Coming out/going out

November 16, 2005 8:22 PM

He's young, telegenic, bilingual, a Harvard grad... and now André Boisclair, the youngest person ever elected to a seat in Quebec's National Assembly, is the new leader of the Parti Quebecois, the nationalist -- as in Quebec nationalist -- left-leaning party founded to take Canada's mostly french-speaking province out of the federation. Oh, and he's gay. And an admitted (former) cocaine user (although that might be a good thing.) Oh, and, according to the polls, the next Premier Ministre of Quebec.
posted by docgonzo (116 comments total)

And let me guess. He was raised Catholic but no longer goes to church or believes in God.

All I can say is, vive le Québec libre!
posted by Creosote at 8:27 PM on November 16, 2005

It's as if he came out of a bizarro left-wing 80s. Now I'm torn between admiring Quebec for their amazingly progressive political view and mocking them for this seperatist movement bunk.
posted by Saydur at 8:30 PM on November 16, 2005

I agree, free Quebec! And Ontario! And so on.
posted by loquax at 8:31 PM on November 16, 2005

This is disturbing, if not unanticipated. He was consistently leading the polls to win the leadership on the party, and the Liberal party has been without much support for quite a while now. Looks like yet another referendum is inevitable (yes, he has promised to call one if elected premier). With Boisclair at the helm, and not some old, crusty dude [a la Parizeau], the "Yes" side might just come out on top. This is bad news for anglophone Quebecers like me.
posted by Ricky_gr10 at 8:37 PM on November 16, 2005

[er, that's "leadership of the party." Maybe Quebec actually does need fewer people like me...]
posted by Ricky_gr10 at 8:39 PM on November 16, 2005

At first glance I read this post as saying, "He's young, telepathic..." Telepathic? No wonder he's getting ahead!
posted by brundlefly at 8:39 PM on November 16, 2005

Well, they're amazingly progressive except for that whole resenting ethnics thing and their rejection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
posted by loquax at 8:40 PM on November 16, 2005

Where's the english section of his site? :-)
posted by reverendX at 8:46 PM on November 16, 2005

Quebec: As F'd Up as France, Without the Wine or Nice Climate
posted by ParisParamus at 8:49 PM on November 16, 2005

France has a nice climate?
posted by Eekacat at 8:53 PM on November 16, 2005

At first glance I read this post as saying, "He's young, telepathic..."

Spoooky. That's what I read at first, too.
posted by solid-one-love at 8:58 PM on November 16, 2005

There's also his old student blog from when he was at Harvard last year. Apparently he was going to work in Toronto for McKinsey before he ran.
posted by maledictory at 9:02 PM on November 16, 2005

Canada would be far better off without that sagging sack of racist, xenophobic, elderly, unproductive, unemployed whiners hanging off prosperous Ontario and Alberta. Although both sides of my family are from Quebec, i wouldn't be sad to see it go; it just causes too many problems for the rest of us.

Boisclair, although highly educated, is morally bankrupt, does not know much about the real world and would run that province into the ground, referendum or not.
posted by drgonzo at 9:06 PM on November 16, 2005

France has a nice climate?

Nice has a nice climate, it's on the Riviera, very Mediteranean.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 9:09 PM on November 16, 2005

Ivy League cocaine using gay man?

What? Another Bush family member?

Ricky_gr10: "This is bad news for anglophone Quebecers like me." You didn't move to Toronto yet? Didn't you get the memo?
posted by ?! at 9:12 PM on November 16, 2005

With Canada divided, America can once again dust off its long held desire of conquest. Muwahahaha.

In a more serious note, what exactly are the ramifications of Quebec independence? I trust there were some articles published around the time of the last referendum. Does anyone know of any recent publications?
posted by Atreides at 9:12 PM on November 16, 2005

"Boisclair, although highly educated, is morally bankrupt, does not know much about the real world and would run that province into the ground, referendum or not."

If only more people here would have the clarity to see that an analogous statement could be made about John Kerry!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:12 PM on November 16, 2005

Actually, I was referring more to the G-d awful winters of Quebec than the climat en France. But Nice is nice. At least outside of August.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:14 PM on November 16, 2005

here is an interesting read about the impact on the rest of Canada should Quebec decide to defect.
posted by drgonzo at 9:15 PM on November 16, 2005

ParisParamus - Subtract "highly educated" from that and you have George W. Bush.

Give it up. What do you have to lose - a paycheck ? There are worse fates, believe me.
posted by troutfishing at 9:20 PM on November 16, 2005

In a more serious note, what exactly are the ramifications of Quebec independence?

Nobody should be seriously considering this. If Quebec was going to leave, they would have done so in 1981, 1988, 1991, 1993, or 1995. Everything has changed, serious support for separation is lower than it's been in decades, and there remain serious questions as to how legal such a thing would be in the first place. To a large extent, Federal government pork worked like a charm! Electing BQ or PQ politicians at this point is an exercise in futility, and more of a protest vote than anything else. Especially the BQ, which is the most useless political party this side of the Rhinoceros Party. Far better for Quebecers to enjoy the $10 billion odd bucks (for 6 million people) the rest of Canada throws their way in the form of "equalization payments" instead of separating and instantly cutting their standard of living by, oh, say 50%. Now a true confederation of independent Provinces, that's a different story.
posted by loquax at 9:23 PM on November 16, 2005

Only Canadians would win a war and then let the losers keep their lands, customs, laws, and language; while whining for centuries about how hard done-by they are.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:26 PM on November 16, 2005

drgonzo,

Thanks for the link. By its interpetation, it seems the Canadians should be carrying Quebec's baggage to the door with a smile and a whistle.
posted by Atreides at 9:27 PM on November 16, 2005

I used to be against the whole separatist thing, like any other good Canadian boy. Until, oddly enough, I had an argument with a separatist on Fark. I think he's probably here as well.
Now I support their right to leave, while simultaneously hoping they'll reconsider. But if they go, I'll be up with the Cree cutting off the top third of the province.
posted by nightchrome at 9:29 PM on November 16, 2005

Until, oddly enough, I had an argument with a separatist on Fark.

That's about the correct intellectual level of the whole thing alright.
posted by Pseudonumb at 9:34 PM on November 16, 2005

here is an interesting read about the impact on the rest of Canada should Quebec decide to defect.

Great link. That article might underestimate the economic risk of separation to Quebec, it seems to me, since if things really did get noticably worse, many Quebecers would just move back to Canada, and create one of those negative-spiral things.
posted by gsteff at 9:51 PM on November 16, 2005

It's amazing how so many claim that État québécois is a drain on canada, but are so adamant it stay a part of Canada.

loquax: That was 1980 (59.56% NO to 40.44 % YES) and 1995 (50.58% NO to 49.42% YES)

atreides: If you really want to learn why many citizens want Québec out of Canada I will find some translated articles for you. My email address is listed.

PareidoliaticBoy: Which war did "Canadians" win? 1812? :)

nightcrome: Top third? You mean Nunavik?
posted by ?! at 9:51 PM on November 16, 2005

loquax: That was 1980 (59.56% NO to 40.44 % YES) and 1995 (50.58% NO to 49.42% YES)

I didn't mean just the referendum years, but any time of constitutional conflict.

It's amazing how so many claim that État québécois is a drain on canada, but are so adamant it stay a part of Canada.

I agree. Even if you don't think it's a drain on Canada, why would anyone want to keep a group of people who want to leave in the country? Isn't that opressive imperialism? What about self determination and democracy and all that? If they want to leave, fine by me. Same as if the Albertans want to go, or the Nova Scotians or anyone else. Our brand of decentralized federalism is so bizarre that you can almost call the provinces independent countries already. What exactly would the difference be in my life if Quebec were to be "independent"? Chacun à son goût, as they say...
posted by loquax at 10:00 PM on November 16, 2005

?!, no I mean the top part of Quebec which technically belongs to first nations groups, predominantly the Cree.
posted by nightchrome at 10:00 PM on November 16, 2005

I've lived in Montreal all my life.

The irony here is that a lot of Quebecers when asked say they would vote for Quebec independence - but seem to expect to go on voting MPs into Ottawa and collecting various federal benefits anyway. In other words, it seems to be a persistent pipe dream, but not something whose ramifications and consequences have been very well thought out.
posted by zadcat at 10:05 PM on November 16, 2005

Nightcrome: He said Nunavik, not Nunavut.
posted by maledictory at 10:21 PM on November 16, 2005

I always figured the people living in Montreal were, at least demographically, the ones with the least desire to secede from Canada proper, and it was the backwards farmers and such outside the city that were so voraciously pro-independent.

Can someone please explain to this humble Yank why on earth they'd want to secede? If it amounts to "cultural reasons" I think I will puke in my hat.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:43 PM on November 16, 2005

cultural reasons = racism

they say their efforts are to protect and preserve Quebec culture and language. really, it's just poorly disguised hatred of the anglos. we don't really do anything at all, but try to ignore their whining. we basically leave them free enough to do whatever they want, but the virus that is nationalistic fervor has infected them with a superiority complex and the result is separatism.
posted by drgonzo at 10:53 PM on November 16, 2005

Civil_Disobedient: It amounts to cultural reasons. At least you didn't offer to eat your hat. Honestly, we're all pretty damn tired of listening to Quebecers bellyaching, over the loss of a mythical culture that never really existed - at least not as they like to romanticize it. The litany of complaints and trumped up grievances grows more tiresome each year as the nation struggles with rather more urgent issues. If seperation is what it'll take to finally stop the incessant whining, them I'm all for it.
posted by slatternus at 10:54 PM on November 16, 2005

It amounts to cultural reasons. But save your hat.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:57 PM on November 16, 2005

?! and maledictory: nightchrome knows what he is talking about. Nunavut and Nunavik are primarily populated with Inuit.
As (I assume) a Canadian attending university, give your head a shake for not knowing the cultural basics of your nation, maledictory. Back to grade 5 with you!

Civil_Disobedient: I hope your hat is leak-proof.
posted by Pseudonumb at 11:00 PM on November 16, 2005

maledictory, shows how well I read.
Anyhow, no, Nunavik is run by Inuit not by Cree. The Cree are I suppose more the northeast-middle part of the province. So far as I know, only the Cree have voiced intent to split off from Quebec if it leaves Canada, although since the original James Bay treaty system only mentioned the Cree, they would most likely have strong sway over the Inuit and Naskapi of the region as well. So I suppose the whole area would leave, eventually.
posted by nightchrome at 11:05 PM on November 16, 2005

And Pseudonumb beat me to my own defense. Although I do admit I totally misread Nunavik anyhow.
posted by nightchrome at 11:06 PM on November 16, 2005

In any event, the entire issue is moot. America, under ANY administration, will not allow Quebec to become Belarus-on-the-St. Lawrence. It's just not going to happen. You might as well talk about California seceeding from the Union.
posted by slatternus at 11:20 PM on November 16, 2005

Pseudonumb - Until, oddly enough, I had an argument with a separatist on Fark.

That's about the correct intellectual level of the whole thing alright

That's about the bigoted level I expect out of metafilter's fringe. Snarking against Fark is "cool," eh? If you've ever actually been there...

... yeah, it's mostly juvenile. But there are gems - and TotalFark is an entirely different beast than Fark(lite).

There are both good and completely stupid reasons for Quebec to leave Canada - a lot of people will not quite understand why it would be such a bad thing until Quebec actually left and found itself spiraling into debt.

Perhaps that's not a bad thing, in the minds of the people who don't understand what going into debt entails - and to those who hold the debts (which I doubt because of the plack of profitable] geography of Quebec).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:33 PM on November 16, 2005

I was referring to this War, which culminated in this battle, ?!. And yes, Canada and Canadians are the result of those battles, which the French forces lost.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 11:36 PM on November 16, 2005

The article drgonzo posted does not go into the cultural ramifications of a separated Quebec. I think Canada would be diminished culturally without Montreal.

Personally, I think separation is inevitable. Too many Quebecois have been inculcated with a sense of having been slighted by anglophone Canada in all sorts of horrible ways. If you keep tossing the referendum coin, it'll eventually land with the queen's face on the bottom.

I don't think the economics of separation can be augured, but my sentiment is best expressed in the last tidbit from the article:

A Canada without Quebec would be a much more cohesive and governable political entity...It is sad to say, but we would be in a much better position to make the difficult decisions required to deal with the economic and social problems facing Canada today.
posted by ori at 11:45 PM on November 16, 2005

Pseudonumb: I'm aware of the difference between the Inuit and the Cree, but I had thought (correctly) that nightcrome had misread ?!'s link. If you examine your maps, you'll note that while the territory indicated is indeed much of Northern Quebec I wouldn't want to call it "the top third," especially compared to Nunavik. The Cree, if they stayed in Canada, would take an additional third to the Southwest, not that I think Quebec would let them go. I don't think they'd mind us (that being so-called 'English Canada,' not that I'd call la Ville Reine a particularly English city, or the University of Toronto a particularly 'English' institution) taking Nunavik, but there's too much hydroelectric infrastructure near James Bay.

Incidentally, I did remember the Cree's threats around the time last referendum. I looked for a link on the Nunavik page but one wasn't immediately apparent so I just gave up lazily.

I think I'll stay where I am.
posted by maledictory at 11:48 PM on November 16, 2005

By sheer coincidence, I started rereading (well, re-re-re-re-etc-reading) Infinite Jest, which deals in no small part with Quebecois seperatism. MetaFilter: making your everyday decisions seem more significant than they are.
posted by teferi at 11:52 PM on November 16, 2005

God save us from the blinkered, po-faced moralists of small town Ontario and the selfish pricks that run Alberta -- Canada needs Quebec to counterbalance the introspective prudish methodism of most of the rest of the country. if Quebec leaves, we are just a really big Montana with Cleveland at one end and, well, Vancouver is ok, at the other, and a giant melting snowcap on top.

Luckily, I share the view that this cokehead will never get anywhere separatism-wise.
posted by Rumple at 11:53 PM on November 16, 2005

"If Canada is divisible then Quebec is too" -- Matthew Coon Come notes that Quebec's current borders were created in 1912 and its administrative jurisdiction over the North only dates form 1963.
posted by Rumple at 11:56 PM on November 16, 2005

Hey, my Canada includes Quebec. They've had their frikken referendums, though. In the end, enlightened self-interest has always prevailed. So now it's time to just let it go. Enough already. Give it a rest . Seriously .

Besides ... there's no way that a coke-snorting, treasonous weasel could ever run a country in the modern ...

Oh. Never-mind.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 12:00 AM on November 17, 2005

Can someone please explain to this humble Yank why on earth they'd want to secede?

As I see it, there's two reasons, one concrete, one less so:

(1) Language. Specifically, ensuring that the French language doesn't gradually disappear in Quebec, as it did in Manitoba. Right now there's a law (Bill 101) which mandates that children who go to public schools must be educated in French, with an exception for children of parents who were educated in English in Canada. This bill is widely supported by Quebec francophones (federalists as well as nationalists), and it appears to have been effective in halting assimilation to English; but it's much more controversial with anglophones, both inside and outside Quebec. So Quebec francophones don't know whether one day the Supreme Court will decide that Bill 101 is unconstitutional, or whether a government will come to power in Ottawa that will launch a concerted attack on Bill 101. A long article explaining the issue, by John Richards.

(2) National pride. There's long-standing historical grievances (the Manitoba Schools Act, the domination of economic life by anglophones up to the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s), which anglophones tend not to appreciate; perhaps more importantly, the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, and the accompanying acrimony, has given Quebecers the feeling that anglophones don't really understand Quebec's interests and desires. Again, the Richards article provides good background information.

From the anglophone side, anglophones tend to feel that they've bent over backward to try to keep Quebec happy, e.g. official bilingualism (which has a major impact on the federal civil service). What they probably don't realize is that what most Quebec francophones want is the preservation of French inside Quebec. Official bilingualism is a policy of the Quebec federalists (specifically Trudeau), not the nationalists.

What are the reasons for Canada to stay together? One reason is to avoid the political risks and uncertainty of separation. Where exactly do you draw the borders? What do you do about people who don't want to leave? The best case would be Czechoslovakia; the worst case would be Yugoslavia (although that seems pretty unlikely in the Canadian context). Even in the best case, the political uncertainty would carry heavy costs, e.g. interest rates on Canadian bonds would rise, possibly sharply, as investors pull their money out until the transition is over. (Just before the 1995 referendum, long-term interest rates were over 9%.)

A second major reason is simply that Canada carries more weight as a united country, as opposed to two separate countries. This is particularly important in dealing with the United States (which is of course why Canada was created in the first place). If we have serious trouble now getting the US to pay attention to Canadian interests in trade disputes, it'll be even worse as two separate, smaller countries.

If a new referendum gets underway, the outcome will primarily be in the hands of Quebecers. The rest of Canada will need to work on Plan A (how to convince Quebecers to stay) and Plan B (how to deal with separation), same as in the leadup to the 1995 referendum.

A Canada without Quebec would be a much more cohesive and governable political entity...

I seriously doubt it. Without Quebec, it'll be even more difficult to maintain a balance of power between Ontario and the other provinces, leading to even more alienation in the West (particularly Alberta), etc., etc. Yes, I think we'd be able to meet these challenges, but I doubt it'd be any easier to govern Canada. It's not easy to govern a far-flung archipelago of urban islands.
posted by russilwvong at 12:15 AM on November 17, 2005

Heck, these days it's looking entirely possible that Alberta will secede before Quebec ever gets around to it.
posted by nightchrome at 12:48 AM on November 17, 2005

OK, I just read the Richards piece, and my hat is in tatters. He points out that in provinces where French is not forced upon its citizens, English is slowly becoming the dominant language. "...francophone Quebecers want provincial legislation to promote French and, to some extent, limit the use of English."

Well, this shit happens. It's called evolution. In a hundred years time, non-Spanish speakers will be in the same boat in the US. You can keep building dams to stop the rising tide, but soon enough you'll find you've built a wall around yourself. For fuck's sake, French is already given required prominance in the province. Sadly, there is no meeting half-way with a zealot, whether they be religious, political, or cultural.

"...Christian Quebecers want provincial legislation to promote the teachings of Christ and, to some extent, limit the use of Judaism."

Oh, but that's different.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:51 AM on November 17, 2005

The issue isn't really about whether or not they should leave. The issue is about whether or not the rest of the country should be allowed to stop them.
When phrased like that, I have no choice but to support their bid for independence. No matter how incredibly stupid and ultimately self-destructive it may be.
posted by nightchrome at 1:02 AM on November 17, 2005

No matter how incredibly stupid and ultimately self-destructive it may be.

What about the freedom-loving people of Montreal? Will we have to airlift supplies to them?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:17 AM on November 17, 2005

Any and all suggestions of Alberta seceding are stupid and short-sighted, the result of a desire to cash in on their current oil wealth, and all intelligent Albertans are aware of that fact.

If Alberta were ever to secede, I'm sure they'd become a state in notime flat.
posted by mek at 1:20 AM on November 17, 2005

The more I think about it, the les Quebeçois(?) seem French: too much free time on their hands; and no appreciation for their English-speaking neighbors. How pathetic!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:48 AM on November 17, 2005

What about the freedom-loving people of Montreal?

They mostly speak French (well, Quebecois) now. Why would they be in need of special treatment?

Of course, Montreal used to be primarily Anglo. P-boy's comment to the contrary, after the English won Quebec, they were the dominant upper class until the 1960s, while the French-speakers were the peasants and treated as such. You've got to keep 200 years of history in mind here. Imagine if a U.S. state had a black majority and wanted to secede. Hence the Quebecois desire for independence, however misguided. The complex driving them is one of inferiority. Unfortunately it's hard for outsiders to see this.

Anyway, I'm not sure how they came to take over Montreal, but they certainly did, sometimes in obnoxious ways like forcing shopkeepers to have their signs be in French. That's also why the Montreal Expos headed south--baseball isn't a Quebecois sport. Attendance was off for years before they moved. Dammit.
posted by A dead Quaker at 3:11 AM on November 17, 2005

America, under ANY administration, will not allow Quebec to become Belarus-on-the-St. Lawrence.

Umm... what? I'm sorry but how, exactly, will the US prevent Quebec from separating if they so desire?
posted by antifuse at 3:21 AM on November 17, 2005

Quebec's only chance of survival, culturally, is to remain in Canada.

Or: Quebec separates. Alberta becomes a state. B.C. becomes a state, Ontario has little choice to become the state it has always fancied itself to be anyway, the rest combine in some way and become states. Quebec remains as a miniscule french country floating in a ocean of anglo states for a while then inevitably becomes a state. Quebec is now the most culturally isolated state among 55 states or whatever the number works out to instead of the second largest province among 10. America has nothing remotely resembling the Canadian system of supporting 'official languages' and so french eventually dies out just like in Louisiana.
posted by scheptech at 4:19 AM on November 17, 2005

Oh, and somewhere along the way America realizes the real danger to national unity posed by language differences and starts doing things to avoid the exact same problem developing in America with spanish.
posted by scheptech at 4:28 AM on November 17, 2005

It is worth understanding that unlike the Cajun of Louisiana or many of the First Nations people, the Québecois still have a fully functioning culture where government, business, cinema, press, television, education and everyday conversation have yet to be compromised in such a way where the culture becomes a mere token of historical context. A Québec state is a simple way of reinforcing and maintaining that culture. I don't mean to say that the Quebec culture can't be maintained in the context that we currently live in, most days of the week I think it can, but then I sometimes think about how American culture has encroached so much into Canadian society that we rely on the tiniest of subtleties (and for now the not so subtle Quebec) to distinguish ourselves. If it weren't for somewhat draconian devices such as the OLF or the exodus of anglophones between 1980 and 1995 things would already have decayed much quicker.

Of course, anglophone and alophone culture is also an important part of Quebec culture.
posted by furtive at 4:36 AM on November 17, 2005

I lived in Quebec from 1973-1982. I can recall how awful the french behaved esp during the referendum under Levesque's leadership. I returned for a brief visit in 1996 and I was deeply shocked and disturbed to see bullet holes in the lobby window of an english library in Roxboro, Quebec. It made me think of statements of some of my former anglophone neighbours who joked about escaping Quebec and arriving in Ontario to apply for refugee status.
posted by GoodJob! at 5:30 AM on November 17, 2005

Holy crap is this thread ever rife with misunderstanding, exaggeration and wrongful thinking. The Separatist movement is largely the product of radical left-wing academics, not of crazed racists. The pure laine stuff is genuine, to a degree, but it's also been a tool to gain support in less educated rural areas. Sadly, the consequence is that there is a racist element to the current BQ and PQ, as was exemplified in Parizeau's post-referendum speech. That said, its policies are still fuelled to a large degree by (post-Marxist) academics: it's a party of (granted, irritating) intellingentsia, not of rednecks.

Pequistes are the biggest left-wing voting bloc in the country, supporting gay rights, childcare, support for the poor, etc etc. Too bad there's also still fascists enforcing the language laws, with a genuine anti-anglo chip on their shoulder.

Support for the Bloc and the Parti should not be construed as support for separatism. As was said up-thread, support for a Yes vote is at its lowest in years. There's two big reasons to vote for these parties (and they're why I, an anglo Canadian from Ottawa) would very possibly vote Parti Quebecois if I still lived in Montreal -

1. They are social democrats, well to the left of the liberals.
2. The discourse of separatism has worked wonders for continuing the hand-outs and special treatment bemoaned above. Even if we don't want to separate, by talking about separation we continue to benefit.
posted by Marquis at 5:41 AM on November 17, 2005

drgonzo, I couldn't agree more with your comments of not being sad to see Quebec go. I remember comments on CBC radio comparing Canada and its 10 provinces to a mother with 10 children. Quebec is the whiny, insolent brat who just never ever shuts up no matter what you do or say.
posted by GoodJob! at 6:23 AM on November 17, 2005

ParisParamus: taking time out of his busy schedule to slam all things French or even vaguely French-related.
posted by psmealey at 6:25 AM on November 17, 2005

Those wondering about why Quebecers might decide to separate would do well to consider the ignorance, bigotry and just plain stupidity of GoodJob!, drgonzo -- note: no relation -- et. al.

Living in Quebec for any length of time, speaking french, it becomes immediately apparent that the rest of Canada cares not a whit for the province and, more importantly, is blithely ignorant of the social reality of the province. Quebec is already a functioning state in every important sense -- it has an autonomous political culture, its own artistic, media and cultural institutions. In fact, it is much more of an independent country now than the rest of Canada, which is slowly but surely sinking beneath the waves of American corporate and cultural imperialism.

(Indeed, the preceeding is my best argument against sovereignty -- it would not bolster Quebec's cultural independence and the economic effects would force deleterious economic and political changes.)

And the canard that Quebeckers are just a bunch of xenophobic rednecks is hypocritical bullshit. Sure, we have our unilingual, insular, racist areas and, yes, the elites in Quebec City pander to them whenever they need to get elected. But so does Canada. It's called Alberta.

In fact, every single liberal and enlightened facet of Canada so beloved by so many Yanks -- gun control, same-sex marriage rights, the Charter, not going to Iraq, etc etc etc -- is the product of Quebec and Quebec politicians. The real loser if Quebec separates is not Quebec -- methinks New York state will still be dependent on our cheap hydroelectric power -- but the rest of Canada who, in the blink of an eye, would become just a lot of frozen land. And Toronto.

I voted 'yes' in 1995 and, while I wouldn't do it now, it's not a vote I regret.
posted by docgonzo at 6:47 AM on November 17, 2005

I can't read the thread but I do have this to say about seperatism, and I mean it.

Rest of Canada: kinda boring, but nice.
Rest of Quebec: kinda boring, but nice.

The one place where it's truly amazing: Montreal. The one place where a large number of English and French Canadians live together: Montreal. The one place where these two cultures fuel each other and contribute to one another: Montreal.

We need each other.
posted by jon_kill at 6:51 AM on November 17, 2005

Quebecois women are really hot. And they love to drink up there. Plus they still like heavy metal and Harleys. What could be bad?
posted by jonmc at 6:54 AM on November 17, 2005

Quebec is probably the least 'globalized' territory in North America. There is such an emphasis on local farming, textiles and culture that in the event of an American recession Quebec would be probably one of the best places to be.

That said, it can an Orwellian experience for an Anglophone living here; At work today we received a group email from Dear Leader who assured us that we will have full compliance with OQLF Language guidlines, meaning that all signage, both exterior and interior, will have any English removed. The email concluded with something like "Together we shall succeed!"

They do speak French here. You can only really call it Quebecois in the sense of a dialect, like if you were to have a conversation with someone from Scotland.
posted by dobie at 7:15 AM on November 17, 2005

I'm glad you pointed out the difference between dr- and docgonzo. I was getting really confused.
posted by loquax at 7:44 AM on November 17, 2005

russilwvong, you are incorrect about your interpretation of Bill 101. I was a student after the passage of the bill and I was forced to study a number of subjects such as math and science in french and both of my parents were educated outside of Quebec. Bill 101 also makes posting english signs within Quebec illegal. I remember an anglophone family organizing a garage sale and they were warned by the local police on the West Island to remove their english signs.
Does this finally illustrate the incredible stupidity and pettiness of those nasty separatistes?
posted by GoodJob! at 7:49 AM on November 17, 2005

God save us from the blinkered, po-faced moralists of small town Ontario and the selfish pricks that run Alberta -- Canada needs Quebec to counterbalance the introspective prudish methodism of most of the rest of the country. if Quebec leaves, we are just a really big Montana with Cleveland at one end and, well, Vancouver is ok, at the other, and a giant melting snowcap on top.

Rumple, that is the single most ignorant, bigoted and charicatured depiction of Canada I've ever heard. Congratulations. Please tell me you're not actually Canadian.
posted by slatternus at 7:53 AM on November 17, 2005

Bill 101 also makes posting english signs within Quebec illegal.

No, it makes certain kinds of signs illegal, such as signs in which french is not dominant.


I remember an anglophone family organizing a garage sale and they were warned by the local police on the West Island to remove their english signs.

Is Bill 101 occasionally enforced by the numbnuts at the Office de la langue francaise? Yes. Does every anglo know of instances of head-smacking stupidity? Yes. Do these random anecdotes negate the reality that Bill 101 has preserved the french fact of Quebec and created a generation of new Quebeckers who live, work and study in french but are perfectly comfortable in english? No.


Does this finally illustrate the incredible stupidity and pettiness of those nasty separatistes?

All it does is illustrate the fact that you are predisposed to think ill of any measure that protects Quebec culture. Hint: Not every supporter of Bill 101 -- Why hasn't Jean Charest repealed 101? -- is a sovereigntist. Stop getting your talking points from Brent Tyler.

Here's an op-ed by a constitutional advisor to noted
felquistes Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau arguing "Why we need Bill 101":

Given the North American context in which Quebec must live and the fact that English as a second language will always be compulsory in the French school system, where it should be taught with all the care it deserves, the most civilized way to ensure long-term social and linguistic peace remains, for the francophone majority, to deny itself and new immigrants the right to send their kids to English public schools at the elementary and secondary levels. While meeting the needs of francophone cultural security, such a measure also preserves the historic rights of the anglophone minority in Quebec, thus serving the interests of both groups.

If lawyer Brent Tyler and his followers cannot accept the legitimacy of this basic democratic compromise of Bill 101, if they insist that Quebec be a province like any other, and if they reject the notion that in Canada equality must be based on equivalent instead of identical treatment of the founding communities, the end result is that they will encourage Quebec to think it must secede in order to secure its future as the only dominantly French speaking society in North America.
posted by docgonzo at 8:28 AM on November 17, 2005

If Alberta were ever to secede, I'm sure they'd become a state in notime flat. - mek

Many Albertans would be okay with that. Some think they'd be better off.

Support for the Bloc and the Parti should not be construed as support for separatism. - Marquis

But they're separatist parties! I know there are people voting for them that don't support an independent Quebec, but I don't get how you can vote for a party when you disagree with it's self-stated #1 goal. That just doesn't make sense.

The discourse of separatism has worked wonders for continuing the hand-outs and special treatment bemoaned above. Even if we don't want to separate, by talking about separation we continue to benefit. - Marquis

Yes. The rest of Canada has noticed. It's manipulative and other Canadians resent it.
posted by raedyn at 8:52 AM on November 17, 2005

docgonzo, I am not getting my talking points from Brent Tyler. My opinions are from living and studying in Quebec. I also worked for Air Canada for a number of years and they have a a very strict company policy concerning in-flight announcements. Any flight originating from or arriving in the province of Quebec must use French language predominately as annoucements to passengers. I can't tell you the number of times foreign tourists felt confused at arrival at Mirabel or Dorval airport because some of the most important information we received from the airline ops was available in French only. In addition, esp in Mirabel, the signs are all in French. Many anglophone travelers, (many from the UK) were extremely frustrated by this and esp frustrated and irate because some of the airline ground staff who just simply refused to converse with them in english. And not because they couldn't speak english ( Air Canada tests potential employees in both languages before hiring) but because of their own personal political beliefs.
posted by GoodJob! at 9:07 AM on November 17, 2005

Yes. The rest of Canada has noticed. It's manipulative and other Canadians resent it.

Resent? I think the verb you're looking for is "emulate" or "copy". Certainly Alberta, BC and NF use any spat over resource rights to suggest they'd be better off going it alone.

I don't get how you can vote for a party when you disagree with it's self-stated #1 goal.

It's easier, from my point of view, to vote for a party/parties that might hold a referendum -- which they likely won't win -- some time in the future than a party that has promised to do the Mike Harris cut taxes/ screw the welfare bums/ privatise public resources dance when they're elected. Especially when the PQ (mostly) have progressive social and economic policies (Lucien Bouchard's disastrous reign excepted.)
posted by docgonzo at 9:07 AM on November 17, 2005

jonmc jests, but his words hold hidden wisdom.

When the best place to party in North America wants to dinstinguish itself from the moralist-corporatist lands around it, I'm inclined to support its initiative. They are doing something right up there...
posted by solipse at 9:08 AM on November 17, 2005

I'm glad you pointed out the difference between dr- and docgonzo. I was getting really confused.

Yeah, me too.

Civil_Disobedient, thanks for taking the time to read the Richards article. Sorry it doesn't make sense to you.

Well, this shit happens. It's called evolution. In a hundred years time, non-Spanish speakers will be in the same boat in the US. You can keep building dams to stop the rising tide, but soon enough you'll find you've built a wall around yourself.

I hope you can at least understand that francophones might be less inclined to say "that's life" than anglophones. Language is a central part of people's identity. Nobody's going to be willing to give it up without a struggle. I seriously doubt the US is going to become a Spanish-speaking nation without some major political turmoil.

Personally, I think the desire of Quebec francophones (nationalist and federalist alike) to maintain the French language in Quebec is more reasonable than you do. (I wouldn't have a problem with similar measures in greater Vancouver, where I live, to ensure that English isn't displaced by Chinese, e.g. requiring children attending public schools to be educated in English.)

Even if you think this desire is unreasonable, that doesn't really change things. As I understand it, the desire of Quebec francophones to protect their language is non-negotiable. If they can't do so within Canada, then they'll do so as an independent state. (Richards gives Iceland as an example of a comparably small state within its own language.)
posted by russilwvong at 9:16 AM on November 17, 2005

Well, shit, you got me, GoodJob! Quebec should ditch a successful and important social policy -- one that is agreed upon by everyone except West Island bigots, I might point out -- because some english tourists are shocked (shocked!) to discover that they speak french in a french-speaking part of the world.
posted by docgonzo at 9:20 AM on November 17, 2005

the small Andorra has a population of 70.000 inhabitants
and 4 spoken Languages: Catalan, French, Spanish and Andorran.
posted by luis huiton at 9:30 AM on November 17, 2005

I don't think the english tourists were ever shocked to discover most Quebecers speak french. I think they were shocked to discover obnoxious, stupid and meaningless political attitudes interfering with the efficiency of their travels.
And remember foreign travel offices promote Canada as a country with two official languages.
posted by GoodJob! at 9:35 AM on November 17, 2005

ps- yeah, docgonzo, I got ya!
posted by GoodJob! at 9:35 AM on November 17, 2005

I lay mortally wounded, GoodJob!. (Insert appropriate emoticon here.)

Let's summarise evidence presented for/against 101:

Docgonzo:
- preserved the french fact of Quebec despite being surrounded by english-speaking countries;
- created a generation of french- and english-speaking immigrants
- preserved social peace

GoddJob!:
- One planeload of confused Limey tourists;
- One West Island family's ruined garage sale;
- er, that's it.

OH THE HUMANITY
posted by docgonzo at 9:41 AM on November 17, 2005

It's GoodJob! not GoddJob but I'll take the God part as a compliment. LOL
posted by GoodJob! at 9:59 AM on November 17, 2005

Certainly Alberta, BC and NF use any spat over resource rights to suggest they'd be better off going it alone.

Bah. Sure, Albertans mutter "hurf durf supporting the nation, strike out on our own" but there hasn't been a signifcant movement for separation like there has been in Quebec. Basically, there isn't a credible threat.

Newfoundland got their energy deal. And I didn't hear them threatening to leave Confederation in order to get it.

And BC? I'd have to say I've never heard BC's plans to leave Canada. If I missed something important, please update me.

You only included those three provinces in your assessment of 'the rest of Canada'. Good to see that the Prairies, the Maritimes, and the North continue to be ignored. That's okay, we're used to it. We bitch about it constantly, but we're resigned to our fate.
posted by raedyn at 10:44 AM on November 17, 2005

Some Americans fail to take Canada or Canadian's opinion of America or global politics particularly seriously because of Canada's basic dependence, especially militarily but also in terms of trade, on America.

Same relationship exists, at a certain level, between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Quebec is entirely dependent on Canada, as a political concept and system, for it's existence. The language and culture would simply not have survived this long either as an independent country or as an American state. Quebec's only hope for continued existence, culturally speaking, is within the insulating blanket of the Canadian political system.
posted by scheptech at 10:57 AM on November 17, 2005

With Canada divided, America can once again dust off its long held desire of conquest. Muwahahaha.

Fuck that, if we assimilate them where will we get cheap drugs? Remember: price controls bad, unless they are someone else's so you can have price controls without having price controls.
posted by phearlez at 11:13 AM on November 17, 2005

I feel that despite the headaches Quebec gives in federal politics, A seperate Quebec would leave the sum of the parts less than the whole. I am firmly against seperation, but I respect the right of Quebec to self determination. If they want to leave, so be it.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:16 AM on November 17, 2005

Best reason (or worst depending on your pov) for America to dust off its long held desire of conquest: Canadians tend to vote left of America's center. Our new country will be freed of it's current extreme right-ism.

Oh, and we can call it "Camerica", forever ending the confusion between America the country and America the continent... actually two continents.
posted by scheptech at 11:26 AM on November 17, 2005

I mostly think Bill 101 is a good thing, but the sign law does seem sort of silly, more trouble than it's worth. It's not like the local culture is known for its marvellous roadside signs and billboards.

Anyway, it was Gilles Duceppe who finally convinced me that the best argument they have left for separatism is meaningless rhetorical appeal to the emotions of national pride. If there is some real rational argument for it, he should have used it more often. Far as I can tell there isn't anything concrete that it would do for (or against) Quebecois cultural vitality. If this so-called "fiscal imbalance" is the best they've got, then that's not much. From reading his "blog", Boisclair doesn't at first glance seem much different from all the other politicians. But I will reserve judgment.
posted by sfenders at 11:28 AM on November 17, 2005

scheptech: "The language and culture would simply not have survived this long either as an independent country" What? How can you know that?

Pseudodumb: Yes, I know about Nunavut and Nunavik. I was asking nightcrome to be more specific. He was naming one group, but having them live in another area. He corrected himself by putting the Cree in the "northeast middle" instead of "top third." Your assumption that I attended university in Canada is also incorrect.

PareidoliaticBoy: "And yes, Canada and Canadians are the result of those battles, which the French forces lost." I'll finish your sentence..."to the British."

A dead Quaker: "the dominant upper class" does not equal "primarily". I won't bother with the rest of your argument.

GoodJob!: Air Canada's linguistic Action Plan (PDF)

I could throw in with my own positive experiences in État québécois, but we've had enough personal anecdotes.

For those looking to hear something other than the "examples" and "history" by a couple of the previous posters I offer some of other links:

Why Québec wants to become an independent country

Why the Parti Québécois wants Québec to become a sovereign country.

Un Québec libre de ses choix (English PDF)

And finally: jonmc: don't I know it.
posted by ?! at 11:30 AM on November 17, 2005

As a fairly recent immigrant to Québec (well, Montréal) I still don't know where to stand in the separation issue. I see benefits and drawbacks. One of the drawbacks will be that we'll have to defend our resources (water and hydroelectricity) against the US and Canada too. I heard politicians already mention plans to get our own army.

One reason for separation I haven't seen mentioned here is the issue of money. Apparently Québec pays a lot of money to Ottawa and receives only part of that back in the form of federal benefits. I've no idea if this is actually true, but my separatist friends use it as an argument.

Geographically Canada would be a very strange country after separation: A country divided in two. On the one hand Western Canada (which surprisingly now includes Ontario) and on the other hand Eastern Canada, consisting of the Atlantic provinces. To get from one part to the other by car/train you have to go through another country (either Québec or the US), and need a passport.

One good thing of separation would probably be that the overheated housing market in Montréal will cool down a bit. The economy too, unfortunately.
posted by kika at 11:30 AM on November 17, 2005

"The language and culture would simply not have survived this long either as an independent country" What? How can you know that?

Because Camerica is full of people who, by second generation, have english as their first language to communicate and interact with each other and a 'home country' or culture which they honor in other ways including keeping in touch with other branches of their families here and 'at home'. Seems to work real well for 'em, er us.

So based on the huge and hugely successful social experiment of Camerica, it would seem to be the strongest model (in darwinian terms).

Quebec only survives, culturally (which may be defined as people living out their lives in successive generations with something other than the common language of Camerica as their first language) within the rather unique Canadian arrangement.

Canada would be a very strange country after separation

Yes, it would become a handful of states in the new country of Camerica.
posted by scheptech at 11:45 AM on November 17, 2005

Hi! This is a first post in your community. I normally live in Quebec - Montreal, then Magog - since 1967 (an Expo 67 import from France who missed the boat to go home!) but for the time being in New York City since four years. Yes, I have noticed the success of André Boisclair and believe it will last. After all the old dogmatic PQ leaders (Landry, Parizeau, Bouchard) a new face with a lot more charisma may very well instill momentum into the separation cause. The fact that there is no momentum at all - except toward sliding to the bottom of the cave - with the actual governing Liberal party, could be of some help also. Young people are already gathering around him. And this guy has fared through difficult times (what? an homosexual with cocaine episodes...are you sure?), with somehow a promising trace of grace and resilience. It will be an interesting case of image over substance. (don't be surprised if a Harvard education has nothing to do with a profound understanding of what makes Quebec tick; remember René Lévesque for that matter) The funny thing is that his success will depend, as usual in Canadian politics, from the attitude of the Federal politicians. Confrontation is the name of the game. Assuming the Liberals will be in power again after the next Canadian election somehow in January 2006 (besides their bad image with recent scandals, they are still the sole coast-to-coast political party and will remain so simply by not frightening the average Canadian with far right policies - an easy program - AND using their actual tenure (with just few more days to go) to promise huge tax reduction! In the Quebec Province, Federal Liberals will again lose badly against Federal Bloc Québécois - The PQ brother in Ottawa - and having nothing to lose in this Province, they will ramp up their harangues for the benefit of the rest of Canada, who like to hear that Quebec leaders are always asking for more and more powers (that's true, with or without separatist leaders; see related recent developments in Spain with the upcoming virtual separation of Catalonia); Feds from Ottawa are even doing it now, against the brotherly fed forces of Jean Charest Quebec Liberal party, actually in power in Quebec; imagine the overbid if PQ forces are back in power in Quebec. The funny thing is that this Federal assault against Quebec impulses is traditionally spearheaded - and will be for the foreseeable future - by federal French-speaking ministers and lieutenants born in Quebec, like Pettigrew, Lapierre, Dion (and Chretien before them); these guys are so good at stirring up the flame, one wonders sometimes if they are not on the PQ payroll. And of course - within a perfect context of political correctness - Anglo Canadians could never even try mounting such all-out attacks, without risking racism accusations... look elsewhere and let the fratricide bullfight outlast good will and decency.

Canadian Politics will never be easy to comprehend with a so-called global Martian point of view. (The Economist is trying with some success…and a lot of shortcuts) Overlapping shenanigans are even more difficult to explain, without losing herself and the reader in layers upon layers of details, historical tidbits and jurisprudence reasons; now imagine the guts it takes when your’ not using your mother tongue! Maman, viens chercher ton petit gars!

By the way, I disagree totally with this idea that Canada would fare better and more easily without Quebec. It would mean a big slipping down the international recognition scale, and not only going from G7 to some other minor clubs elsewhere. It would have lost the main raison d'être for its much-touted multicultural Status (Chinese from Vancouver are not yet calling for a new Taiwan off the BC coast!) AND it would remain a strange brew of very rich and very poor provinces. The latest - Atlantic Provinces - would suffer the most, being physically isolated from the rest of Canada, and cut from one vital lung (their economic activities - and cultural in the case of Acadie - are most often linked to Quebec, or even dependant from it).
posted by febus at 11:49 AM on November 17, 2005

Quebec is by far my favourite part of Canada that I've been to, tied with Newfoundland perhaps. Basically anywhere wher ethey still have some kind of real distinct culture that isn't just US-lite.

Canada is better off culturally with Quebec, but I certainly wouldn't stop visiting there if it were to gain some form of independence.

Also, I can't go around thinking that an independent Irish republic is a good thing while denying Quebecois the same opportunity.

And Jonmc is dead on. I remember reading one day that some Backstree boys album was #1 all across North America _except_ Quebec City, where Iron Maiden's X Factor was #1. Blaze Fricking Bailey-era Maiden fercrissakes. Now there's all the proof you need that Quebec rules.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:50 AM on November 17, 2005

?!, yes, I am already familiar with Air Canada's linguistic action plan. Too bad the francophones see it as total joke.
But then perhaps they feel justified to confuse and anger anglophone travelers since after all, Air Canada's head office is located in Montreal.
I wonder what the majority of francophones would think if they knew a lot of the passenger service agents in western Canada mutter under their breath after the passenger has checked in and left the counter, " sorry I don't parler le dingdong"
posted by GoodJob! at 11:55 AM on November 17, 2005

Apparently Québec pays a lot of money to Ottawa and receives only part of that back in the form of federal benefits. I've no idea if this is actually true, but my separatist friends use it as an argument.

Quite the opposite, any way you slice it.

Quebec is by far my favourite part of Canada that I've been to

Personally, it's by far my least favourite place. Surely you aren't referring to Chicoutimi and Trois-Rivieres? Or Laval? Yes, the old cities in Montreal and Quebec City are nice. Beyond that, Toronto has more "culture" on King and Queen between Yonge and Dufferin than the entire province of Quebec. All personal opinion and whatnot...

And besides, why is better to be France lite instead of USA lite? France is probably my least favourite country to visit on the continent too.
posted by loquax at 12:10 PM on November 17, 2005

If you enjoy doing more than just going out to eat Montreal beats toronto six ways from Sunday, and the Eastern Townships are absolutely beautiful if you haven't been there. Also les Îles de la Madeleine are truly spectacular with very friendly residents.

And France-lite? Are you serious? Quebec and France have diverged culturally ever since the French Revolution.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:16 PM on November 17, 2005

Eastern Townships are absolutely beautiful if you haven't been there. Also les Îles de la Madeleine are truly spectacular with very friendly residents.

But this is true for all of Canada. Quebec holds no special claim to natural beauty or friendliness. In fact, I've been all around the province and lived in Montreal for a year +, and found that people were markedly less friendly in Quebec as a general rule compared to the rest of Canada, especially Alberta and the Maritimes.

Art, music, theatre, food, drink, dancing, sports mainstream, independent, world-class, back alley, there's no question - Toronto is a cultural centre of North America (and in the high second tier of world cities). Montreal is not. At least, not anymore. Maybe it was in the 60's and 70's, but now, forget it. I don't know how many times I've had simply nothing to do on a Saturday night in Montreal but go to a movie, go see a McGill play, or go to Chez Paree Schwartz's. Or drive around the suburbs looking for an open St. Huberts.

I am being a little tongue in cheek, I don't mean to say that Quebec Sux, Ontario Rulez, but I am honest in my belief that Montreal is vastly overrated as a cultural capital of the country, and I am being honest when I say that I feel uncomfortable in the province, and made to feel like an outsider. For whatever my opinion is worth, Quebec can go or stay, but I won't visit either way, and the rest of Canada will get along with or without them, and I'm sure the converse is true for Quebec.


And France-lite? Are you serious? Quebec and France have diverged culturally ever since the French Revolution.

yeah, probably a similar divergence to the one between English Canada and the 13 colonies since 1776.
posted by loquax at 12:35 PM on November 17, 2005

I don't know how many times I've had simply nothing to do on a Saturday night in Montreal but go to a movie, go see a McGill play, or go to Chez Paree Schwartz's. Or drive around the suburbs looking for an open St. Huberts.

Lemme guess: You're a unilingual anglophone that lives in the McGill ghetto and thinks the world stops at St-Laurent.

I've heard a lot of crap thrown Montreal's way but... nothing to do on a Saturday night?

Here you go. It's a start. Knock yerself out.
posted by docgonzo at 12:48 PM on November 17, 2005

Loquax, some people call Quebec Canada's smoking section. We call Ontario Canada's boring section.
posted by dobie at 12:55 PM on November 17, 2005

You're a unilingual anglophone that lives in the McGill ghetto and thinks the world stops at St-Laurent.

Not even close. I live in Toronto, downtown. When I was in Montreal I had nothing to do with McGill. For a long while before and after that. I would split my year between MTL and TOR. I do speak french, but yes, you're right, I was not as involved in the francophone culutral scene as I was in the anglophone scene. I also said I was being tongue in cheek. Of course there are things to do, it's a city of a million plus, but Toronto is more dynamic, has more options and is in general more of a cultural capital than Montreal is at this point. In my opinion, it's not even close. No offense meant. Montreal is still a more dynamic city than Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, or any other Canadian city with the exception of maybe Vancouver.

We call Ontario Canada's boring section.

With the exception of Toronto, Ontario is just as boring as any place that isn't a metropolitan area. I spent a year in Sherbrooke one weekend. ; )
posted by loquax at 1:06 PM on November 17, 2005

Loquax, you don't need to go out looking for a good movie to watch in Montreal. From what I recall, the local regular french TV stations broadcast soft porn after midnight on weekends. Now this was the early eighties so I'm not sure it's still on. However, since the Quebec population have now voted in a cocaine snorting, gay, inexperienced separatist, I guess it's now hard porn.
posted by GoodJob! at 2:00 PM on November 17, 2005

With the exception of Toronto,

Oh, so it's just the old Toronto/Montreal thing. Should've known. That's not really relevant here. For misleading us all like that, I sentence you to live a year in Espanola, and to write a ten-page report on the cultural diversity of Ontario's unfortunately non-Toronto areas.
posted by sfenders at 2:01 PM on November 17, 2005

I'd way rather live in Ottawa than Toronto, but that has little to do with the actual subject of the post.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:06 PM on November 17, 2005

Montreal is still a more dynamic city than Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, or any other Canadian city with the exception of maybe Vancouver. - loquax

I dunno, I hear Moose Jaw is pretty happening.
posted by raedyn at 2:12 PM on November 17, 2005

write a ten-page report on the cultural diversity of Ontario's unfortunately non-Toronto areas

Do you mean Mississauga or Brampton? Oh, Espanola.

Ahem.

The Cultural Diversity of Espanola:

A Fine Paper Town. A family oriented friendly community strengthened by its fine citizens. We are host to a world-class paper mill that produces fine paper products. Espanola is a fine community in which to live, work and invest!

During World War II, Espanola became the site of a prisoner-of-war camp for German soldiers. The war prisoners were housed in the old mill buildings and the Guards assigned to watch over them moved into some of the abandoned houses in the company town site. A map of the world, drawn by one of the German prisoners-of-war, is still visible on one of the mill's walls and can be seen today on the Pulp and Paper Mill tours offered by Domtar.

Virtually every community organization, service club and business has been invited to participate in this community celebration. The Town of Espanola is proud to invite neighboring communities to visit our fine paper town and keep them coming back. The Espanola Paper Festival is a three-day event maximizing participation with affordable admission and programming appropriate for all age groups. The Espanola Paper Festival is an opportunity for the community to network and to learn about and celebrate the paper making process; which is the cornerstone of our economy. Domtar’s Espanola Mill produces over 150 paper grades, the Paper Festival will teach people about the process of making such paper.

There are many recreational opportunities for both the indoor and outdoor sports enthusiast. For those who enjoy the outdoors there are rocks to climb, ATV trails to explore, and numerous lakes for swimming, fishing and boating. In the winter you can ski, downhill or cross-country, or ride endless kilometres of snowmobile trails. Prefer indoor activities? Our modern recreation complex offers a variety of fitness options and leisure programs. Play a game of squash, work out in the fitness centre or swim a few laps in our pool or sign up for a art, dance or cooking class.

Shopping, dining and top quality accommodations are available year round for your pleasure or enjoy a night out with our award winning dinner theatre group or community theatre plays.
posted by loquax at 2:15 PM on November 17, 2005

No Loquax, Thunder Bay is actually THE paper mill capital of Canada. And it also beats Espanola hands down with its Nordic room at the local Best Western which can accomodate a staggering 65 people at the same time without violating any local fire codes. Now that's what I call entertainment value.
posted by GoodJob! at 2:31 PM on November 17, 2005

(I really am just teasing now, I love all people and places equally. The only reason I brought up Montreal/Toronto is because there were comments upthread that it would be disastrous for Canada to lose the only centre of culture it has, or some such).

Also, I totally plagiarized my essay, I deserve an F, sfenders. I have been to Espanola though, and almost every city and town with more than 5,000 people in all of Ontario. Believe me, I know about both fortunately and unfortunately non-Toronto places in Ontario.
posted by loquax at 2:38 PM on November 17, 2005

Excuse me, but Guelph Ontario has two excellent bookstores. Guelph rox!
posted by Hildegarde at 2:58 PM on November 17, 2005

And still nobody loves Saskatchewan.

*sniff*
posted by raedyn at 3:05 PM on November 17, 2005

I love Saskatchewan, raedyn. I was extremely tempted by a job posting there, since I think the prairies are the most beautiful part of the country, but I opted to stay close to my wee nephew instead. Makes me a little wistful to think of it, though.
posted by Hildegarde at 3:19 PM on November 17, 2005

Since someone mentioned Fark, Canada and the US all in the same thread, I can't help but submit this:

What if Canada took over the U.S.

I'm really sorry. I just couldn't help it....
posted by TeamBilly at 3:36 PM on November 17, 2005

Am I on Metafilter or Fark? It's hard to tell from this thread.
posted by clevershark at 4:24 PM on November 17, 2005

Oh Espanola. I tell you what, it's no Blind River, let alone Wawa.

Yes, non-Toronto Ontario is pretty boring, but all the provinces are urban-dominated anyway. It would suck if Canada didn't include Montreal, but there's enough happening in Toronto lately that it wouldn't be the end of the world. I mean, if the Drake or Gladstone simultaneously vanished, then that would be something ^_~
posted by maledictory at 4:37 PM on November 17, 2005

Anyway, I'd rather live in Trois-Rivieres than any of the parts of Ontario thus far mentioned.

But this power struggle between rival gangs of politicians and bureaucrats gets to be as boring as it is complicated. Just hope it continues to do a little better than Slovakia.
posted by sfenders at 4:52 PM on November 17, 2005

raedyn writes "And still nobody loves Saskatchewan."

Oh I love it raedyn, but only in small doses like when I go back to visit the grandparents. Go Riders!! *cough*
posted by smcniven at 7:42 PM on November 17, 2005

The issue isn't really about whether or not they should leave. The issue is about whether or not the rest of the country should be allowed to stop them.
When phrased like that, I have no choice but to support their bid for independence. No matter how incredibly stupid and ultimately self-destructive it may be.

Yes, by all means, let us support the poor downtrodden "pur et dur" quebecois in their valiant struggle. They have been oppressed by the evil racist anglais for far too long. Everyone knows Canada's reputation for suppressing the culture of its ethnic minorities.

Quebec sovereigntists = ethnic nationalists.
posted by pooligan at 7:28 AM on November 18, 2005