Le Québec: A Nation within a United Canada
Danielle Turcotte Asay
November 28, 2007
HIST 200
Prof. R. Bohac
2
Canada is a distinctly unique nation, originally a confederation of two differing
cultures, and now home to those of many cultures and communities. In 1534, the French
explorer Jacques Cartier sailed to present-day Quebec and claimed the land he called
“Canada” for the king of France. Seventy-two years later, Samuel de Champlain founded
the city of Quebec, in New France. French citizens slowly populated and established the
region, and by the first Canadian census of 1666, a total of 3215 people inhabited New
France.1 Living a simple rural lifestyle, the citizens of New France behaved as they
would have done in France: they were devout Catholics, believed strongly in the French
Civil Code, and idealized the family unit. Frequent conflicts existed between the French
and their Indian and British neighbors, though few deaths resulted until the middle of the
eighteenth century. The French and Indian War of 1754-1763 was the North American
chapter of the Seven Years’ War between the British and the French in Europe; and it
ultimately climaxed into what the Québécois call the “Conquest,” or the conquering of
New France by the British and its absorption into the British Empire. The Conquest
marked a very important point in Canadian history. “For French-Canadian nationalists, it
is the root of over two centuries of national oppression. For English Canadians, it marks
the beginning of a distinct biethnic North American society developing within the
framework of British institutions.”2 This paper will explore the recent Canadian
constitutional struggles concerning the state of Quebec within Canada in light of the
Jean Talon, “1665-1666 Census: Table I - Families, Population, Sexes, Conjugal Condition,” in
Statistics Canada: E-STAT, http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/jtable1.htm (accessed 4 November 2007).
2
John Dickinson and Brian Young, A Short History of Quebec, 3d ed. (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 2003), 49.
1
3
Québécois’ historical background. It will argue that Quebec has its own distinct language,
practices, and beliefs, which constitute it as “a nation within a united Canada.”3
The standard of living for the 70 000 souls in New France in 1760 decreased as
the British population around them grew in numbers and political power.4 The British
originally wanted to assimilate the French to their way of life. Thus, the institutions
common to the French-Canadian were threatened, such as the very prominent Catholic
Church and the French civil code; the “embryonic bourgeoisie” of New France destroyed;
and “French Canada was forced to turn inward and to idealize rural life as the best way of
preserving its nationality.”5 However, despite the changes that the Conquest brought to
French Canadians, they would not assimilate. Therefore, the British Parliament created
the Constitutional Act of 1791, which divided the territory of New France along the
Ottawa River, creating “Upper Canada” for the British and “Lower Canada” for the
French, as well as separate governments (both subjected to the British Governor General)
for each Canada.
French Canada was not yet satisfied with their arrangement and would not be for
a very long time, perhaps even to date. After the Rebellions of 1837, which pushed for
political reform by means of responsible government, Upper and Lower Canada were
merged and ruled by a single legislative assembly as the United Province of Canada. The
Canada, “The 39th Parliament: Debate: The motions on the Québécois nation, November 22, 2006,” in
CBC News: In Depth (November 24, 2006), http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/motionquebecnation.html (accessed 4 November 2007).
4
Statistics Canada, “Censuses of Canada, 1665-1871” (Ottawa: Censuses of Canada, 1876), in Statistics
Canada: E-STAT, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/98-187-XIE/acadians.htm (accessed 4 November
2007).
5
Maurice Séguin, La nation “canadienne” et l’agriculture (1760-1850), in Dickinson, 50.
3
4
Province of Canada remained as it was created in 1840 until the passage of the British
North America Act on July 1, 1867.
July 1, 1867, is to Canadians what July 4, 1776, is to Americans. The British
North America Act, or Constitution Act, 1867, reorganized Canada as a self-governing
British dominion (which would later achieve full sovereignty through the Statute of
Westminster in 1931). July 1, 1867, also known as Confederation, provided a source of
optimism for the future of a united Canada. The Compact Theory of Confederation
between the provinces “established provincial governments that were equal to each other
in constitutional status.”6 However, this Compact Theory has created much controversy,
from Canadian politicians and historians alike, through an alternate interpretation: that
federalism is a bargain between ‘two founding nations,’ involving certain promises.7
This interpretation promotes the idea that Confederation “assigned to the government of
Quebec a special function – the conservation of French-Canadian culture in its historic
homeland – which might logically justify a grant of special powers to execute it.”8 Of
course, in 1867 most Canadians believed that the assigned provincial power would
adequately fulfill this conservative charge; but as time rolled forward and the number of
Anglophones increasingly outweighed the Québécois, the latter felt the need for increased
autonomy or, at a minimum, special recognition of their status within Canada.
The French-Canadian journalist Peter Desbarats wrote in 1965:
Canada’s current difficulty stems from the fact that it is a nation which has never
been permitted to grow up. . . . The history of Canada is largely a series of
negative reactions to circumstances created by other countries. . . . But an even
more important reason for national immaturity is internal: Canada’s failure to
6
Paul Romney, “Provincial Equality, Special Status and the Compact Theory of Canadian
Confederation,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 32, no. 1 (March 1999): 38.
7
Matthew James, “Political Science 101 Lectures” (University of Victoria, Canada: September 21, 2004).
8
Romney, 38.
5
remedy a congenital and potentially fatal defect in its original composition. From
the very beginning Canada has been not merely a confederation of former British
colonies but an alliance of two distinct peoples, each with its own language and
embryonic culture and its own distinct idea of national destiny.9
That Canada put off treating its unique history of distinct groups, both British and French,
combined in one larger nation, was not a new topic in 1965 and would continue to make
headlines for the next forty-one years. The resurgence of the “Quebec problem,” or
struggle for French Canada to have equal power and recognition as English Canada, was
not the result of any offence made against the Québécois. Rather, the post-World War II
prosperity fostered a new, more active, role for French Canadians in Canadian society,
most likely due to the postwar struggle against oppressors of minorities in other countries
around the world.10 But this was not all the 1960s did for the Québécois – they also
facilitated a shift in values and social norms, a radical new government policy, and
educational reforms, thus deserving the name of “Quiet Revolution.”
Every book written on the history of Quebec since the mid-1960s includes at least
a chapter on the Quiet Revolution. Although scholars disagree on whether or not the
period of rapid change that took place in Quebec during the 1960s was actually a quiet
revolution, or something along the lines of a “noisy evolution,”11 all historians, social
scientists, and politicians alike agree on the importance of the changes that occurred
during the Quiet Revolution, especially those dealing with the secularization of society
and the nationalization of la belle province.12 Though the definition of the Quiet
Revolution is not set in stone, the simplest description of this period of rapid social
Peter Desbarats, The State of Quebec: a Journalist’s View of the Quiet Revolution (Montreal: McClelland
and Stewart Ltd., 1965), xiii-xiv.
10
Desbarats, xiv-xv.
11
Susan Mann, The Dream of Nation: a Social and Intellectual History of Quebec, 2d ed. (Montreal:
McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002), 298.
12
. . . the beautiful province, Quebec’s slogan
9
6
change in 1960s Quebec is offered by Peter Desbarats, who was experiencing this
revolution for himself in 1965. Desbarats defined the Quiet Revolution as: “a revolution
by French Canadians against the conservative Catholic ideals of a poor agricultural
society and against dull acceptance of their position as a minority group rather than as an
equal partner in Confederation.”13 This description of the Quiet Revolution lends itself to
the idea that the Revolution upset the entire balance of twentieth-century Quebec, as the
Québécois were traditionally identified by their agrarian lifestyle, strong religious beliefs,
and minority status with an English Canada.
However, most French-Canadians believed the Quiet Revolution was more of a
restoring of balance than an upsetting force. The 1960s marked the period of “the longdelayed triumph of liberalism in French Quebec,” when Quebec finally began to
modernize with the rest of North America and express the need to be “maîtres chez
nous,”14 instead of adhering to the age of the Conquest. The election of the Liberal
Premier Jean Lesage in 1960 brought with it the slogan “c’est le temps que ça change,”
and change it did.15 Prior to the Quiet Revolution, Quebec was run by the Catholic
Church, not the state. The urbanization of Québécois society, the replacement of the old
French civil code, the francophonization of society, the emergence of a new social class
to rival the Anglophone businessmen controlling Québec, the evolution of the traditional
family – including a drop in birth rate and a large increase in divorce – the nationalization
of electrical power, the secularization of Quebec, especially in schools, and the push of
extreme nationalism and desire to take matters into their own hands, are the factors that
13
Desbarats, xiv-xv.
Kenneth McRoberts, Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity (Toronto: Oxford
University Press, 1997), 32. . . . masters in our own house, a political slogan in 1960s Quebec
15
. . . it’s time things changed, the catchy Liberal Party slogan of 1960. See Mann, 299.
14
7
made 1960s Quebec such a “revolution.” With this intense period of liberalization and
modernization behind them and in their future, the Québécois could go virtually
anywhere with the adage of reformist clergyman Lionel Groulx: notre maitre le passé.16
To many Québécois, especially politicians, that forward direction advocated leaving
Canada behind.
The increased desire for equality between French and English Canada
experienced in Quebec during the 1960s and 1970s soon translated into something more:
separatism. As this separatist movement increased in popularity, new institutions came
forth in Quebec. Among these institutions were: the Front de Libération du Québec, a
controversial militant separatist organization created in 1963; the Parti Québécois, a new
political party formed in 1968 to promote the national sovereignty, and even separation,
of Quebec from Canada; and the more radical party of the Bloc Québécois, founded in
1991 to further the protecting of Quebec’s interests, specifically through the ideas of
national sovereignty and Quebec’s secession from Canada. The Parti Québécois gained
much popularity in Quebec throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and their desire of “egalité
ou independance” acted as an “or else” clause for English Canada and the current Prime
Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.17 This threatening new slogan meant that if Quebec did
not get the rights it felt it deserved, such as the ability to receive federal funding while
opting out of federal shared-cost programs placed in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the
right of a federal veto in order to protect the power entrusted in it under the Compact
Theory and 1867 Confederation, and recognition of Quebec’s special status within
Canada, it would secede from that country.
16
17
. . . the past is our guide. Mann, 299.
. . . equality or independence
8
By 1980, Quebec had not yet received their demands, and therefore organized a
provincial referendum on sovereignty-association. Although the meaning of sovereigntyassociation is ambiguous, most politicians interpreted it to be a question of whether or not
the Québécois would be willing to renegotiate their present terms with Canada, and
hopefully, out of those negotiations, receive political independence from Canada while
maintaining economic and military ties. The opposition for this referendum was
enormous outside of Quebec, and through the tireless labor of those supporting a united
Canada, including Pierre Trudeau’s promise to repatriate the 1867 Constitution, the
referendum failed in Quebec with only forty percent of the vote. Because of the close
results of this referendum, however, Trudeau kept his promise of repatriating the
Constitution, with his dream of “One Canada” in mind.
After more than one year of meeting and negotiations, Canada enacted a
Constitutional Act on April 17, 1982. The Constitutional Act of 1982’s primary
differences from the Constitutional Act of 1867 consisting of the adoption of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms (a type of Canadian Bill of Rights) and an amending formula for
constitutional change. However, the final Constitution deal making occurred on “the
night of long knives,” or the middle of the night on November 4-5, 1981, in the presence
of only Anglophone premiers. This arrangement thus warranted the appellation of “an
odious plot against Quebec that reduced the powers of the government representing the
only francophone society in North America.”18 The Constitution Act of 1982 did not
include any of the special requests the Québécois had asked for, and their angry
disappointment led to the 1984 election of Conservative Brian Mulroney as Prime
18
Guy Laforest, Trudeau and the End of a Canadian Dream, trans. Paul Leduc Browne and Michelle
Weinroth (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995), 113.
9
Minister, with his promise to have Quebec “rejoin the Canadian constitutional family
‘with honour and enthusiasm.’”19 Sharing this goal of integrating Quebec into the
Canadian constitutional family was Robert Bourassa, Quebec’s Liberal premier. The
result of the shared goal of Mulroney and Bourassa was another round of constitutional
negotiations to legitimize the Constitutional Act of 1982 by adding the input of Quebec.
The Meech Lake Accord resulted from this new set of constitutional negotiations.
All ten premiers signed the Accord in 1987 and took it to their provincial governments to
ratify it within the next two years. However, unanimous ratification was not achieved by
the deadline, largely due to the “distinct society” clause the Accord contained, and the
Accord failed. The interpretative “distinct society” clause stated “that in interpreting the
constitution the courts should do so in a way that is consistent with ‘the recognition that
Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.’”20 Furthermore, the Meech Lake
Accord avowed “the role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and
promote the distinct identity of Quebec.”21 This proposition of the distinct society clause
and its powers in Quebec were controversial because, “for those Canadians who dreamed
of the Charter [of Right and Freedoms, 1982] as a new beginning for Canada, where
everyone would be on an equal footing and where citizenship would finally be founded
on a set of commonly shared values, there is nothing left but tears.”22 This statement by
former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau embodies his dream of a united Canada. Trudeau,
along with most of English Canada, believed that if Quebec “constitutes within Canada a
19
Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, 4th ed. (Canada: Nelson, 2004), 395.
McRoberts, 193.
21
Canada, “Constitutional Amendment, 1987” (Meech Lake, Canada: 1987),
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC831567 (accessed 6
November 2007).
22
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Against the Current: Selected Writings, 1939-1996, ed. Gerard Pelletier, trans.
George Tombs (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1996), 231.
20
10
distinct society” and has “the role . . . to preserve and promote [its] distinct society,” it
would have more power than any other province or minority group and would be able to
use that special power to “begin to challenge federal powers in a variety of fields.”23
This thought scared Anglophone Canada, and many believed the Accord a ploy for
Quebec to gain more provincial power and independence, not equality within Canada.
Thus, the Meech Lake Accord was not amended into the Canadian Constitution, due to
the many criticisms held by Anglophones and supporters of Trudeau’s vision of national
unity. Separatism once again gained force, as the failure of the Meech Lake Accord
proved to Quebec that Canada was not yet willing to negotiate and respect its distinct
society.
As the Quebec legislature threatened an impending referendum on sovereignty,
the federal government turned again to constitutional negotiations. The Charlottetown
Accord of 1992, structured with a similar purpose as the Meech Lake Accord, included
the distinct society clause but refined its parameters.
In effect, the delineation was based upon a traditional conception of Quebec’s
distinctiveness: French-language majority, distinct culture, and the civil code;
there was no reference to the distinctive economic and social institutions of
contemporary Quebec. Finally, just to make certain that the Canada clause [which
listed eight fundamental characteristics of Canadian culture], including the
‘distinct society’ reference, could not directly affect the division of powers, the
Charlottetown Accord adopted Meech’s provision that nothing in the clause could
derogate from ‘the powers, rights or privileges’ of Parliament and the
government of Canada.24
This description of the Charlottetown Accord illustrates that the recognition of Quebec’s
distinctiveness would be integrated into the Constitution, but not transferred into
additional powers. Canadians recognized the Québécois as distinct because of their past,
23
24
Dyck, 395.
McRoberts, 212-213.
11
and its effect on their present-day lifestyles. The Québécois have a large agrarian
community, deep roots in Catholicism, and unique French interpretations of many issues,
and they speak their own language and adhere to the French Civil Code. Unfortunately
for them, the Charlottetown Accord also failed, considered as too much change for the
Anglophones, and not enough for the Québécois.
The failure of both Meech Lake and Charlottetown comprised another tragedy for
Quebec. Immediately following Meech Lake, Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa asked,
“What does Canada want?”25 Obviously the country had not decided by the collapse of
the Charlottetown Accord. Despite this, Bourassa stated that “English Canada must
clearly understand, Quebec is today and for all times a distinct society, free and capable
of assuming its destiny and its development.”26 Accordingly, Quebec turned to
separatism once more, and another referendum took place in October 1995.
The referendum of 1995 threatened the separation of Canada like never before.
With great effort, united Canada narrowly escaped its defeat: the referendum failed with
49.4% of the vote for the separatist’s “oui” (yes) and 50.6% for the federalist’s “non”
(no). It was a narrow escape for united Canada, and luckily the federal government, now
led by Jean Chrétien, understood the delicate position of Quebec. Chrétien added to the
unwritten aspects of Canadian governing policy the promises of good government and the
powers of opt-out and veto to all provinces. Further, the federal government passed a
parliamentary resolution recognizing Quebec as a distinct society; and consequently the
Robert Bourassa, “What Does Canada Want?” (Quebec City: CBC, June 22, 1990),
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1180-6498/politics_economy/meech_lake/clip10 (accessed 5 November
2007).
26
Bourassa.
25
12
threat of separatism abated for the moment, especially after the government instituted the
Clarity Act of 2000, making separation more difficult to achieve.
In recent politics, the question of Quebec’s role within a united Canada
reemerged. Canadian Broadcast Company journalist Robert Sheppard reported on
November 23, 2006, that “the collective trauma of the 1995 referendum put the Quebec
nation debate on hold for a decade. It was only revived in September [2006] by Michael
Ignatieff, the front-runner in the Liberal leadership contest.”27 Ignatieff announced his
support for a resolution demanding the official recognition that Quebec is a nation within
Canada, most likely to gain support of the Liberal Party’s Quebec wing.28 Anticipating a
motion regarding the nationhood of Quebec, Prime Minister Stephen Harper proposed the
following motion on November 22, 2006: “That this House recognize that the Québécois
form a nation within a united Canada.”29 On November 23, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles
Duceppe delivered the anticipated motion: “Que la Chambre reconnaisse que les
Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation actuellement au sein du Canada.”30
The difference between these two motions is the idea of the Québécois nation existing
within or without of a “united Canada.” Gilles Duceppe defended his position concerning
Quebec as follows:
Several polls have shown that the vast majority of Canadians reject the idea of
officially recognizing the reality that Quebecers form a nation. This refusal to
recognize the Quebec nation, to recognize an obvious reality, could be called a
great Canadian mental block. It is this very refusal to recognize Quebec for what
it is that explains why Quebec is not a signatory to the Constitution. This refusal
Robert Sheppard, “The 39th Parliament: Quebec nationalism, a long history,” in CBC News: In Depth
(November 23, 2006), http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/quebecnation-history.html
(accessed 4 November 2007).
28
Sheppard.
29
Canada, “The 39th Parliament.”
30
“That the House recognize that Quebecers form a nation currently within Canada.” Canada.
27
13
to recognize the Quebec nation also explains why Quebec is considered a
province like any other and nothing more.
In Quebec, in the National Assembly, sovereigntists and federalists alike agree
that Quebecers form a nation.
Nations have rights, including the right to direct their own development. The
debate on Quebec’s future hinges on whether, as some believe, Quebec is better
off growing and prospering within Canada – and I respect that – or whether, as
others like me believe, sovereignty is the only way for Quebec to reach its full
potential.31
Duceppe’s statements ring true to the Québécois – they are different, distinct, and unique,
and they should be considered as a nation. However, Duceppe struck on the fundamental
debate behind this motion: whether or not Quebec can achieve its potential as a nation
within Canada, or if the only way is for it to separate from Canada.
Prime Minister Harper followed the federal motion on the nationhood of Quebec
with likely the most truthful statements concerning the Québécois identity:
Mr. Speaker, the real intent behind the motion by the leader of the Bloc and
the sovereigntist camp is perfectly clear. It is to recognize not what the Québécois
are, but what the sovereigntists would like them to be. To the Bloc, the issue is not
that Quebec is a nation – the National Assembly has already spoken on that
subject; the issue is separation. To them, “nation” means “separation.” . . .
Quebecers know who they are. They know that they have participated in the
founding of Canada and in its development and its greatness. They know that they
have preserved their language and their unique culture, and that they have
advanced their values and their interests within Canada.
The real question is simple: do the Québécois form a nation within a united
Canada? The answer is yes.
Do the Québécois form a nation independent of Canada? The answer is no, and it
will always be no.32
31
32
Canada, “The 39th Parliament.”
Canada, “The 39th Parliament.”
14
These powerful statements given by the federal leader of Canada strike the heartstrings of
the majority of Canadians, including the Québécois. The Québécois are different – a
unique nation, or distinct society – but part of their individualism stems from their shared
history with British Canada. Canada has always been a confederation between founding
nations, or provinces, and continues to assume its diverse role as such by recognizing the
distinguishing characters of all of its citizens.
Prime Minister Harper’s motion passed on November 27, 2006. Gilles Duceppe’s
motion failed. Since the recognition of Quebec as a nation within a united Canada, no
separatist ideas have since come forth. The Québécois appear satisfied with the
recognition that they form their own nation within a larger nation. It is my hope that this
larger nation of Canada may remain a united one, where all Canadians will sing: “God
keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Et ta valeur, de
foi trempée, protégera nos foyers et nos droits.”33
“God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Et ta valeur, de foi
trempée, protégera nos foyers et nos droits. (And thy valor, steeped in faith, will protect our homes and our
rights.)” The concluding lyrics, in English and French, of the Canadian national anthem, “O Canada.”
33
15
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Bourassa, Robert. “What Does Canada Want?” Quebec City: CBC, June 22, 1990.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1180-6498/politics_economy/meech_lake/clip10.
(Accessed 5 November 2007).
Canada. “Constitutional Amendment, 1987.” Meech Lake, Canada: 1987.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=
A1SEC831567. (Accessed 6 November 2007).
---. “The 39th Parliament: Debate: The motions on the Québécois nation, November
22, 2006.” In CBC News: In Depth, November 24, 2006.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/motion-quebecnation.html.
(Accessed 4 November 2007).
Desbarats, Peter. The State of Quebec: a Journalist’s View of the Quiet Revolution.
Montreal: McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1965.
Sheppard, Robert. “The 39th Parliament: Quebec nationalism, a long history.” In CBC
News: In Depth, November 23, 2006.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/quebecnation-history.html.
(Accessed 4 November 2007).
Statistics Canada. “Censuses of Canada, 1665-1871.” Ottawa: Censuses of Canada, 1876.
In Statistics Canada: E-STAT. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/98-187XIE/acadians.htm. (Accessed 4 November 2007).
Talon, Jean. “1665-1666 Census: Table I - Families, Population, Sexes, Conjugal
Condition.” In Statistics Canada: E-STAT.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/jtable1.htm. (Accessed 4 November 2007).
Trudeau, Pierre Elliott. Against the Current: Selected Writings, 1939-1996, ed. Gerard
Pelletier, trans. George Tombs. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1996.
Secondary Sources
Dickinson, John, and Brian Young. A Short History of Quebec, 3d ed. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2003.
Dyck, Rand. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, 4th ed. Canada: Nelson, 2004.
James, Matthew. Political Science 101 Lecture. University of Victoria, Canada:
September 21, 2004.
16
Laforest, Guy. Trudeau and the End of a Canadian Dream, trans. Paul Leduc Browne
and Michelle Weinroth. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995.
Mann, Susan. The Dream of Nation: a Social and Intellectual History of Quebec, 2d ed.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002.
McRoberts, Kenneth. Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity. Toronto:
Oxford University Press, 1997.
Romney, Paul. “Provincial Equality, Special Status and the Compact Theory of Canadian
Confederation.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32, no. 1 (March 1999):
21-39.