Quebec's Identity: And what of Canada's Identity?

[August1991]

I'm putting this in the federal section because this issue in Quebec will, if it hasn't already, spill over into Federal politics.

The PQ proposed a Quebec "citizenship" law that would impose certain conditions. The idea of "citizenship" amounted to the right to stand for public office, contribute to a political party and to submit a petition to a bureaucrat. The conditions amounted to the ability to speak French and show knowledge of Quebec history.

This proposal met with universal opposition in the English media - inside and outside Quebec. Many pequistes (eg. Landry) advised Marois to withdraw the proposed law. BTW, the proposal will never become law since both Charest and Dumont opposed it. They both however hedged their position. They criticized it not only on principle but also on its half-baked nature. Charest described it as "flawed".

Nevertheless, a public opinion poll in Quebec came up with this result:

Despite being denounced as unconstitutional and xenophobic, a Parti Quebecois bill that would require newcomers to master French before they could become Quebec citizens has the support of a majority of francophone Quebecers, a poll published Thursday found.

...

A Leger Marketing poll, conducted on Wednesday and published yesterday in the Journal de Montreal, suggests Ms. Marois was on target. The poll found that 52% of francophones surveyed were in favour of the bill, while 38% opposed it and 10% offered no opinion.

Among non-francophones, the bill was opposed by 79% and supported by 13%, with 7% offering no opinion.

National Post

----

For myself, I see no harm in this bill and I can fully understand it - both on an idealistic and political level. The US imposes a test of US history and government on new citizens. Estonia, more rigourously and more comparable to the Quebec situation, imposes a language test on its citizens. Canada requires a language and citizenship test.

The French in America have withstood the onslaught of an English majority. In the past (at least since 1759, an anniversary soon to arrive), the Catholic religion and the French language survived because of numerous children and strict rules. People in Quebec don't have as many kids as before.

More generally, the French language is only part of the story. Something similar shows up in English Canada where people want to preserve their basic values, and a knowledge of the past. Let's be plain though. Most immigrants to Canada aspire to learn English and they hope their children will speak English without an accent. When people come to America, it is still a sacrifice for their children. (In the case of Quebec, this is not so obvious and one should understand the extra concern.)

On the political level, I think the PQ is wisely latching on to something here. It's apparent in Harper's (and Charest's) decision to introduce changes so that people must show their faces when they vote.

Chantal Hebert compared this to the movement, about 20 years ago, for municipalities to decalre themselves unilingual anglophone:

Last spring the sparks of the debate on minority accommodation reignited the career of Action Démocratique Leader Mario Dumont. But today he – like PQ Leader Pauline Marois and Charest for that matter – would be hard-pressed to spell out what concrete changes could possibly result from the work of the commission. Predictably, its first public forum this week drew calls for a return to the days when the Catholic religion was a staple of the Quebec school system as well as some anti-minority rants. Just as predictably, the capacity crowd was mostly made up of older Quebecers.

It would not be the first time that observers and politicians have confused the last big chunks of a melted iceberg with the tip of a massive hidden one.

In 1989-90, more than two dozen Ontario municipalities – including the cities of Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie – declared themselves English-only, in protest over the advent of a more comprehensive provincial regime of French-language services. Like some of the Quebecers who are currently venting about the impact of non-existent local minorities on their traditions, many of the Ontario municipalities involved were not even included in the new regime.

I think Hébert's viewpoint is accurate on the surface but it ignores much else, and the change of September 2001 is the hidden iceberg - and not remnants of a melted one. Hérouxville and Sault-Ste-Marie seem similar but this isn't a change to the metric system. Something more fundamental is involved.

The political class is waking up to it.

----

Quite apart from how quickly immigrants learn English or French and learn of our history and habits, we in the West must decide what we stand for and what we want to defend. When we speak of being liberal and open-minded, what do we mean exactly? What do we mean by a civilized society? For example, should a schoolteacher be able to cover her head with a scarf and pray several times a day?

To be crass, the PQ has latched on to a fad issue in an attempt to resurrect its cause. It is right to do this because ultimately, the success of Quebec sovereignty will pass by a nationalist route. Yet, this is not a minor issue, if it seems to be a fad now.

I recall a comment of Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s. We in the West, she said, should be proud of our ideals to understand the other viewpoint. Doubt is the basis of the scientific method. Indeed, we should not be shy to defend our Western ideals.

I think even English Canadians can understand the desire of French Canadians to ensure the use of French into the future. More generally however, all Canadians should understand the desire to ensure that liberal values guide our future societies.

Going back to the Hébert quote, she applies the Canon of Political Correctness as many seem to have done when discussing this PQ proposal. (What? We treat people differently?) Well, I think this modern Canon is mistaken. Political Correctness is no guide to morality.

The first amendments to the US Constitution are simply written. Our Charter of Rights does not offer such a good guide. It is at this level that we must find our way - in the spirit of the Enlightenment.

Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

For myself, I see no harm in this bill and I can fully understand it - both on an idealistic and political level. The US imposes a test of US history and government on new citizens. Estonia, more rigourously and more comparable to the Quebec situation, imposes a language test on its citizens. Canada requires a language and citizenship test.

The French in America have withstood the onslaught of an English majority. In the past (at least since 1759, an anniversary soon to arrive), the Catholic religion and the French language survived because of numerous children and strict rules. People in Quebec don't have as many kids as before.

***********

I think even English Canadians can understand the desire of French Canadians to ensure the use of French into the future. More generally however, all Canadians should understand the desire to ensure that liberal values guide our future societies.

The first amendments to the US Constitution are simply written. Our Charter of Rights does not offer such a good guide. It is at this level that we must find our way - in the spirit of the Enlightenment.

Here's the problem though. Some people, such as the Jews, came to Canada as a place of refuge. Quebec sure looks like it's in Canada, and Montreal has about 75,000 Jews, mostly Anglophones, down from 150,000. Should immigrants, fleeing under the conditions in which the Jews arrived, be told what language they have to speak? I think all official language laws are bad. Certainly, they'd be suspect under our First Amendment.

[August1991]

I think all official language laws are bad. Certainly, they'd be suspect under our First Amendment.

The United States does not have an official language; nevertheless, English (specifically, American English) is the language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements. Many individual states and territories have adopted English as their official language:

Arizona (2006)

Arkansas (1987)

California (1986)

Colorado (1988)

Florida (1988)

Georgia (1996)

Idaho (2007)[2]

Illinois (1969)[3]

Indiana (1984)

Iowa (2002)[4]

Kansas (2007)

Kentucky (1984)

Massachusetts (1975)

Mississippi (1987)

Missouri (1998)

Montana (1995)

Nebraska (1920)

New Hampshire (1995)

North Carolina (1987)

North Dakota (1987)

South Carolina (1987)

South Dakota (1995)

Tennessee (1984)

Utah (2000)

Virginia (1996)

Wyoming (1996)

Wikipedia

Here's the problem though. Some people, such as the Jews, came to Canada as a place of refuge. Quebec sure looks like it's in Canada, and Montreal has about 75,000 Jews, mostly Anglophones, down from 150,000. Should immigrants, fleeing under the conditions in which the Jews arrived, be told what language they have to speak?

The proposed PQ legislation does not require that immigrants speak French. It merely requires that permanent residents speak French before they become citizens, and it obliges the State to provide free French language lessons for immigrants who don't speak French. (The PQ is a Catholic attempt to become Lutheran Scandinavian. Ugh.)

Nevertheless jbg, you raise a good point. We should provide a place of refuge but we should not provide a place of harm. If guests wish to stay, then they should adopt our customs - in particular, our liberal values.

Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

Wikipedia

Sometime I will read these "Official Language" laws. I still find them totally anathema.

The proposed PQ legislation does not require that immigrants speak French. It merely requires that permanent residents speak French before they become citizens, and it obliges the State to provide free French language lessons for immigrants who don't speak French. (The PQ is a Catholic attempt to become Lutheran Scandinavian. Ugh.)

It does require knowing French to become a Quebec citizen. The problem I have is that Quebec remains part of Canada, receives Canadian benefits, etc. There's a tradeoff and it should not be "heads I win tails you lose".

Nevertheless jbg, you raise a good point. We should provide a place of refuge but we should not provide a place of harm. If guests wish to stay, then they should adopt our customs - in particular, our liberal values.

Thanks for compliment.

Adherence to liberal values should be a requirement, but not language compliance.

Edited October 28, 2007 by jbg

[Riverwind]

For myself, I see no harm in this bill and I can fully understand it - both on an idealistic and political level. The US imposes a test of US history and government on new citizens. Estonia, more rigourously and more comparable to the Quebec situation, imposes a language test on its citizens. Canada requires a language and citizenship test.

Many countries require a language test for citizenship so I agree that the concept itself is not necessarily wrong from a purely academic perspective. However, I think this proposal is particularily dangerous in a place like Quebec because the politics of the place suggests that it would be used a weapon to disenfranchise minorities because language ability is an extremely subjective notion.

For example, there was a dentist in alymer that failed a written test of french and was forced to move to leave the province despite the fact that he was serving 2000 patients. Many people pointed out that the dentist passed the oral exams and did not really need to write french to serve the public. This example clearly indicates how arbitrary tests of language proficiency can be and illustrates how a PQ government could use this exclude people that speak french as a second language.

The language requirements for senior civil service positions are another example that illustrate how reasonable 'language requirements' can be turned into a political tool intended to benefit native french speakers.

[August1991]

For example, there was a dentist in alymer that failed a written test of french and was forced to move to leave the province despite the fact that he was serving 2000 patients.

In 2004, all states except Hawaii require international dental graduates from dental schools that are not approved by the respective State Board, to obtain additional education in order to be eligible for licensure. Advanced Standing Programs are designed to teach qualified dentists from other countries the knowledge and skills found in the United States. These programs are generally 2 years long. Admission requirements generally include passing the NBDE Part I and the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) exams. Attending an Advanced Standing Program is an option for foreign dental graduates. Foreign dental graduates should inquire with each state dental board about their requirements for licensing.

Link

I don't mean that the Americans are the ultimate decider on this question. On the contrary, in Leftist terminology, Americans dominate this continent and this world. If English American California needs language legislation or rules, then what of French Quebec?

----

My point in this thread is to ask how best to ensure our values into the future. Bulgarians, for example, survived about five centuries under Muslim rule. Quebecers still speak French after 250 years of an English conquest.

So, how best to ensure liberal values -far into the future, despite all?

The language requirements for senior civil service positions are another example that illustrate how reasonable 'language requirements' can be turned into a political tool intended to benefit native french speakers.

Such is Political Correctness. We must treat Blacks ands Whites equally. Or Men and Women, or French and English...

Such is the modern, politically correct world and how sad it is. IMV, liberal values do not mean such equality.

Pauline Marois and the PQ (and soon Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for political reasons based on Harper's desire to win votes in Quebec) have broken this simplistic John-Lennon-Imagine political correctness. (BTW, John Lennon a British European chose to immigrate to America. Lennon paid a price for Freedom.)

Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[Riverwind]

I don't mean that the Americans are the ultimate decider on this question. On the contrary, in Leftist terminology, Americans dominate this continent and this world. If English American California needs language legislation or rules, then what of French Quebec?

The language rules in english are frequently used to deny employment to otherwise qualified immigrants - that is one of the reasons we have doctors driving taxis in this country. That said, erring on the side of safety can be justified when it comes to professional qualifications but that does not change the arbitrary nature of the language proficiancy tests. If Quebec were to bring in a language proficiency test it would be used to arbitrarily disenfranchise minorities and immigrants. That is why it is bad policy and why it should be condemned.

My point in this thread is to ask how best to ensure our values into the future. Bulgarians, for example, survived about five centuries under Muslim rule. Quebecers still speak French after 250 years of an English conquest.

And English survived 300 years of occupation by the French speaking Normans. Languages survive because people find them worthwhile - Quebequers value their language which means it will not disappear any time soon.

When it comes to liberal values I don't believe that we have to do anything other than speak out against those that would take away rights in the name of 'protecting' something.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[August1991]

And English survived 300 years of occupation by the French speaking Normans. Languages survive because people find them worthwhile - Quebequers value their language which means it will not disappear any time soon.

Language aside. What of values?

Specifically, what of the defence of an individual's freedom to choose? For example, how should we ensure that our great-grandchildren will be free to choose their partner for life?

Freedom is a wonderful thing. I have live in both Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union. I don't want my offspring to live under such a regime.

In part, this is why I am pro-American and in favour of Bush. And I also agree with Marois.

Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[Riverwind]

Specifically, what of the defence of an individual's freedom to choose? For example, how should we ensure that our great-grandchildren will be free to choose their partner for life?

I think we need to have a discussion about tolerating intolerance and all of the contradictions that arise. We value free speech but not if someone is calling for the murder of another group. We value personal freedom in the choice of clothing but not it their choice is imposed on them by a patriarchial culture. We value freedom of religion but not if the adherents treats non-believers as inferiors.

I would like to see a public debate on tolerance and freedom that emphizes that freedom is a two way street and that anyone who demands freedom for themselves has an obligation to support those values. People who understand the obligations that come with freedom are less likely to undermine them.

[Leafless]

The proposed PQ legislation does not require that immigrants speak French. It merely requires that permanent residents speak French before they become citizens, and it obliges the State to provide free French language lessons for immigrants who don't speak French.

English and French are FEDERALLY official only.

Even though Quebec declared itself 'officially French provincially, it is not recognized as such by the federal government, just as it is not recognized federally for any other province in Canada to become officially English speaking on a provincially wide basis as this would destroy federal bilingualism and its promotion across Canada.

Quebec therefore is discriminating against immigrants to speak French as Quebec does not posses those powers to force French provincially on anyone as a matter of fact.

The 'Notwithstanding Clause' Quebec uses (relating to the use of French) has to be renewed and approved federally every five years, discriminates against other Canadian provinces who do not have federal permission to do the same thing to protect the 'de facto' majority English language from abuses from the French language.

The federal government has failed to deal with this problem in a democratic manner and is the direct result of a dysfunctional federal government due to political interference from PM's from Quebec who are sympathetic to Quebec. ideologies.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Leafless

[August1991]

Quebec therefore is discriminating against immigrants to speak French as Quebec does not posses those powers to force French provincially on anyone as a matter of fact.

The 19 men (and there were no women) who shaved all the hair from their bodies before they boarded their flights in 2001 spoke English well.

Leafless, you seem to be concerned about one problem when, in fact, I think we face another problem.

Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

I don't mean that the Americans are the ultimate decider on this question. On the contrary, in Leftist terminology, Americans dominate this continent and this world. If English American California needs language legislation or rules, then what of French Quebec?

The US example is a perfect one. The English as a Foreign Language requirement allows for the functional ability to use and understand English but not perfect English. My understanding of the application of bi-lingual requirements in the Federal government is that they tolerate broken English but require pretty good French. I would assume Quebec government would impose similar requirements. Thus, as a practical matter tihs is severely prejudicial to Anglophones.

The pointe I above, which you conceded was a good one, related to the Jews. But more generally, there are apparently (I know I don't live there) large swaths of Quebec that are primariy English-speaking, such as the West Island, certain Montreal suburbs, the area that used to be called "Hull" (now merged into Gatineau) and many parts in between, and the Irish areas near Beau Comeau (sp). Should these areas be subject to an unwanted Frenchification?

Pauline Marois and the PQ (and soon Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for political reasons based on Harper's desire to win votes in Quebec) have broken this simplistic John-Lennon-Imagine political correctness. (BTW, John Lennon a British European chose to immigrate to America. Lennon paid a price for Freedom.)

Lennon had almost unlimited money. People who are effectively forced to flee parts of Quebec due to its "Frenchification" are likely facing some drop in the value of their homes because of the restriction of the market. They may not have much equity over the mortgage amount to start over. Few would have the resources of John Lennon.

[Argus]

This proposal met with universal opposition in the English media - inside and outside Quebec.

You find this surprising, do you? This proposal was not merely aimed at immigrants from foreign countries. Anglos who moved to Quebec from another province would also be barred from exercising their civic rights. I wonder what you would think of a similar law being enacted in Ontario which barred Francophones from exercising their civic rights until they passed English tests. I wonder what kind of outrage we would see from the rest of Quebec.

For myself, I see no harm in this bill and I can fully understand it - both on an idealistic and political level.

Yes, I have noted your hypocrisy on this issue on several previous occasions. Whenever the topic of immigration to Canada comes up you wax poetically in your enthusiasm for more and more and more immigrants, and dismiss the very notion that so many immigrants might endanger Canada's culture and values. However, whenever I then suggest we should instead direct these masses of immigrants to Quebec you immediately go silent. You love the idea of the international community in the rest of Canada, but you are protective of your own French community of Quebec and want no risk to is culture.

Canada takes in too many immigrants and should stop and allow the ones here to assimilate.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Argus

[Wilber]

Canada requires a language and citizenship test.

In either English or French. Argus has it. Should a Francophone who moves from Quebec to the ROC then lose their citizenship rights until they become fluent enough to satisfy whatever English requirements their new Province requires? They should if Quebec goes through with this.

[Leafless]

In either English or French. Argus has it. Should a Francophone who moves from Quebec to the ROC then lose their citizenship rights until they become fluent enough to satisfy whatever English requirements their new Province requires? They should if Quebec goes through with this.

Problem is Wilber, we don't have an English speaking PM with guts enough to allow other Canadian provinces the same rights as Quebec.

Quebec PM's and Quebec itself take all the risky constitutional chances simply because they have nothing to lose.

There is no way Canada can ever shake Quebec to dummy up or kick them out of confederation without raising other serious issues and it seems Canada fears that prospect, terribly.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Leafless

[Leafless]

The 19 men (and there were no women) who shaved all the hair from their bodies before they boarded their flights in 2001 spoke English well.

Leafless, you seem to be concerned about one problem when, in fact, I think we face another problem.

Why, do you actually think terrorist are incapable of blowing up air-liners if they shave their bodies and are bilingual.

Your bias against the English language is unbelievable.

[old_bold&cold]

Quebec's indentity is one that is rooted in terrorism, I lived through the times where FLQ would bomb department store crowds and anywhere that they could find a prodominently english crowd. They did not care about the innocent lives they took and this was fertile ground for the French Seperatis movement today. Once things came to a head with a kidnapping of Cross and Laport, the FLQ were quieted, but there goals of building hate and desention in Quebec, along language lines was well on the way to becoming political driving issues.

Quebec is only different from Canada, in that we alowed the french people to push their agendas, on the provinces people and the Federal Government, did nothing to intervene. The Bill 101 should have been brought down by the supreme court and the same laws governing the rest of Canada should have been imposed. But they wre not and today we have a province that thinks it is above any laws the federal government passes and they even have a federal political party that says straight out they are only there to protect pprovincial interests, and nothing else.

We as a nation have let this go on for far too long. But to act now it will mean many very hard feelings being brought to the battle. The federal government has the ability to strike down Quebecs language law and to force compliance to all the laws that the rest of Canada have to follow. But the honey or vinegar approach, is not a fast working solution and if it does not get some results soon, the younger people of Canada will come forward and push the one Canada and one voice, and we will again see Quebec go back to FLQ type tactics. The province was deimated when most large comapnies left the province, during the Separtist government of Rene Levques, and that is where the separtists in laid their own party thinkers in the fabric of Quebec, so that even after the government was defeated, they still then controlled much of the public infastructure, that is Quebec today. If they ever lose that position then they will be truly dead as a party of any consequence.

So the question of whether Quebec does have a different idenity from the rest of Canada? Yes, but this is very new and is not as engrained as the separtists would like you to believe. Just as they took over this in underhanded political move, it can again be taken back if done right and without the need to do it in the cover of secrecy. It is more of the question of, does Canada and its federal government have the will to face the Quebec issue for the good of all Canadians? I think that will come in time.

[Wilber]

It will become dividing for all of Canada I think. We will reach a point where some Provinces draw a solid line when it comes to meeting any more of Quebec's demands whereas others will still want to accommodate them.

While the waiting lists are longer than ever to get a kid into a French immersion school in BC an ever increasing number of westerners are getting damn sick of Quebec and its continuous whining.