Should Canada explore an amicable separation from Quebec?

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Why do you want to make being Canadian even more complicated? Do you dislike French that much?

I am a French Canadian, presently live in Quebec, but planning to move back to Ontario soon.

Don't confuse language with policy. I love the French language, but I hate Canada's language policy. It's highly inefficient and produces functional illiterates across the board. I work in the private sector but deal extensively with many branches of the Government of Canada (including CRA, DND, DFATD, RCMP, CBSA, IRD, and Justice among many others) on a GoC contract. A running joke between me and some of my bilingual colleagues is that the official languages of the Federal Government are broken English and broken French.

The Conference Board of Canada seems to support this position:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Orthographic,_grammatical,_lexical,_and_other_challenges_of_official_bilingualism

[Machjo]

27 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Still, you haven't given me one real reason other than you don't like bilingualism

I'm personally multilingual, so please define 'bilingualism.' If by 'bilingualism,' you mean personal bilingualism, I'm very much for it. If you mean official bilingualism, I'm very much against it. in fact, the two are somewhat diametrically opposed since the whole point of official bilingualism is to take responsibility for a second language away from individuals and have the government bear that burden. Official unilingualism forces the individual to become bilingual. Ideally in a multilingual country like Canada, the official language would be an easy one for all to learn as a common second language that we could all learn to a high level of functional literacy.

[Wilber]

My problem is that you would break up the country over a single issue, disregarding all the downsides of doing so. Personally, I don' believe a Canada geographically split in two would have a future. Official bilingualism may be a PITA but it's a small price to pay for a country this good.

[Machjo]

57 minutes ago, Wilber said:

My problem is that you would break up the country over a single issue, disregarding all the downsides of doing so. Personally, I don' believe a Canada geographically split in two would have a future. Official bilingualism may be a PITA but it's a small price to pay for a country this good.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps my line of work has made me cynical when I have to deal with functional illiterates in the Government. I remember asking a government agent what she needed. She turned to her colleague to ask him. They were exchanging in a mixture of broken English and French as they tried to understand one another. She knew standard French and broken English. I couldn't hear him clearly (since this was over the phone), but based on her responses, I'm guessing he knew some broken French and maybe standard English. They had some back and forth as she struggled to understand her frigging colleague before finally turning back to me to tell me what she needed. I mean seriously! And that's just one example.

Now more reasonably, I think Canada needs to turn to regional unilingualism: French in Quebec, English elsewhere, or some other arrangement that doesn't force the government to work in broken language like a bunch of functional illiterates.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Machjo

[Wilber]

For practical purposes, most of the country has regional unilingualism which works fine regionally, but that doesn't solve the problem of how you operate a federal system that represents the whole country. What language would you have used in Parliament for instance?

[Machjo]

21 minutes ago, Wilber said:

For practical purposes, most of the country has regional unilingualism which works fine regionally, but that doesn't solve the problem of how you operate a federal system that represents the whole country. What language would you have used in Parliament for instance?

I can't see a short-term solution, though I'm open to ideas.

The way I see it is that the problem starts in public school. Few Canadians learn their second language well. This results in a chain reaction of problems throughout the system as a result of a lack of competent bilinguals. In a sense, national communication, both in the private and federal sectors, ends up getting funneled through the few competent bilinguals whose departments are eternally understaffed. I actually had a bilingual colleague a few years ago who asked me to keep it a secret since she could see the rest of us always too busy and working rotating shifts all the time. She didn't see that worth the extra money and feared that if management learnt of her bilingualism, they'd pressure her into a bilingual contract too. And her French wasn't even that great!

Thinking outside the box, ignoring popular opinion, and just looking at it from an objective  economic, logistic, and cybernetic point of view, it would seem the most logical solution would be to have public schools gradually replace English and French by Esperanto or some other easy-to-learn second language in high school. That way, every Canadian would be fluently bilingual by the end of high-school. This would still allow French Canadians to trade with the French-speaking world and English-Canadians with the English-speaking world, but it would finally allow English and French Canadians to trade more with one another too. Probably the greatest barrier to trade between Ontario and Quebec is the language barrier, believe it or not.

Beyond that, it could eventually eliminate the need for much interpretation and translation both in the public and the private sectors. I've faced language barriers in the private sector too on a number of fronts in Canada too. Canada is far from being bilingual. It would be more accurate to describe it as bi-unilingual, which is not a good situation economically.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Machjo

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

I can't see a short-term solution, though I'm open to ideas.

The way I see it is that the problem starts in public school. Few Canadians learn their second language well. This results in a chain reaction of problems throughout the system as a result of a lack of competent bilinguals. In a sense, national communication, both in the private and federal sectors, ends up getting funneled through the few competent bilinguals whose departments are eternally understaffed. I actually had a bilingual colleague a few years ago who asked me to keep it a secret since she could see the rest of us always too busy and working rotating shifts all the time. She didn't see that worth the extra money and feared that if management learnt of her bilingualism, they'd pressure her into a bilingual contract too. And her French wasn't even that great!

Thinking outside the box, ignoring popular opinion, and just looking at it from an objective  economic, logistic, and cybernetic point of view, it would seem the most logical solution would be to have public schools gradually replace English and French by Esperanto or some other easy-to-learn second language in high school. That way, every Canadian would be fluently bilingual by the end of high-school. This would still allow French Canadians to trade with the French-speaking world and English-Canadians with the English-speaking world, but it would finally allow English and French Canadians to trade more with one another too. Probably the greatest barrier to trade between Ontario and Quebec is the language barrier, believe it or not.

Beyond that, it could eventually eliminate the need for much interpretation and translation both in the public and the private sectors. I've faced language barriers in the private sector too on a number of fronts in Canada too. Canada is far from being bilingual. It would be more accurate to describe it as bi-unilingual, which is not a good situation economically.

Bilingualism is growing in Canada.  Even in the most unilingual parts of Canada, there is mutual admiration and respect.  If it aint broke,  don't fix it.

[Wilber]

To remain fluent in a language you have to use it. That is where our geography works against us. There are long waiting lists for the French emersion schools in BC but if there is little need to use the language after you leave school, it will just atrophy. From a purely practical point of view, while certainly not useless, there are a few Asian languages and possibly Spanish which would be more useful than French in BC

Who speaks Esperanto? If you are going to learn a second language, at least learn one you can use somewhere else.

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Bilingualism is growing in Canada.  Even in the most unilingual parts of Canada, there is mutual admiration and respect.  If it aint broke,  don't fix it.

Do you work in a bilingual environment? I'm sorry, but knowing how to order a coffee in both official languages does not count as 'being bilingual.' When I'm communicating with someone, I want to know that that person understands what the hell I'm telling them and I want to be sure that I understand what they are telling me the same way I do. Lexical errors are the most difficult to detect unlike spelling and grammatical errors, since the word might be correct but the person using it or the person reading or hearing it might misunderstand its meaning in the standard language. I've encountered that in my work too and it's bloody frustrating. It wastes time and causes costly mistakes.

Just look at the stats. Statistically around half of adult Canadians are functionally literate in neither official language. As for Stats Can statistics, they are based on self assessed ability to converse in the language. They are neither objectively tested and even if they were, they don't address functional literacy, only the ability to hold a conversation, which is something totally different.

One friend once shared police and CBSA reports relating to another friend along with the hearing transcript, and it was all in broken English. That one probably cost the taxpayer tens of thousands since he would probably never had gone to the IRB had the CBSA officer understood English better.

I can give other examples. But just to be clear, I'm not talking about ordering a coffee or showing off your bilingualism to your friends. I'm talking about communication in the work environment. It's very broken.

[Machjo]

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

To remain fluent in a language you have to use it. That is where our geography works against us. There are long waiting lists for the French emersion schools in BC but if there is little need to use the language after you leave school, it will just atrophy. From a purely practical point of view, while certainly not useless, there are a few Asian languages and possibly Spanish which would be more useful than French in BC

Who speaks Esperanto? If you are going to learn a second language, at least learn one you can use somewhere else.

If every public school in Canada taught Esperanto, then it would serve as an inter-language. While Chinese Canadians could trade with China, English Canadians with the US and the UK, and French Canadians with France and Belgium, etc. Canadians could communicate with one another too. If English Canadians can't even learn French well, how will they learn Chinese well? Sure some have that aptitude, but let's not assume that everyone could learn it. Just have everyone learn Esperanto as a second language and then, if they want, a third language of their choice. Heck, even Richmond could benefit from that between its English and Chinese populations, same with parts of Toronto like Markham. Montreal could greatly benefit from it too and even Ottawa-Gatineau seeing how even many in Gatineau do not know English well. They know just enough English to make you think they know it well, which is the most dangerous level of all to lead to misunderstandings.

I work in the National capital Region, so I know how bilingualism in the region mostly means the ability to hold a basic conversation, just enough to make you think they're more competent than they are.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Machjo

[Zeitgeist]

The idea behind bilingualism is to get a basic understanding/appreciation of the second language and to ensure that those who are unilingual in an official language get the services in their respective language.  Esperanto just adds confusion.  It's all well and good to say it would be easier to have one official language, but that doesn't recognize the conditions of Canada's founding and continuing predominant language groups in Canada.  You could say we should learn additional languages.  These are offered as alternate courses in schools and in free international languages classes on weekends, but immigrants understand that Canada has two official languages, French and English.  In the north and in indigenous communities, at least in Ontario, indigenous languages can be learned as a substitute.  The groups that speak indigenous languages are much smaller than the groups that speak English and French.  Nevertheless, there are many tax funded programs aimed at protecting these less widely spoken languages.  We do a lot, but there are limits to what we can reasonably be expected to fund and achieve, and I think we test those limits in Canada.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Army Guy]

On 9/14/2018 at 7:06 PM, Machjo said:

If we maintain a common citizenship though, then the Quebec corridor wouldn't seem so imposing since private citizens could freely cross it easily enough.

 

As for governments, yes, I can see your point that Canadian military equipment couldn't just cross a quasi-sovereign Quebec without its consent, meaning that for the most part, what's on the east coast would stay there and what's on the other side of Quebec would stay there. Unless they're willing to head North over Quebec and then down through Nunavut I suppose.

Given the cost of going around Quebec, Canada would probably just negotiate paying a fee for Quebec to allow Canadian military equipment to cross the borders freely I guess.

 

But again, for private citizens, if we maintained a common citizenship, that would be a non-issue.

The last time that separation was even taken serious, the province of Quebec would look drastically different than it does today, basically split along the St lawrence river with the southern portion belonging to NB, Canada , providing a corridor through the province for goods and services to travel. Also the northern portion of Quebec would also shrink due to Native lands and access to them, that and fact  these portions were given to Quebec for ease of administration.  

To think that Canada would just hand over Quebec as it's current borders are laid out is crazy talk and not beneficial to Canada at all, Quebec made some very crazy demands according to them that Canada would just roll over and kiss their ass....the last vote we had to separate the government took very seriously, All F-18 within Quebec were flown to the US for exercise then impounded by the US , acting upon a Canadian request, also most of the 5 th CMBG was sent to NY state on exercise, and quarantined there...leaving Quebec without any military assets they proclaimed as theirs....they wanted 1/3 of the army, 1/2 of the airforce, and 1/3 of the navy.....2 CMBG had all leave canceled and placed on low level alert in case it needed to respond to Quebec closing the borders , as they said they would do....if they did not get their way...and while all this never amounted to anything due to the separation vote never producing the results it needed....Quebec was going to learn that it would not get its way, and that the Canadian government was willing to use force to ensure trade flowed across all of Canada , with out being held hostage by Quebec. 

I'm sure a lot of talking would have to be done before any borders would be finalized.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Army Guy

[Machjo]

12 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The last time that separation was even taken serious, the province of Quebec would look drastically different than it does today, basically split along the St lawrence river with the southern portion belonging to NB, Canada , providing a corridor through the province for goods and services to travel. Also the northern portion of Quebec would also shrink due to Native lands and access to them, that and fact  these portions were given to Quebec for ease of administration.  

To think that Canada would just hand over Quebec as it's current borders are laid out is crazy talk and not beneficial to Canada at all, Quebec made some very crazy demands according to them that Canada would just roll over and kiss their ass....the last vote we had to separate the government took very seriously, All F-18 within Quebec were flown to the US for exercise then impounded by the US , acting upon a Canadian request, also most of the 5 th CMBG was sent to NY state on exercise, and quarantined there...leaving Quebec without any military assets they proclaimed as theirs....they wanted 1/3 of the army, 1/2 of the airforce, and 1/3 of the navy.....2 CMBG had all leave canceled and placed on low level alert in case it needed to respond to Quebec closing the borders , as they said they would do....if they did not get their way...and while all this never amounted to anything due to the separation vote never producing the results it needed....Quebec was going to learn that it would not get its way, and that the Canadian government was willing to use force to ensure trade flowed across all of Canada , with out being held hostage by Quebec. 

I'm sure a lot of talking would have to be done before any borders would be finalized.

True. And on more thought, if Quebec remained in NATO, depending on the agreement, our respective militaries would probably be on friendly terms anyway.

Also, even if Quebec's borders shrunk drastically, that wouldn't matter much if there was a common citizenship anyway.

In fact, a combination of Canada guaranteeing a common citizenship after separation combined with pressure to respect indigenous rights could make Quebec more willing to make land concessions. Again, with the guarantee of a common citizenship if Quebec wanted that, a large Quebec land mass wouldn't be that important anyway.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Machjo

[Zeitgeist]

The younger generations in Quebec and the rest of Canada don't seem to have the same sense of division as older Canadians/Quebecers.  We seem to have found a reasonable middle ground that affords Quebec quite a bit of independence and the benefits of being within Canada.  The rest of Canada seems to have a greater appreciation of Quebec and is coming across on the language front.  There are still soft nationalists, but very few in Quebec or the rest of Canada would like to risk losing the benefits of the current arrangement.  There's an unwritten rule that opening up constitutional debate in Canada is a dead end.  It's better to seek interprovincial business opportunities and enjoy the cultural differences.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The younger generations in Quebec and the rest of Canada don't seem to have the same sense of division as older Canadians/Quebecers.  We seem to have found a reasonable middle ground that affords Quebec quite a bit of independence and the benefits of being within Canada.  The rest of Canada seems to have a greater appreciation of Quebec and is coming across on the language front.  There are still soft nationalists, but very few in Quebec or the rest of Canada would like to risk losing the benefits of the current arrangement.  There's an unwritten rule that opening up constitutional debate in Canada is a dead end.  It's better to seek interprovincial business opportunities and enjoy the cultural differences.

You might be right. Given how some soft nationalists in Quebec, and even federalists among them, have expressed a preference for the territoriality principle in language policy, I'm not sure why we don't offer it to them: English where English dominates and French where French dominates would save some money. In 2016 alone, Canada spent 2.4 billion just on fulfilling the language provisions of the Charter!

[Army Guy]

Quebec would be years trying to get into NATO, and so broke how would they ever afford a military force of any good size....Would we be friendly....what if we could not come up with an amicable split...if the past government thought it a good idea to move all military forces out of Quebec before the vote , is that a good indicator of trust or friendship....

Whats the point of splitting the nation if we are going to have a common citizenship....Why would that be any benefit to Canada. 

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Quebec would be years trying to get into NATO, and so broke how would they ever afford a military force of any good size....Would we be friendly....what if we could not come up with an amicable split...if the past government thought it a good idea to move all military forces out of Quebec before the vote , is that a good indicator of trust or friendship....

Whats the point of splitting the nation if we are going to have a common citizenship....Why would that be any benefit to Canada. 

Given the provinces on either side of Quebec, we would want to ensure easy access through Quebec at least for private citizens, and of course that would need to be reciprocal. If there can be no agreement, then Quebec would not get to split. I'm not saying Canada should abuse its power and should still offer a just offer, but if Quebec insists on being unreasonable, then no, it should not be allowed to separate, though perhaps we could allow for more decentralization especially on the language-policy front.

[Zeitgeist]

Again, separation has become a bit of a non-issue, especially among younger citizens.  Quebec is given a wide berth on many matters.  Interestingly, most of the current federal priorities are also Quebec priorities, except perhaps for Energy East, which Quebec doesn’t support. I still think that pipeline should proceed as far as Ontario.  Ford might push for that as well.  

Edited September 16, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[cannuck]

Quebec is a very expensive luxury to Canada, but since it contains 8 million Canadians, one we pretty much have to pay to play with.  Personally, I am properly pissed that French in my school years was barely taught, and I barely learned any.  If we are going to be bi-lingual, IMHO we should  BE bi-lingual and literally EVERYTHING should be done in both languages.  Our children did French immersion, and speak fluent Parisian French.  I was on board from day one for them to do so, but my wife (teacher) pointed out that one of best reasons to do so is that those who speak second (or more) languages and are advanced in music do extremely well with math and science.  What has been mentioned is that unless they go out of their way, they simply don't get enough opportunity to speak French, and it hurts their proficiency.  Little kid is fluent in 4 and conversant in 4 more, and is the "expert" in trying to maintain proficiency - that she supplements with a lot of international travel and work.  That would be far easier if there was a lot more French in English Canada. 

Language has been a very useful developmental tool in our children's academic and professional life, and one they are passing on to our grandchildren.  So for that, I say: "Vive la Quebec!"

Edited September 16, 2018 by cannuck

[Army Guy]

I'm pretty sure that is not how it was going to work out, at least that is not what happened last time....Quebec made a lot of demands during and upto the vote, The Canadian government did respond to some in the media, but i can't find a source that said our government / and future Quebec government sat down to hammer out any details before hand....What is clear so far is that once Quebec won the separation vote there would be no going back , unless the future Quebec government had another vote to join once again Canada....So now what you have is a sovereign country with no ties or agreements with Canada ....kind of like putting the cart before the horse sort of thing....

And like last time , the federal government had responded to some of Quebecs demands though the media, one was the st Lawrence sea way, Canada demanded the land corridor or southern half of Quebec basically south of the river would become a sovereign part of Canada, to allow trade and commence to flow from both half of the nation. they (Canadian government )also declined their (Quebecs)demand for 1/3 of the army and equipment , 1/2 the airforce, and 1/3 of the navy....

Like i said i can not find a source that confirms any official talks before the vote to discuss terms.....what is confirmed is that our government taking action to move Canadian military assets within Quebec into the states to protect them from being seized or used against Canada. Plus the fact a lot of Canadian military units were told no leave and on low level alert until after the vote....I don't think Quebec had really thought it out well....

[cannuck]

On 9/15/2018 at 6:20 PM, Army Guy said:

I'm pretty sure that is not how it was going to work out, at least that is not what happened last time.... Plus the fact a lot of Canadian military units were told no leave and on low level alert until after the vote....I don't think Quebec had really thought it out well....

I tried to find either an article or book I read by James Blanchard telling one of the behind-the-scenes stories about the Yes/No vote in '95.  He was former Governor of Michigan, and IIRC married to a Canadian (at one point).  VERY close communications between Clinton and Chretien through Blanchard (at that time US Ambassador to Canada) steered the extremely dangerous and stupid Canadian bureaucrats from screwing up the delicate balance.  The Yanks had their bureaucrats under control, but it took a masterful effort by Chretien to minimize the damage done by our idiots.  The end result was a very thin majority for the "No" - in part due to the extremely good co-operation between Ottawa and Washington - that later grew into a close and working friendship between Clinton and Chretien.   All thanks to an Ambassador who actually knew and understood Canada very well.

Sorry I could not find the text - I think you would find it very interesting.   Also scary: we cam THAT close to breaking up Canada (and now the little Tur...I mean TRUdeau is taking us right back there).

[-TSS-]

I have to admit that I havent followed lately the Quebec independence-movement so excuse me if I ask some uneducated questions.

Namely, in Scotlsnd the SNP went the wrong way round about independence and states that it is londependence first and foremost and only after that they would start thinking about things such as would Scotland be. a republic or maintain the Queen as the head of state, what currentcy Scotland would use, would Scotlsnd belong to the EU and NATO etc.

The electorate disagreed with them. The electorate wanted to know such things beforehand.

Has the Quebec independence-movement stated clear plane how an independent Quebec would look like?

[Machjo]

10 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

I have to admit that I havent followed lately the Quebec independence-movement so excuse me if I ask some uneducated questions.

Namely, in Scotlsnd the SNP went the wrong way round about independence and states that it is londependence first and foremost and only after that they would start thinking about things such as would Scotland be. a republic or maintain the Queen as the head of state, what currentcy Scotland would use, would Scotlsnd belong to the EU and NATO etc.

The electorate disagreed with them. The electorate wanted to know such things beforehand.

Has the Quebec independence-movement stated clear plane how an independent Quebec would look like?

They can't even agree among each other on that. The day after independence, Quebecers would be bickering about what their new constitution should look like.