Being Québécois

"Boy!... do Frenchmen ever crave on you guys!" I was told by an English-speaking classmate during my Bishop's University years. "Le Québécois, c'est une langue qui gratte!" he added. "What do you mean, Québécois is a language that rakes?" I asked befuddled. My friend had just met with a few international students who were discovering the Québécois accent in real life.

Those were the late 80s. Québécois singers were invading France. They're still very much present today, but that particular period was especially rich and the French reception was very positive. The phenomenon gave much exposure to the particular way French is spoken on this side of the Atlantic, a tad more guttural than its European counterpart to say the least.

I always liked cultural encounters. I'm usually very enthusiastic and blunt about such situations and, from time to time, my curiosity has been interpreted as invasive. I've experienced the feeling. I've also learned to be more tactful with those who would rather blur their cultural differences.

While travelling France in the early 90s, I was having supper with English-speaking tourists in a youth hostel. A few were from Canada and obviously spotted my origins. Most were from Australia, New Zealand, England, the USA... and hadn't realized English wasn't my first language. Upon ordering more wine to the passing garçon in French, all eyes turned on me.

"Where did you learn to speak French?" I was asked. "It's my mother tongue" I replied. I was then the center of much attention about my province and what it's like to be Québécois. Here are a few examples of what I (might or should) have said. Being Québécois is:

• giving English-speaking North Americans a little bit of France without the Parisians and giving Frenchmen a little bit of North America without the Americans;
• feeling as comfortable in Paris as in New-York;
• being reminded by a Parisian garçon that you are in a French bistro, when feeling at home and nonchalantly ordering nachos to satisfy your late afternoon munchies;
• listening to Plume Latraverse on your iPod while visiting the Louvre and making perfect sense out of it all;
• being able to make the rapprochement between a tartiflette au reblochon, a French dish from the Savoie region, and a poutine, a North American greasy spoon favorite;
• having the opportunity to appreciate French movies and their American remakes in their original versions, e.g. La total with Thierry Lhermitte (an easy going police comedy) and True Lies with Arnold Schwarzenegger (a overblown popcorn movie); Nikita with Anne Parillaud and Point of No Return with Bridget Fonda;
• having the option to easily steer away from McDonald's or Tim Hortons to eat a decent meal at a decent price;
• giving a North American fast food classic, a burger, a Mediterranean twist with lamb meat garnished with steamed spinach, garlic and feta cheese (ok... this one's not typically Québécois, but it sure is a good example of interculturalism, whereas multiculturalism would have offered an exotic side dish with an ordinary burger);
• turning a North American greasy spoon favorite, poutine, into a "Tunisian" meal, by adding merguez sausages, or turning it into a gourmet meal, by adding foie gras;
• going beyond pâtés and appreciating rillettes and cretons for what they are;
• being able to choose from over 200 different local cheeses that rival with centuries of European tradition and savoir-faire;
• realizing that more people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean are familiar with your own culture than people on the other side of the Ottawa River and being labeled by some of them as closed-minded;
• watching or reading your own "national media" on a domestic issue and getting the impression the report was prepared by a foreign journalist;
• listening to homegrown music, watching homegrown TV and movies and feeling that unmistakable sense of belonging.

So they say...

Explaining Québec separatism

On October 30, 1995, the Québécois were asked a simple "yes or no" question. The collective answer to this simple question was a resounding "maybe!"

The event stirred some attention, to say the least. In the aftermath of the 1995 referendum, a few attempts were made at explaining what motivates Québec separatism. Hillwatch, a service government relations firm, wrote an article to explain this peculiarity of Canadian politics to a foreign audience.

The article builds on an analogy using a fictitious New California and Spanish Americans to draw a parallel with the Canadian situation. Although interesting to read, there is a very significant difference between the USA and Canada that the article fails to acknowledge. Americans quickly drifted away from England and they are the ones who basically "invented" their country, not the Spanish Americans. In contrast, British North Americans have only recently embraced their own canadianity, an identity that was mainly forged by French Canadians (see The Québécois aren't truly Canadians).

The article also lists some preconceived ideas that it identifies as lies Québécois politicians have been feeding residents of the province. I remember 1995 quite well and, although I've heard most of the statements listed, I can't say I heard them from the sovereigntist leaders in the way they are being presented in the article. These statements (in italics below) deserve to be commented:

1. The Federal Government takes more money from Québec than it gives back. In 2006, the Québécois sent $38.4B to Ottawa and received $12.8B in transfers from Ottawa. Québec obviously receives other federal services that aren't accounted for, but either way... if the economic discrepancy between both parties were so clear, wouldn't have the demonstration been clearly made?
2. An independent Québec would be able to create more jobs. Maybe, or maybe not... who knows exactly what would happen in a sovereign Québec? If all economic ties were to be severed, jobs would obviously be lost.
3. A separate Québec would have no problems becoming a member of NAFTA. Then again... maybe, or maybe not... but with such a well integrated economy, why is that so hard to believe? And if NAFTA didn't work, perhaps the European Union would be interested; France still seems to be very much attached to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon.
4. If Québec separates, Quebeckers will keep their Canadian citizenship and passports. Why are the Canadian citizenship and passport such a big deal? There are plenty of countries the size of a sovereign Québec would be that have an appealing citizenship and passport (Finland, Danemark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland...).
5. An independent Québec would provide better education and healthcare. That depends on the resources it would have at hand. It probably wouldn't change all that much.
6. A separate Québec will absorb all federal civil servants in the province. Well... unless federal civil servants aren't doing anything productive, someone would be required to carry on the added work that comes with being sovereign.
7. Independence costs Quebeckers nothing. Has anyone really being saying this? Independence comes with a price.
8. An independent Québec will be able to use the Canadian or US currency. Why not?... as long as it adheres without a say to the monetary policies that comes with it, any state can use any currency.
9. A separate Québec could keep its present territorial boundaries. Obviously, if the country can be divided, so can a province. But it's safe to assume that Ottawa would want to maintain its own territorial integrity along current borders to prevent other claims.
10. An independent Québec would offer its citizens a better quality of life. Again, that depends on the resources it would have at hand. It probably wouldn't change all that much either.
11. Québec cannot control its own affairs in Canada. Canada has to deal with the USA's influence, so does Québec. Let's just say that the challenges would be different.
12. Québec is in debt because of the federal system. Like any province, part of Québec's debt is under federal control. A sovereign Québec would be in debt on its own.
13. Once Québec declared independence, the rest of Canada would rush to form an economic association. Probably not... some sort of backlash is to be expected. However, is it so hard to believe that Canada would come to reason after a while?
14. Québec agriculture would still have access to the Canadian market after separation. See NAFTA above.
15. Québec could pay the interest on its share of the national debt but not assume any responsibility for the principal. I've never heard this one. Like it does today, Québec would assume its share as any other province. The challenge would be to find a transition formula that's respectful of both parties.

Some of these statements lack background to be taken seriously; others are simple exaggerations or embellished perspectives. Federal politicians don't have monopoly over such techniques; sovereigntist politicians obviously use them as well.

The article pretends to explain Québec separatism, but it builds on the premise that its foundations are faulty. As it is too often the case in English media, the article doesn't give the idea of sovereignty a fair shot. It does give, however, Francophone readers a very good idea of how Anglophones rationalize the sovereignty movement. Still, explaining Québec separatism is a lot simpler than the length this article goes into (see Québec's ethnocentric nationalism):

• Over the centuries, French Canadians developed their very own culture. A culture based on French, but a culture which is very different from what you'd find in other French-speaking states.
• In the last century or so, French has been steadily declining in the majority of provinces without great concern. With its French-speaking majority, Québec has been able to use its provincial legislative platform and oppose this assimilation trend.
• Canadians who fail to see the value of this important asset to the Canadian identity are putting Ottawa in front of a Gordian knot. They are forcing Québec to keep using its provincial leverage and they are fueling the sovereignty movement.

Those who value Canadian culture and feel Canada's independence towards the USA is justified should understand this.

"Wouf!" goes Snowy

I just finished reading Hergé Foundation's latest publication, Colocs en Stock (Google translation), a Québécois adaptation of The Red Sea Sharks. I'm always wary of these regional adaptations.

This venture into Canadian French territories is a fine example of how things can go overboard. The author of the adaption is obviously more preoccupied with stuffing as many Québécois expressions as possible than giving life to the characters in a Québécois setting. Everyone speaks Québécois like an old uneducated person, even the custom officer at a Middle East border.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't anything funny to do with the way French is spoken here. I'm simply saying this book misses the appropriate dosage to make it feel natural and enjoyable. Anyone interested in reading colloquial Canadian French should try Paul dans le métro (Google translation) by Michel Rabagliati, a much better representation of the way French is spoken in my part of the world nowadays.

The Québécois aren't receptive

So... the Conservatives settled the fiscal imbalance, recognized the Québécois nation and gave it UNESCO representation. Despite these gestures of good faith, Québec sent only ten members of the governing party to Ottawa in 2008. Even worst... a recent EKOS Research survey puts the Tories at 40.7 per cent support compared to 25.5 per cent for the Liberals nationwide, but gives the Bloc 50 seats, up from 47.

What's wrong?... are the Québécois ungrateful?... why aren't they receptive?

The fiscal imbalance is a discrepancy between means and responsibilities. This situation was particularly acute during Paul Martin's tenure as finance minister in the late 90s, while Ottawa experienced repeated surpluses and the province experienced repeated deficits. In March 2002, the Report of Commission on Fiscal Imbalance (a.k.a. the Séguin Report) recommended three steps for eliminating the fiscal imbalance:

1. Stopping financial pressure by increasing transfer payments for health and education;
2. Freeing a new tax room for the provinces;
3. Restricting "federal spending powers" to prevent overlaps with provincial jurisdictions.

In March 2007, the Conservatives provided a package to settle the fiscal imbalance. It included a new, enriched equalization formula, increased transfer payments for post-secondary education, training and infrastructure, and key reforms to the way health and social spending is structured. The package did provide some fresh air, but transfers for post-secondary education still aren't at the levels they were in the early 90s and measures to address the second and third steps recommended by the Séguin Report remain to be seen.

In November 2006, the Conservatives passed the Québécois nation motion (see The Québécois form a Nation). For many Canadians in other provinces, the motion is a major breakthrough for Québec. For the majority of Québécois, the motion simply is an acknowledgement of what they already know. French Canadian culture is a prominent defining characteristic of the Canadian identity and Québec is an important component of this culture. The Conservatives' motion is a step in the right direction for Canada, but what will come out of it in practical terms remains an unanswered question.

In May 2006, the Québec-Canada agreement on UNESCO entered into force. It gives the province permanent representation to Canada's mission to UNESCO. In practical terms, it guarantees access to all official documents and participation to internal efforts before Canada takes a position or votes.

The Canadian identity has been marked by French Canadian stubbornness (see The Québécois aren't truly Canadians). When it comes to popular culture, the Québécois watch and listen to more homegrown productions than other Canadians (see Canadian content, Part 2 and Part 3). With its rich production, Québec contributes more than its share to Canadian cultural exports. The province was also instrumental in UNESCO's 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (see Cultural diversity).

The Québec-Canada agreement on UNESCO now ensures that, before taking a stand on cultural issues, Canada will hear Québec's point of view. When it comes to asserting its own cultural distinctiveness, Canada doesn't have much to show off. Shouldn't one render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?

The Québécois aren't being receptive. Is anyone wondering why?... and what are they doing about it?