaculture – the homogenized land of McDonalds and WalMart and Coca-Cola and Hollywood, where a suburb of Raleigh differs in no significant way from a suburb of Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, or Toronto. They see their national heritage as precious and worth preserving.
But in saying this, they are not talking about “national(1)” as opposed to state or provincial, but “national(2)”, of or relating to a distinct people, a “nation” in the European sense, where Catalonia and Wales are distinct nations, the home of Catalan and Welsh nationality respectively.
Political separatism was one extreme of this nationalistic movement, seeking independence or some sort of autonomous affiliated status for Quebec. But it’s not the core of what they’re seeking. Quebec nationalists, IMO at least, are less interested in seeing a Quebecois national state than they are in preserving the Quebecois “nation” – in the European sense, where it doesn’t mean “independent country” but rather “distinct ethnic group,” whether self-governing or with identity protected by law within a larger multiethnic country.
Think of it as preserving the Quebec ethnos, not in creating the Republique du Quebec, and you have a better handle on what they mean by nationalism and separatism. Poutine and habitant pea soup, not McTacoburger King; literature and dramatic productions (including TV, movies, etc.) in a strong New World French culture – all that sort of thing.
The Bloc is representing its onstituents in the French Canadian nation – not meaning “independent country” but more like Welsh or Scottish nationalists speaking out for Welsh and Scottish issues in Westminster – things important to their constituents but about which Harry from Southwark or Matt from Manchester doesn’t have a clue. The closest parallels in the U.S. might be preserving Cajun or Pennsylvania Dutch culture against the onslaught of Standard American Culture.
Sorry, I looked everywhere I could think of and can’t find a transcript online. I found one link to a video of the debate, but it didn’t work for me. But I do remember the scene well. Duceppe wanted carbon taxes to be be levied on a province-by-province basis, and he was very clear that the reason he wanted this is because it would mean money for Quebec.
I’m sure you do, but keep in mind that this is only a theoretical question for you. You know that as you grow older, you won’t find yourself unable to communicate with immigrants because they all choose to learn Mandarin and see no value with English. You’ll probably never be refused a job because you’re one of those people whose first language is English. Sure, it could happen that Mandarin become a dominant language in Canada. But it’s a theoretical question, and even if it does happen, it will probably be more of a “merger” between the current Canadian culture and the culture of the newcomers.
Just look at the places in the United States where a large number of Spanish speakers, many of which do not speak any English, are currently setting into. There is a backlash against Hispanics, and it’s caused by the fact that the host population cannot communicate with the newcomers. I don’t like the fact that the frustration is often expressed in anti-immigration terms, but I can understand the sentiment. It’d be easy to dismiss these Americans as xenophobic and racist, but it’s worth taking the time to understand what they’re feeling.
Maybe you’re better than this, Grey, and if a large number of people with a different language and culture move to your place, you’ll just say things have changed and assimilate into them. But at the same time it’s hard for you to say since it’s not going to happen to you.
Well, Quebecers are thoroughly (North) American already, but it’s true that we see our culture as something worth preserving even if we are eight million people among 300 million anglophone North Americans. Note that many English Canadians feel the same about their culture. They want to preserve it against the influence of (US) American culture.
Of course. The word “nation” is problematic in English, because many people see it as synonymous with “independent country”. It is not the case. This said, your precision will be of little help to assuage peoples’ fears, since a large number of Canadians (I believe RickJay is one of them) consider the Canadian nation’s particularity to be the interaction between the anglophone and francophone peoples. Others they think Quebec is only a regional subculture, not any “distinct” than, say, Alberta is to Nova Scotia. Under these two paradigms, it’s hard to imagine nations existing under the Canadian one.
What you’ve written isn’t exactly wrong, but the problem is that it still considers the Quebec nation as ethnically-based and as a minority. Quebecers don’t want to be considered a minority. (Numerically speaking, we are a “minority” in Canada and in North America, which is why we’ve required some legislative help to defend our culture, but we don’t see ourselves as a minority the way, say, the Chinese are.) For this reason, we don’t want our nation to be defined by ethnicity either. We want immigrants to Quebec to share into our culture and this is why we’ve put measures in place to help them learn about us (learn French, for one). We’d also like anglophone Quebecers to feel they are part of the Quebec nation.
Ultimately, what I’d like is for Canada to be two peoples: a multiethnic one functioning mostly in English outside of Quebec, and a multiethnic one functioning mostly in French inside of Quebec. But this presumes the existence of “Quebec” and “the rest of Canada” as actual peoples, and as I’ve said, many Canadians dispute this and consider that the cultural variations across Canada, even without considering Quebec, are at least as large as the ones between Quebec and the rest of Canada. I sort of dispute this, but it is what they believe.
Uh, yeah, sure, although I’m sure you’re aware that poutine is not only not a traditional Quebec dish, but also now popular across Canada and therefore not typically a Quebec dish either. And in any case, we don’t want to freeze our culture in the past. We’re certainly not the same people we were only 50 years ago.
To continue my argument, the Bloc doesn’t represent the French Canadian nation, but the Quebec nation. The old French Canadian nation is quite irreversibly divided between Quebecers and the minority francophones in the rest of the country who do not really share the same culture anymore. And (thankfully) you don’t need to be French Canadian to be part of the Quebec nation, or even to run for the Bloc québécois. (See here, here, here, here.) While I don’t think the Cajun and Pennsylvania Dutch cultures in the US are really looking for converts, Quebec certainly wants and needs immigrants.
I guess it’s not impossible. I’ll also try to find a transcript or a video of the debate.
I would suggest that in English, it is the case. I will agree that the word “nation” is problematic, for the very reason that in English, the predominant meaning is “independent country.” There are other lesser-known meanings, such as the one you’re referring to, but I’d say that for most English Canadians, mentioning a “nation” brings to mind such entities as (for example) the United States, Germany, and New Zealand. We don’t tend to think of (again, for example) the Basque nation, because in the English-speaking world, Basques are a group of people who are part of a larger nation: Spain.
Perhaps “people” is a better term to use in English. I don’t think most English Canadians would have a problem then–they would certainly understand that the Welsh people, the Basque people, and (sure, why not?) the Quebec people are different and distinct from the local majority; and probably have different and distinct needs, wants and desires. But mention “the Quebec nation,” and I’d suggest that most English Canadians would understand “nation” in that sense to mean “separatism,” “breaking up the country,” “seceding from Confederation,” and other such scenarios.
Of course, what word–“nation” or “people”–the Quebec media, politicians, and commentators use in their interactions with English Canada is up to them. But I’d suggest that you’ll achieve greater results in selling your ideas if you present your ideas in a way that the English-speaking listener cannot possibly misunderstand. In other words, rather than bog down in misunderstandings over the word “nation,” the word “people” allows you to concentate on getting your message across: the Quebec people are quite distinct from the 330 million or so North Americans who surround them and thus have different needs and wants. Once that has been established (and I’d guess it would be difficult to find an English Canadian who could disagree with such a statement), we can go forward to discuss more important matters.
Let them go, look at how much shorter the drive from the Maritimes to Ontario would be!
[QUOTE
So, in the interest of asking Canda dopers, do you have a problem with Quebec or its behavior, politically. DO you mind that they exist, exist as perpetual nuisance, or that the Quebecois don’t seem to be able to make up their minds and always split the fence over independance? Tell me, oh Frozen Ones.[/QUOTE]
As person born in the west i just have to say that the responses posted here just dont reflect the Alberta I live in and know. I dont know a single person who isnt pissed at the Quebec situation or cares if they leave. A province who threatens to leave canada just to get more money! WHAT! Quebec will receive 8 billion dollars in equalization payments this year. Guess where the money comes from. Over 40% of our taxes go to Ottawa. Quebecs much vaunted 7 dollar a day daycare would not be possible without Alberta’s money. We send over $3000 dollars per capita more to ottawa than we recieve.
So we have a situation where a kid whines about bring treated unfairly at home while still driving the bmw, maybe its time for him to leave. I really dont mind supporting those who need the help but Cadillac social programs and subsidized electrical bills are not what we had in mind. I heard a Quebec woman on the radio who said that she was tired of them sending money our way, hello, do they really believe that? Last i heard there was going to be a 40 billion spinoff to central canada from the oilsands. 8 billion and they still whine!
lastly, I have to say it is hard to underestimate the outrage the west has over the idea that a separatist party will help run the country. Pretty much anybody I talk to doesn’t even think a one province separatist party should even be in Parliament at all.
A new group has just been formed last week to see the West seperate from canada.
Doesn’t sound to me like the calm cool “oh well” of the other posts.
Three thousand dollars dollars! That’s a lot of money, measured in dollars dollars.
The crushing irony of these sentences is just staggering.
Dont get you but yes it is a lot of money. $3000 per person adds up pretty quick. Specially when Quebec got 8 billion of it. As will Ontario next year.
Why? If the West separates they wont have a party in the parliament begging for money, they would presumably have their own system. I see nothing ironic at all, but to be clear I don’t have a problem with Quebec separating, just the taking of money from the country they dont want to be part of. Quebec could not possibly afford the social programs they love without equalization payments. If they want out so bad they should go and pay for it all themselves.
I would be equally appalled at Alberta wanting to separate and yet being snout deep at the public trough. For what its worth I hope we don’t go our own way.
He does have a point. While other provinces are running tight fiscal ships, Quebec hangs on to its gold-plated social programs while receiving the highest subsidies of all Canadian provinces. Quebec has high taxes, strong union rules, and other policies that hurt jobs and economic growth. And yet, their prime concern seems to be not getting their own fiscal house in order, but in demanding more money from the rest of Canada.
Alberta has a booming economy, but it’s not just because of oil revenue. When oil prices were low in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, we cut services, rolled back public service salaries and benefits, and kept taxes low. That attracted business investment and helped diversify our economy away from oil.
At the time, Quebec was receiving more money per capita from equalization payments than Alberta was receiving from oil revenue minus our equalization payout, and yet our economy stayed strong because we cut spending and maintained a healthy business environment. So it does get frustrating when Quebec whines about needing more money from the rest of Canada.
The irony is that you say on one hand you know no one who thinks a separatist party should be allowed, and then in the next sentence you seem to have no problem with there being a Western separatist party.
Well, he said he knew no one who thinks a one province seperatist party should be allowed. A Western separatist party would likely be a 3 province party.
In my opinion, this is not true. A francophone living in Lachute (Qc) and one living in Hawkesbury (On) are culturally closer to each other than francophones from Matapédia (Qc) and Campbeltown (NB). All of those people are culturally closer to each other than they are to an anglophone from Calgary. While this is politically inconvenient, cultures do not have distinct boundaries. There is a gradient of human experience that shapes each individual’s culture, and it is the experiences that we share with others that forms collective cultures.
Now, I do believe that language is absolutely the most significant unifying factor when talking about cultures. However, it is not the only one. It is a fallacy that people belong exclusively to a single culture.
Yes, I’ve heard that in English, the term “Quebec nation” is problematic for this reason. But I think when Stephen Harper tables a motion in the House of Commons stating that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada” / “les Québécois forment une nation au sein d’un Canada uni”, nobody thinks he’s approving of Quebec independence. In fact, nobody knows what it is he’s really trying to say – I know what “les Québécois” are in French, but what are “the Québécois” in English? – but we all know he’s trying to score a cheap political point.
I don’t know. Saying that Quebec is a distinct “people” from the rest of Canada, while I think it’s an evidence, makes it likely that other regions would want the same. As I’ve said, I think many Canadians don’t think Quebec is any more different from the rest of Canada than Alberta is different from Nova Scotia. And while I don’t care if every province in Canada tries to establish its distinctiveness, you’ll certainly see people who will see this as antithetical to Canadian unity.
And after all, even the term “country” in English doesn’t necessarily imply “independent”. Scotland is usually described as a country, after all, and while it has an active independence movement, this usage doesn’t imply support for this movement. It only serves to indicate that Scotland has a defined territory and distinct laws from the rest of the UK.
Well, sorry for the social choices we’ve made, I’m sure it’s got to be insulting that some places offer a social safety net when yours doesn’t. And while I will admit my knowledge of economics is lacking (I’m sure that won’t surprise you), I expect that generous social policies do have a positive effect on the economy. For example, someone else talked about our daycare program (this seems to be an obsession in the rest of Canada): I think I’ve heard that Quebec has one of the highest rates of activity among women in Canada for this very reason.
God, I wish I knew some kind of centrist or centre-left Quebec economist who had the knowledge to refute these arguments by right-wing Albertans who believe that they’re paying for a golden hammock for those lazy frenchies. I’ll try to find some centrist analyses of Quebec’s economic situation. Wow, there’s a lot of things I’ve promised to find: scholarly analyses of Quebec-bashing in Canadian media, a transcript of the English-language federal leaders’ debate, an analysis of Quebec’s economy… But it may take some time, because I also have work to do. Yes, despite being one of those lazy frenchies, I’m trying to work as hard as possible on my Ph.D. research this term, and I think I’ve done relatively well. 
Eh, I’m sure that isn’t a liability for you either. Yeah, I’m sure you all work extremely hard in Alberta, and I congratulate you for it, but high revenue from natural resources cannot do anything but help you.
You’re not wrong, but I come from Gatineau (Quebec) and I can tell you that my culture is noticeably different than my francophone friends’ from Ottawa (Ontario), just a few minutes south. Many of them are barely aware of this other province just over the river, and its cultural industry. Yes, many people in Gatineau do have a “Franco-Ontarian” mentality, so there is a cultural continuum at work here – compared to some of the people here in Sherbrooke, I’m positively English Canadian 
– but at the same time Gatineau is unmistakeably in Quebec while Ottawa is unmistakeably in Ontario.
‘Insulting’? I have no idea how you would come to such a conclusion. It does not compute. I’m actually quite proud of the choices we’ve made in Alberta and how we’ve chosen to structure our society and our social programs. I think we’re a model for the rest of Canada and even for the U.S.
That’s kind of like saying, “My knowledge of astronomy is lacking, but I’m pretty sure Jupiter is made out of styrofoam.”
You’d be wrong. In fact, Quebec has one of the lowest rates of female employment in the work force.
Here’s a chart from Stats Can, showing labor force participation for the various provinces. In fact, it’s Alberta, which has no public daycare financing, which has the greatest percentage of its women in the work force: about 65%, vs about 58% for Quebec, which actually has one of the lowest overall participation rates of women in Canada.
What Quebec does have, however, is the highest rate of women with small children in the work force. That means the participation rate for older women and young unmarried women is even lower. You may think universal day care is obviously a good thing, but I’m not sure a system that uses taxpayer money to give incentives to mothers to put their kids in daycare and go to work, displacing other women who don’t have children, is a particularly good thing. And of course, one of the reasons why Quebec has a low participation rate for women is that it just doesn’t have as many jobs as other provinces, because high taxes and an unfriendly business climate lead to less job creation than in other provinces.
Alberta’s female participation rate isn’t because of some moral crusade or strong woman’s rights movement in Alberta - it’s simply because there are lot of good paying jobs in this province, and that draws both men and women into the work force in greater numbers.
I didn’t say you were lazy. I will say that you’ve chosen to vote yourselves social programs and other spending that your economy can’t sustain, and therefore you rely on the rest of Canada to subsidize your lifestyle choices. I actually don’t mind this too much, but what really gets the hackles of Albertans up is when people from Quebec appear to look down on us and sneer at our own social choices, while gladly accepting the money that our economy generates, or even demanding more. I think Alberta has earned the respect to be treated as an equal by the East, and not as the inbred redneck cousin you want to keep in the closet - but a lot of the time that’s exactly the vibe we get.
An example of that is in your last message, where you think I should somehow be embarrassed for my province or somehow insulted in comparison to your superior way of living.
The only person who keeps bringing up ‘lazy frenchies’ in this thread is you. Your cultural blinders are showing.
We’re not complaining. But as I said before, until oil took that huge runup a few years ago, Alberta was netting less money per capita from oil than Quebec was from equalization payments. And yet, your economy was moribund and ours was doing fine. And you were racking up debt, and we were running surpluses.
The bottom line is that despite receiving more financial aid from the rest of Canada than any other province by a wide margin, Quebec has the highest public debt in Canada, and it’s still growing faster than any other province. This despite the fact that you also have the highest taxes in North America. Maybe it’s time to rethink your universal day care and other high cost goodies you can’t afford, and get your fiscal house in order.
This is also the reason why the rest of Canada doesn’t really take your threat to separate seriously. You’re like the teenager who lives at home, doesn’t have a job, and threatens to move out when asked to do the dishes. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. We all know you won’t do it, because you can’t survive on your own.
**Sam Stone **and Polycarp, I’ve found your posts in this thread fascinating.
Well yeah, you’re a right-winger so of course you’d think that lower taxes, a lower minimum wage and little protection for workers and the environment is better than the other way around. Letting the market sort it out. The fact is that different societies makes different political choices. From what I’ve seen, right-wingers tend to think that their opinions are clearly and obviously “true”, but the fact is that they come at the expense of other priorities.
Sorry for implying that you’re jealous of Quebec’s social safety net, I knew that it wasn’t true for you at least.
Ah, that’s probably what I was thinking about and your cite appears to confirm it, thanks. But why don’t you think it’s a good idea for women with young children to be part of the workforce? Especially in a world where two revenues are increasingly necessary for couples with children, and where gaps in employment can make it harder to get a job in the future.
And why do you say these mothers are “displacing other women who don’t have children”? They merely get the same chances as these other women to gain employment, they’re not “displacing” anyone who’s more competent than them.
Actually, I think I’ve heard that while income and sales taxes in Quebec are rather high, taxes on businesses aren’t as high as you may think. Add to this the fact that we offer tax breaks to professional immigrants in some designated fields.
OK, sure, you didn’t actually call us lazy and maybe I shouldn’t have put it in my response. But I’ve debated with Western Canadians on other forums and many of them insist that Quebec is a “BS society” (BS meaning bien-être social, the nickname for social assistance) and that we’re notoriously uneducated and even have high levels of illiteracy, which is patently false, so that’s kind of what I expect.
We don’t mind, do whatever you want. Yeah, maybe Albertans are stereotyped as cowboys in the rest of the country, but British Columbians are stereotyped as potheads, Newfies as idiots and Quebecers as poor uneducated racists, so you’re not the only ones. Yes, Alberta’s economy is currently booming and I’m sure it’s in part because of your social choices. It also has a downside, but only you (collectively) can decide what choices you should be making. I’m not thinking daily about Albertans and how they shouldn’t be governing themselves the way they’re doing right now, you know. There’s a reason why Canada is a federation and it’s so the different regions can make different choices.
I never said this, you inferred it. Maybe my cultural blinders are showing, but yours are too.
Not true (personal taxes are high, but apparently not the highest in North America) and it’s hard to compare anyway since there are so many variables, and it does not even take into account the difference between income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, etc.
You know what this makes me think of? It makes me think of this old canard about Muslim terrorists making themselves explode because “they think they’ll get 72 virgins in Heaven”. It’s a way to mock your opponent by denying their adulthood and the fact that their motivations are as complex as yours. Calling Quebec “the teenager” denies the variety of political thought that happens here, and the variety of our experience. Yes, I’m sure calling Albertans “rednecks” does the same; it hurts doesn’t it, so why do you do it?
And I enjoy the irony of you calling Quebec a “teenager who […] doesn’t have a job” while saying you didn’t call us lazy.
Quebec’s social safety net? Who pays for it? Just Quebecers? You’ve already been told that Quebec gets more money from Canada than it gives just like Alberta gives more than it gets. So, it is obvious that Quebec’s spending on programs that others don’t have is partially to blame for being a net recipient of equalization payments. What would happen if every province spent like drunken sailors and expected their neighbour to pay for it? Don’t you feel guilty at all to spend on programs that others probably can’t afford because you’re spending their money? Should a province like Alberta give money to provinces like Quebec to subsidize programs that we, in Alberta, don’t have? The purpose of equalization is to ensure that all areas of the country maintain a certain minimal level of social programs, not exceed everyone else, least of all those provinces who are net contributors.
Well, everyone knows that Ontario Sucks, right?