I don’t think the values of the Quebec nation have to include separation. After all, half the people in the Quebec nation don’t value separation enough to vote for it.
If you make the fairly safe assumption that anglophones and allophones voted against separation in the last referendum, then more than half of francophones do believe in a separate Quebec.
I probably shouldn’t have mentioned pop culture (TV, movies, music, etc.) in my first post. It really isn’t that important, and doesn’t define a society’s culture. Nevertheless, while local bands from Calgary are in fact only popular (if they even are) in the immediate surroundings of Calgary, they stand the chance of attaining country-wide popularity. But even if this happens, they probably won’t be quite as popular in Quebec, because a large part of Quebec’s music market is occupied with French-language music. The opposite is also be true. This language dichotomy is more important when it comes to communication and media. Francophone Quebecers aren’t really exposed to ideas from the rest of Canada, since they are most often expressed in English, and anglophones also aren’t really aware of what is really discussed in Quebec.
That’s interesting. I’ve never been to Winnipeg, so I have no idea what importance the city’s French-Canadian heritage has today. I live very close to Ottawa, though, and my general impression is that a large number of anglophones don’t really appreciate the contribution of Franco-Ontarians – who are numerous, even today – to their city, and think it would be much better if they just kept silent. The current mayor-elect of Ottawa, Larry O’Brien, is seen by many francophones as not very sympathetic to their needs.
Furthermore, even though francophones have shaped the whole of Canada, I’m not sure how relevant their contribution is today, outside of Quebec. I’ll take your word that Winnipeg’s French-Canadian heritage is still important. But in many parts of Canada where francophones were in the past very influential, their descendents have assimilated into the majority culture. And this trend will continue in the future. Francophones outside of Quebec – except maybe in some places – are little more than a minority, even if they speak an official language. Louis Riel might have been in the news last week, but he’s still dead. As I said, I won’t speak for Winnipeg, but in many places in the rest of Canada, the influence of French-Canadian culture is basically the same as its influence on our own Frank. He has francophone ancestors, and maybe he even eats tourtière on Christmas Eve, but he doesn’t speak French and is without a doubt an American.
And at the same time, Quebec society has evolved beyond its “French-Canadian” roots. I wouldn’t consider French Canadians as a nation for this reason: we have been separated in several groups for long enough that we aren’t a united society anymore. Quebec is a distinct culture, that has been also shaped by its anglophones and by immigration, not the main seat of this French-Canadian culture that you may also find in Manitoba.
You would be quite correct about this.
Perhaps. Larry Mudd is certainly correct to mention Newfoundland, which I understand is a distinct society in its own right, and might even be considered as a nation inside Canada. I don’t know if Newfoundlanders consider themselves as a nation, though, and only they can answer this. This said, even if they do speak a dialect of English that distinguishes them from the rest of Canada, it is still English, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more cultural ties between Newfoundland and the rest of “English Canada” than between the francophones of Quebec and the anglophones in the rest of Canada.
No doubt. But there is also no doubt that by immigrating to the Prairies of Canada, the Ukrainians (to choose the same example as you) chose to integrate into Prairie society, unlike their friends who remained in the Ukraine. Yes, I am aware that the Canadian attitude towards immigration is different from the American one, but can you say that, a few generations later, their descendents are still uniquely “Ukrainian” or even “Ukrainian-Canadian”, instead of being basically Canadians who retain some pride and interest in their Ukrainian ethnic and cultural heritage? Even the French-Canadians who moved to the Plains should probably, many years later, have integrated into their new society. They may retain some attachment to Quebec, if this is where their grandparents came from, but they are not Quebecers anymore.
More precisely, I think Duceppe sees Canada as two blobs: Quebec, the francophone society, with its own ethnic diversity, which includes its own anglophone population, and the rest of Canada, the anglophone society, with its ethnic diversity, including the francophones. Maybe the “rest of Canada” can’t be seen as a nation because it is too diverse. As I said earlier in this post, it is possible that Newfoundland, for one, might legitimately be called a nation. But I don’t think that your “assortment of blobs” is quite correct. More likely, the rest of Canada is a patchwork – and Quebec can also be seen as a patchwork. (I see matt_mcl has also made that point.)
Maybe so. But then again, Quebec society is an extant living society inside Canada. The Ukrainians, by immigrating to Canada, have been expected to integrate into their host society. Do you see the difference? Nobody is denigrating their Ukrainian-ness, but at the same time, they are Canadians now.
Sure, about 60%. But we’re talking about Quebecers, not just francophones.
I absolutely see the difference, and agree with nearly all of your post. However, I think you’re not completely grasping the points I’m trying to make. I don’t think you truly appreciate just how young the western half of the country is. Memories of the old country (countries) are still quite close to the surface. So when people out here hear Quebeckers talk about their distinct society, they think that Quebeckers are talking about the same sort of thing that they think about when they think about societal distinctiveness; that is, they think that Quebeckers are talking about just another ethnic group that’s distinct from the surrounding society. They think that’s what’s being talked about, because those are the terms they think in, because the communities they grew up in were made up of numerous distinctive groups. They don’t understand that you’re talking about something quite different. I didn’t understand that you’re talking about something quite different until quite recently.
So, since anglophone Canadians (around these parts at least, I can’t really speak for Maritimers or anything) don’t understand what you really mean when you talk about distinct society or nationhood, many of them take what they hear as an attempt to privilege one ethnic group over others. Yes I know that’s not what you’re trying to do. But that’s how it comes across to people out here, for reasons I hope I’ve been able to make halfway clear. This is a source of much of the anti-Quebec sentiment out here (the other major source is political friction left over from stuff like the National Energy Program and such). I really do think that it’s mostly due to a failure to communicate, and there the linguistic divide clearly isn’t helping.
What anger? Or am I being wooshed?
No problem. It’s just that I see this phrase used more more in English than in French, which is somewhat odd since it’s a French-language phrase. And it is often used by people who accuse francophone Quebecers of ethnocentrism. Being pure laine or not isn’t (or shouldn’t) be a factor in today’s Quebec.
Not at all. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I wasn’t even thinking of “supporting an independent Quebec” when I spoke about “Quebec values”. I mentioned use of French as a common language and secularism, and I think you will agree they are legitimate values of Quebec society. Maybe we could argue that “Quebecers, and only Quebecers, have the right to decide if they will continue as a province in Canada or form an independent country” is a value of the Quebec nation, but the answer you give to this question is irrelevant. This is a political question, and political beliefs shouldn’t play any part when it comes to belonging to a nation.
Maybe excluded from your in-laws’ political unanimity if they are all sovereigntists, but not from Quebec society as a whole: as matt_mcl mentions, roughly 50% of us don’t favour this option. The fact that more than 50% of francophones favour it is irrelevant: Quebec society also includes the non-francophones. (And even if you are correct that most anglophones and allophones voted against separation in the last referendum, a large number of them did vote for separation, so there is no unanimity even there.)
Well, that shouldn’t be. But it is understandable to a certain degree. You have to remember that to many francophone Quebecers, anglophones are the bosses who don’t want to learn a word of French, even though they live in a French-speaking society. The sheltered Montreal West Islanders who are ready to move to Toronto anytime they disagree with the democratic political decisions of the Quebec population. And who have nothing but disdain towards the francophones. Basically, people with no interest in helping Quebec society grow, but who would rather exploit it for their own ends, and whose allegiance lies elsewhere. I’m sure that’s not your case. But you will find people who will distrust you. Of course, that doesn’t make it right, and I’m hoping to see Quebecers become more and more united, which should happen the longer we live together. I see many anglophones positively contributing to Quebec society, which is a great thing.
Of course you’re a minority, but there’s nothing wrong with that. You shouldn’t be ill-treated, though. It also depends on your own attitude, though. See my above comments.
Do you think there’s more, less, or as much bigotry in Quebec than in the other Canadian provinces? I’d say “as much”, but I don’t have any proof of this. All I know is that as a whole, urban areas tend to be more tolerant than rural areas. This is the case everywhere.
I’m not talking about the Church (although it was a factor), I’m talking about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. It is not by luck that industrial capitalism was basically invented by Protestants, specifically anglophone Protestants (who still mostly identified as “British” in Canada at the time, I believe). Protestants had the “Protestant work ethic” and for the most part considered gaining money to be very important (as a proof of God’s favour, I believe, but I’m not an expert on this either) while Catholics were much less preoccupied with money. I believe this is the main reason why the Quebecers of British origin were able to take control of the economy; there may be others, such as the fact that Canada was in fact under British rule at the time. (I believe the Ashkenazi Jews who came to Montreal also contributed to the development of Quebec’s economy, and they integrated into the English-speaking population because they were denied access to French-language Catholic schools, and probably also because at the time, it was seen as more valuable to speak English than to speak French.)
Oh, maybe so. English was the language of business in Montreal because anglophones owned the means of production and they imposed their language. (I already explained why I think this came to be.) But I think that it is good that since the sixties, there has been an effort to make French the language of business inside Quebec, since it is, after all, the language of the majority. Or do you think it would have been better to keep English as the language of business and the “prestige” language of Quebec, while ensuring that most francophones are able to speak it?
I’m sure there are many people in the rest of Canada who have never left their province either. And even more who have visited several Canadian provinces, but haven’t gone to Quebec, and might not want to because they feel their linguistic skills are limiting them.
I should also answer this, as it illustrates my point quite nicely.
What can I say about people my age, in their 30’s? We’re mostly basically Canadians who retain some pride and interest in our ethnic heritage. But we mostly have grandparents who only speak/spoke English as a second language, often poorly, and sometimes not at all (except for those who actually are English, of course). And we mostly have parents who are fully bilingual. We ourselves mostly don’t speak more than a smattering of the old languages. But we’re only in our 30’s. The situation is changing rapidly, of course; those who initially settled the land have mostly died off, and their children are mostly retired by now. The younger generations (and the urban populations) don’t see the ethnic lines as clearly as they were seen even just 20 years ago. But if you wanted, I could take you on a tour of my home region, and introduce you to old farmers who still speak Plattdietsch or Ukrainian in their day-to-day lives.
D’oh! :smack: That should be “whooshed”, of course.
Now that, I must say, is interesting. No, I hadn’t quite figured that this is how Westerners reacted to ideas such as “distinct society”, although I must admit that in hindsight, it kind of makes sense. I did point out in my posts in this thread that anglophones living outside Quebec don’t know much about Quebec, its culture and its history, so it’s understandable that the current nature of Quebec society might escape them. While third- or fourth-generation Canadians living in the West may be aware that the French settlements in Quebec predate the colonization of the West by several centuries, and that the French-language culture in Quebec really is the dominant culture of the province, the host culture to immigrants now arriving in Quebec, not just an ethnic group like theirs, they probably haven’t actually integrated this knowledge in their political viewpoint.
I think I’ve understood. (Is my synthesis above on the mark?) That knowledge might be useful if I discuss this issue with other Westerners.
Oh, and I must say that while I intellectually knew that Western Canada was quite recent, I don’t think I had quite grasped what it actually means (despite visiting Alberta and British Columbia last month). It’s hard for me to picture history in North America beginning basically with the 20[sup]th[/sup] century, when the place I’m living in has been settled since the beginning of the 19[sup]th[/sup], and not far from here places have been settled since the 17[sup]th[/sup] century. This kind of lends weight to your argument.
To go back to the OP, there are a few worrisome things about Harper’s motion to recognize Quebec as a nation inside Canada. In French, it says
In English, what it says is
The problem is that in English, “Québécois” is often understood to mean only francophones living inside Quebec. In French, however, it means anyone living in Quebec. So what we have here is a motion that may very well not mean the same thing in its French and English versions. Given this, can we say that it in fact means something?
Incidentally, the previous Bloc québécois motion to recognize Quebec as a nation says “Quebeckers” in its English version.
Don’t feel bad. We don’t know that much about other anglophone regions either. 
It’s a big country.
I believe Harper’s motion is being interpreted in different ways in French and English, but I believe it should be interpreted as it was originally written, in English, which means that “les Quebecois” are a nation, but this nation does not include everyone living in Quebec.
Barely 
It was almost easier for my dad to interpret between the Quebecois in his office and some Tunisian clients than it was for him to understand Newfie.
But they do! In English, the political and geographical boundaries are always of primary concern when discussing a nation, while in Quebec, in French, those concerns may be secondary. This is part of the problem using two languages that have borrowed words from each other and then changed the meaning slightly. People think they understand each other clearly, but they end up talking past each other.
I don’t have to remember. I learned it all the way through school, and it was made abundantly clear while I worked here in the 90s. See bigotry, above
It’s not like I’m always the angry bastard I can be online. In person I’m a very nice, gentle and accomodating soul. I go out of my way to help people, to be open and friendly.
It’s only because I got shat on repeatedly that I get so passionate and emotional about certain issues. And even then, in person I would walk from this argument
I think it would have been better for the city of Montreal (and consequently for Quebec) if more accomodations had been made. I’m certain that Rene Levesque and the rest of the PQ never dreamed that so many corporations would up and leave the province and send sectors of the economy into a decades-long decline that Quebec still has not recovered from. Part of me looks at the bustling growth of Toronto and thinks that a lot of that vibrancy should have stayed here.
I think you’re dead wrong in that assumption. I don’t have any data other than personal experience, but I do get to meet and talk to a lot of people in my day-to-day life as a journalist. It’s my guess that up to half of the population of BC is from another province or country. Whether that’s Victoria residents who are ‘more British than the British’ or people from Hong Kong and India, that’s a staggering amount of immigration. Alberta is booming too. And young people are always leaving the Maritimes. (I’ve got friends who report in Halifax, and every once in a while they report about the difficulty Maritime employers have in finding young adult workers. )
So how does Quebec compete? The government has to offer people a 5-year break from provincial taxes to encourage immigration. That tells me that people are reluctant to come to Quebec.
Of course, many people from the ROC think that Quebecois means anyone from Quebec. I’ve frequently been called a Quebecois, although I’m anglophone. However, you’re right, it doesn’t do much to help the distinction between Quebec nationhood and ethnic nationalism. That’s one of the reasons why I’m glad the NDP is supporting both motions.
Perhaps I’m confused, but as far as I can tell the economy has substantially recovered. It always seemed to me that the downturn had more to do with the unstable political situation than the use of French. Besides, for Quebecers this is not a frivolous question over which economic interests obviously take precedence.
A litlle known fact for non-Canadians to digest with respect to the role the nation of Quebec , which makes up 23% of the total population of Canada, plays within Canada is that since 1968 there has not been a single year where the whole country has been without the leadership of a Quebecois prime minister.
Pssst… Just a few centimeters up:
Larry, I am from the rest of Canada.
In the rest of Canada we use a couple of on line dictionaries, dictionary.com and Merriam- Webster which both define the term as synonymous with Quebecker in their first item of definition.
I don’t know where or how** matt_mcl **came to his idea that anglophones don’t qualify as Quebecois or how he doesn’t even qualify as a francophone (see dictionary.com), but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let a Quebecois tell me what is proper English or not 
Besides, do you possibly think that the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois excludes anglophones ?
Canadian Oxford, and common usage in English-speaking Quebec and elsewhere in Canada where I’ve lived. None of the resources you mentioned are Canadian ones. I don’t call myself a Québécois, or a Francophone, when speaking English, because that would be misleading; it would give people the impression that my ethnicity is French-Canadian and that my first language is French. I’m definitely a Quebecer, because I live in Quebec and consider myself to belong to Quebec society; that’s a term of civic nationalism.
If you’d like to call Mordecai Richler a noted Québécois author, please feel free; but I feel that promotes ambiguity and lends itself to misinterpretation.
You’ll notice that not only are the names Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois in French, in which language Québécois simply means “Quebecer” – I call myself un Québécois when speaking French – but also “québécois” is an adjective modifying the noun in those names, not a noun itself.
Let me just say, if you understand Québécois to mean anyone who belongs to Quebec society, then obviously, Quebec Anglophones and members of the other cultural communities in Quebec are Québécois if they choose to consider themselves so. The French text of the motion says les Québécoises et Québécois, which has this meaning.
However, people are already interpreting the motion to refer to the French-Canadians of Quebec, to the exclusion of the rest of Quebec’s multicultural society. Already, a member of Harper’s cabinet resigned because he believed the motion promoted ethnic nationalism rather than civic nationalism. I think that’s unfortunate and could have been mitigated by a change of wording.
Certainly, the NDP believes that all Quebecers together constitute a nation, and the Bloc has been emphasizing this as well. I would hope that that would be how the motion would be interpreted in the rest of Canada, and it apparently could be interpreted in this way, if many people understand Québécois to mean anyone in Quebec; but it seems that many people don’t interpret it that way, and that Quebecer would have been a less ambiguous word choice.
It certainly is an arguable point. Canadian Oxford isn’t even on line yet and Oxford doesn’t even recognize the word “Quebecois”. Thankyou for educating me to the nuances of the word in Quebec and indeed elsewhere, however it does occur to me that this board is primarily American and I there is nothing wrong with quoting Merriam Webster here.
I don’t think you’re correctly interpreting the concerns of people outside Quebec if you think the distinction between Quebecois and Quebecer is the issue people are worried about, or what caused Michael Ching to resign.
The concern out here is that separatists see this as an ethnic issue. There is no question, none whatsoever, that sepratists will use this motion to justify further advances for separatism.
I have a rather simple question:
What is the point of Parliament doing this?
If it’s a simple recognition of reality, why do we need Parliament recognizing reality? Especially when they already passed a distinct-society motion? We can babble all day about what is or isn’t a “Nation,” but an argument can be constructed that defines Canada as being any number of overlapping nations. Why is Parliament doing this?
Call me cynical, but I think it’s just so Harper and the [del]Reform Party[/del] [del]Alliance[/del] Conservatives can show that they’re not all about the West, that the voters all across Canada should support them, and that they’re not anti-Quebecois.
Basically, I think it’s a PR move to try to pick up more votes in the next election, as the Conservatives would prefer to gain a majority government instead of a minority.