Yeah, you summarised what I was trying to say with my hi-falutin words. 
Similarly, if English Canadian culture suddenly ceased to exist, Quebecers would notice, but it wouldn’t affect them all that much.
I would notice, and I would be deeply upset. If they go, they go, and I wish them the very best, but I dearly hope they do not go.
It’s a specter because it’s an ever-looming threat that Quebec uses to extract disproportionate levels of concessions from the rest of Canada.
And not only does it injure thusly, I believe arguments could be made that the the threat of separation (which, I will readily agree, is no longer in it’s limelight) had injurious effects on (at least the perception of) foreign investment in Canada. 1995 CIA World Factbook.No one wants to lay money down in a country that may fracture.
I’m sure you would, but how many dealings does the average (English-speaking) Canadian have with Quebec? Honestly, our cultural production shines brighter in Europe or Asia than in English Canada.
You people like to talk about “concessions”. I’d like a list of them please.
This may be true. But I’m not sure how strong of an effect it is, and in any case it’s only noticeable when independence is currently in the news.
Don’t get me wrong here, I love the french-canadian variety of western culture, and I think it’s an underutilized resource in terms of Canadian culture, but…
- they’re not that essential to Canada nowadays
- Quebec uses the threat of separation as a sword
i dunno, for starters…
you get a disproportionate number of seats on the supreme court
in the post-war era, a quebecker has been PM for ~43 of the past 61 years (8 of the non-quebecker 18 have been since 2003)
If you define “Canada” as “English Canada”, which I have myself done earlier, this is true. There should be a distinct word for your national group that’s not the same as the name of the country, though. “Nova Ontalberta”? 
No. Quebec sovereigntists are very adamant that Quebec should become an independent country; if possible keeping some sort of European Union links with Canada but with “independence” still being the most important part. It’s not posturing; they’re serious.
I have no doubt that the hard core of them feel this way, but, come on, you can see the opportunity that aligning with this ideology presents to those who simply want political concessions from the rest of the country.
I retract my statement. That was based on information that didn’t come out until after I posted, where others more knowledgeable explained how the system works. Also, I have a general bias that Quebecers and French people are snooty
Okay, so I’m busting a certain part of my body to make sure that my client’s paperwork is in order and that he gets good and effective representation in court in a matter that has arisen very suddenly and will be argued very shortly. It’s going to be a long day, and probably night. I decide to log on to the SDMB for a few minutes. Just for a quick break from all this time-sensitive work.
And I see “Nova Ontalberta.” I couldn’t help it; I burst out laughing. I’m fighting a deadline, and it was a great tension reliever that I guess I needed. Thanks very much–merci beaucoup!
That’s an arrangement that I believe dates back almost to Confederation, and it’s because Quebec having a civil-law based civil code, a sufficient number of judges who are familiar with it is needed. Three out of nine isn’t all that disproportionate, though. And of course it’s got nothing at all to do with the “specter of separation”.
I can’t see that as a “concession” either. Nobody decided that Quebec would be allowed to have the prime minister coming from here, it just happened this way because people voted for them. And one of these was Trudeau, who’s about as loved in Quebec as he is in Western Canada. If you do not want politicians from Quebec, you have the voting power not to elect any.
You count Paul Martin as an Ontarian? He is, by birth, but he did represent a riding in Quebec. Of course, this should make it clear why putting politicians in “Quebec” and “non-Quebec” boxes is a futile endeavour. Jean Chrétien was elected in a New Brunswick riding in 1990, after all.
ETA: I note that a large number of the Quebec-based prime ministers of the post-war years have been what I would call “pure bilinguals”. Saint-Laurent, Trudeau, Mulroney. It’s quite possible that they got elected not because they’re from Quebec, but because they’re basically the quintessential Canadian, which belongs almost equally to both national groups.
Who, Claude Morin? He hasn’t been in politics for thirty years, and he’s still being called a traitor. It’s not the “hardcore” sovereigntists who believe in the independence of Quebec, it’s all of them.
You’re welcome!
Since Europe and Asia are huge markets when compared to Canada, I would expect that. As far as English speaking Canadians dealing with Quebec goes, I expect that most don’t, just as I would expect that few people in Saskatchewan have dealings with New Brunswick, few people in the Gaspesie have dealings with people in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, and few Italian speakers in Hamilton have dealings with Finnish speakers in Thunder Bay.
Since I was part of the exodus from Montreal to Toronto, then lived in a heavily franco-ontarian polulated north-eastern Ontario, and now live in north-western Ontario where I have francophone clients, I have had more dealings with Quebec and with francphones outside of Quebec than I have had with any other province or culture other than Ontario and English, despite my being an anglophone. Am I typical? No. But given what I have experienced in Ontario, I would not want to underestimate the influence of Quebec and francohone culture in Ontario.
Now Alberta . . . that’s another thing.
For everyone saying that accommodations should be made if they’re not unreasonable (again, who’s to decide what’s reasonable?), I point back to DiosaBellissima’s post:
The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, then the Federal Court, then the Federal Court of Appeal, and then the Supreme Court of Canada, depending on how high up the chain it goes.
The EU has proven that it is workable.
Ah, great. Hopefully they’ll agree that it’s OK to discriminate against the male employees.
Maybe “deal” wasn’t the correct word. What I should have said is, when Canadians think about the concept of “Canada”, what do they think about? It probably includes something about “being bilingual” and possibly their pride (or irritation) about this. But there is very little related to Quebec in their concept of what Canada is. That’s exactly what Rumor_Watkins said.
I, on the other hand, even if I haven’t ever been to Abitibi, its existence is part of what I consider my country to be. It makes me think about the colonisation of more northerly lands in Quebec (and Ontario as well) in the early 20th century. I could probably say at least a little something about every region of Quebec; it’s all on my radar.
You say that if the influence of French-speaking Quebec on Canada was to suddenly disappear, you would notice and be deeply upset. What would you notice? Would it be merely the end of the bilingual dream, or something more?
(bolding mine)
Polluted or populated?
But once again, you put (French-speaking) Quebec and francophones outside Quebec into one single bag. There is a lot of difference between these two groups, and the fact that anglophones usually do not recognize it scares me somewhat.
Do you actually know someone from Quebec?
Interesting item in today’s Globe and Mail. (Link here.) Seems Quebec and the ROC are viewing this issue very differently; similar to what we’re seeing in this thread. From the link:
OK, this I find very strange, since I never had a problem getting a U.S. passport when I wore glasses, and I was able to get a U.K. student visa as well.
Are glasses really verboten for Canadian passports?