One wonders how Québécois would survive after the arrival of United Empire Loyalists and the loss of deported Acadians. The English-speaking population of Canada constituted a majority. How would French-speaking Canadians survive? During a period of the history of Quebec, a high birth rate provided hope. Families could number from 18 to 24 children, most of whom survived childhood. It was said of women, that they had to have their “nombre.” his high birth rate was called la revanche des berceaux, the revenge of the cradle.
In short, women toiled against odds. They were pregnant for years while husbands made land, faire de la terre. The land did not always yield good crops. As well, people lived away from their village. They attended Mass every Sunday and socialized a little after mass, on the perron. Louis Hémon told this story in his novel entitled Maria Chapdelaine. After sending his manuscript to France, in 1913, he started to walk West, but he was hit by a train, at Chapleau, Ontario. He may have been trying to meet the French Counts of Saint-Hubert, Saskatchewan.
French aristocrats tried to move to Canada. It was not a very successful endeavour, but several members of the French-speaking population of Western Canada are not descendants of Quebecers. I met many of this branch of French-speaking Canadians. Some retired in Victoria and had a good relationship with the descendants of Québécois. I nearly married a descendant of this population, but he committed suicide. They bought a large number of houses that are now too expensive. We socialized considerably and we owned a tiny church and a hall. I play the organ, so every Sunday, I went to the 11 o’clock Mass and performed.
La Revanche des berceaux was successful.
It suggested that although Anglo-Canadians dominated Canada in the 19th century, the higher birth rate in Quebec promised that French-Canadians would resist British immigration and discrimination.
The irony is that these children had to leave Quebec because they could not earn a living.
The Ultramontane ideology encouraged poverty. Quebecers would start to live happily once they entered eternal life. Suffering now was seen as a sign of salvation. One paid for the original sin on earth, which was comforting. All human beings have to atone for the original sin: better on earth than after death. This view can also be called Jansenism.
Ultramontanism
Ultramontanism lessened the suffering of women who bore children incessantly. God would let them enter Paradise. However, when I was a child, women had a hysterectomy. It made them sterile. My mother did not undergo a hysterectomy until we moved away from Quebec. The dead children were used as guinea pigs. A cure was found for the family’s congenital blood disease. My mother’s legs had been ruined by varicose veins. However, she believed that not having children was sinful.
Refus global and the Asbestos Strike
A manifesto, Refus global, written in 1948, and a strike, the Asbestos Strike of 1949, would end the plight of workers. Maurice Duplessis tried every aberration to end the strike. Ultramontanism had died, but Maurice Duplessis feared socialism and, possibly, communism. Workers were not killed, but the repression caught the attention of Pierre Elliot Trudeau and colleagues. One of my uncles was shot at. His brother, also my uncle, was Quebec’s top civil servant. When Maurice Duplessis died, Quebec had long been ready for its Quiet Revolution which started in 1960. The Asbestos Strike made a famous victim, the bishop of Montreal. He opposed Duplessis and had to leave for Victoria, British Columbia. Monseigneur Joseph Charbonneau was a very good person.
Conclusion
In Maria Chapdelaine, Louis Hémon writes that Québec will carry on forever. That may not be.
Barns by Clarence Gagnon, 1926 (National Gallery of Canada)
Demographic Growth in Québec
During the one week (1805 – 16 April 1859) Alexis de Tocqueville spent in Bas-Canada (Lower Canada),[i] he marveled at the fact that there was still a French nation in North America. In particular, he “noticed the demographic growth of the French Canadians, their numbers almost ten times what it was when the colony was handed over to Great Britain.”[ii] There were about 70,000 Francophone Roman Catholics in 1763, the year New France became a British colony. In 1831, the population of Lower Canada was 550,000 (See Canada under British Rule, Wikipedia). However 8,000 United Empire Loyalists, including 300 slaves, had settled in the Eastern Townships.[iii]
Tocqueville feared for the future. French-Canadians were mainly habitants and quite prosperous but, on 1st September, 1831, Tocqueville confirmed in his notes that “the English have control of all foreign trade and run domestic trade without any opposition.” (Note 7)[iv]In other words, what would happen to the French nation he was so pleased to have visited? They were habitants, lawyers, doctors, priests and teachers who were members of a religious order). Until the 1960s, Nuns also administered hospitals.
So although there were shops, general stores, and several small businesses in Lower Canada, large businesses and factories belonged to the anglophone population. However, larevanche des berceaux, the revenge of the cradles, a very high birthrate, played a significant role in the survival of the francophone population of Canada and North America. The men “colonized” and women gave birth to a large number of children who reached adulthood. But Tocqueville also commented on the motherland’s neglect of its subjects in New France.
The Abandonment of New France
The Lower Canada visited by Alexis de Tocqueville had grown into a small nation due, to a large extent, to a very high birthrate. However, given the manner in which they greeted Tocqueville and Beaumont, I would suspect the small nation he visited had chosen to view itself as “conquered” rather than abandoned, thus “resisting” its fate. Yet, as Tocqueville stated, they had been abandoned, which constituted “one of the greatest ignominies of Louis XV’s shameful reign.”
Dans une lettre du 26 novembre 1831, commentant la politique française du XVIIIe siècle concernant la Nouvelle-France, il écrit de l’« abandon » de ces sujets français qu’il est « une des plus grandes ignominies du honteux règne de Louis XV ».[iv] (Corbo)
In a letter dated 26th November 1831, he criticizes France’s dealings with its North-American colony during the 18th century, referring to the “abandonment” of loyal subjects of the French Empire. Then he adds that it was “one of the greatest ignominies of Louis XV’s shameful reign.” (Corbo)
It is not uncommon for Québécois to speak of “la conquête” and to look upon the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, fought on 13 September 1759, as the British military victory that undid New France. In fact, in his account of his visit to Lower Canada, Alexis de Tocqueville himself used both the words: “conquis” (conquered) and “abandon,” (abandonment) referring to France’s lost colony.
Consequently, having lost the war, France had to cede some of its colonies and it ceded New France, “quelques arpents de neige” (a few acres of snow) (Voltaire‘s Candide 1759, chapter 23), as well as the eastern part of French Louisiana to Britain, keeping its sugar-rich Caribbean colonies (Guadeloupe and Martinique) and two small islands, Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, off the coast of the current Newfoundland, a pied-à-terre for its fisherman in the North Atlantic.
It follows that Tocqueville’s description of the cession of New France is, to a large extent, as he stated: “one of the greatest ignominies of Louis XV’s shameful reign.” New France was abandoned. However, I should think that it was in the best interest of the abandoned nation to redress horrific events by considering itself a “conquered,” rather than abandoned people. Doing so could be called damage control. Careful wording can constitute a form of resistance.
It would have to be resistance. New France was not ceded unconditionally. It kept its religion, its language and its seigneuries. Habitants remained on their thirty acres, and French Civil law was respected, to a reasonable extent. Here is an excerpt from the Treaty of Paris:
“His Britannick Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitant of Canada: he will, in consequence, give the most precise and most effectual orders, that his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannick Majesty farther agrees, that the French inhabitants, or others who had been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada, may retire with all safety and freedom wherever they shall think proper, and may sell their estates, provided it be to the subjects of his Britannick Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons, without being restrained in their emigration, under any pretence whatsoever, except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions: The term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of eighteen months, to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty.” (See The Treaty of Paris, Wikipedia.)
Résistance
However, once the Traité de Pariswas signed, on 10 February 1763, how long could anyone expect England to keep its promises? The small nation Tocqueville and Beaumont visited was a British colony and, as such, its future as a French-language nation was imperiled. It is relatively easy to assimilate 70,000 inhabitants.
In the case of the “Royal Proclamation,” Canadiens, as they called themselves, were little less than a man away from possible assimilation. That man was James Murray (21 January 1721, Scotland – 18 June 1794, Battle, East Sussex), the Governor of the province of Quebec.
“In October of the same year [1763], London issues its « Royal Proclamation », thus allowing French-speakers to practice their religion. But Great Britain lets governor Murray know of its plans to found Protestant schools to assimilate the population. The proclamation also wants to replace the old French civil code of law by the British Common Law. Governor Murray judges this measure unrealistic and decides to keep the French civil laws.”[v]
“A member of the landed gentry, he supported the agrarian, French-speaking inhabitants over the newly arrived, English-speaking merchants. He was reluctant to call a legislative assembly, promised in the ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763, because he feared that Canadians would be barred from it on religious grounds.”
The Seven Years War or French and Indian War (blue: Great Britain, Prussia Portugal, Britain, with allies; green: France, Spain, Austria, Russia, Sweden with allies.) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Alexis de Tocqueville: 1831
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited Lower Canada in 1831, the 70,000 inhabitants, “abandoned,” in 1763, had become a small nation, which delighted him. The habitants The were in fact quite prosperous, but Tocqueville noted that “the English ha[d] control of all foreign trade and r[a]n domestic trade without any opposition,” which was alarming.[vi]What would the habitantdo once his thirty acres could no longer be divided?
Tocqueville’s fears were legitimate. Many habitants did leave for the United States, when Canadiens ran out of land. As I wrote in earlier posts, nearly a million French Canadians and Acadians would move to the United States during a period of Canadian history named l’Exode: the exodus. They could not find work in Canada. However, many chose to “make land,” faire de la terre, (Chapter 4, Maria Chapdelaine). The leader of this movement was a priest, le curé Labelle (24 November 1833 – 4 January 1891).
Le curé Labelle[vii] proposed that French Canadians go north, to the Laurentides, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and turn unfriendly soil into arable land. Le curé Labelle saw colonization as a realistic option, which it was, to a lesser or greater extent. When Louis Hémon (12 October 1880 – 8 July 1913), a visitor from France, travelled to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, the habitants, now called cultivateurs, were colonizing and the Francophone population of Quebec had grown to approximately 2 million inhabitants. Once again, a visitor from France was looking at an expanding nation. Hémon noticed a demographic victory and a will, on the part of the people of Quebec, to remain what they had always been.
Louis Hémon: 1913
Shortly after Louis Hémon arrived in Canada, he went to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. He worked at Péribonka during the summer and fall and then spent the winter of 1912-1913 writing his novel: Maria Chapdelaine. In his short novel, Louis Hémon captured a Quebec that was not about to die. After sending his novel to a publisher, Hémon started travelling west and was killed by a train, at Chapleau, Ontario. His novel was published in 1914 and proved an enduring success. Louis Hémon had seen not only a small nation, but a people who were a testimonial: “un témoignage.” Hémon did not express doubts concerning the survival of the small nation he was visiting: Quebec. “These people belong to a breed (race) that does not know how to die.” (See Chapter 15 of the novel.)
Ces gens sont d’une race qui ne sait pas mourir.
Conclusion
The growth of a population of 70,000 inhabitants, in 1763, to half a million, in 1831, when Alexis de Tocqueville visited Lower Canada, was perhaps due to an already high birthrate called the revanche des berceaux, the revenge of the cradles. It was not a trivial phenomenon. When Louis Hémon went to Péribonka, in 1912-1913, and spent the winter months writing Maria Chapdelaine, the francophone population of Quebec had risen to 2 million inhabitants. Three films are based onMaria Chapdelaine and we owe its first English translation to W. H. Blake.
The Blacksmith’s Shop, oil on canvas painting by Cornelius Krieghoff, 22 x 36 in, 1871, Art Gallery of Ontario
Introduction
The above picture and the ones below are depictions of an older Quebec by Cornelius Krieghoof (19 June 1815 – 8 April 1872), a Dutch artist who immigrated to Canada, but first served in the United States army. He married a French-Canadian, Émilie Gauthier, and died in the United States where he had retired. The paintings depict bon viveurshabitants or descendants of habitants, the former tenants of seigneurs. The Seigneurial System or the Compagnie des Cent-Associés was created in 1627, by Cardinal Richelieu. The hundred associates were “to capitalize on the North American fur trade.” The Seigneurial System was abolished in 1854. Tenants were called habitants (literally, inhabitants). In 1645, the Company “sublet its rights and obligations in Canada to the Communauté des Habitants.” But, in 1663, the Société des Cent-Associés‘ grant was revoked, and, by the same token, so was the Communauté des Habitants. New France became a province of France.(See Compagnie des Cent-Associés, The Canadian Encyclopedia.)
Habitants, painting by Cornelius Krieghoff, 1852 (Wikipedia)
Habitants Breaking Lent (Wikipedia)
Mocassin Seller Crossing the St. Lawrence River (Photo Credid: Wikipedia)
Indian Trapper on Snowshoes, Photo credit: Amazon)
Current Activities
I cannot speak of serious current activities because I have not posted an article for two months, which has been my current activity for a few years. I could not write posts and turn this apartment into a home. However, I was not asleep. I waited for the first snowfall, a magical moment, kept an eye on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a fairy tale, and bought a Christmas cake, une bûche, a small one, at the Pâtisserie liégeoise and celebrated the twelve days of Christmas.
Books, but not just ordinary books…
There is no doubt that I wasn’t fit to move. However, I like my new apartment and, although there were too many books to unpack, a surprise awaited me. The books were not entirely mine. Many belonged to my father. In the 1990s, I starting housing his books and used them to write an article published in Francophonies d’Amérique, in 2002. When I moved to Sherbrooke, Québec, I was given more books and bought a bookcase where my father could find all of his books easily.
As I removed these books from their boxes, I started browsing and realized that they constituted a particularly rich source of information on French-Canadian nationalism. For instance, my father had in his possession some of the reports presented to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963-1970), established by Prime Minister Lester B. PearsonPCOMCC OBE (23 April 1897 – 27 December 1972). The Royal Commission is also known as the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. André Laurendeau was the editor-in-chief of Le Devoir, a fine Quebec newspaper, and Davidson Dunton was President of Carleton University, in Ottawa. The work of the Commission culminated in the Official Languages Act of 1969.
The Treaty of Paris (Wikipedia)
Laurendeau and Dunton (Wikipedia)
Browsing my father’s books helped me remember and understand that Canada did have two founding nations and that these two nations could live side by side, in harmony. Laurendeau and Dunton were a very compatible team. In other words, I understood, better than ever before, that as members of a founding nation, French-speaking Canadians had rights, such as the right to ask to be educated in French outside Quebec, if possible. The key words are founding nations, of which there are only two: the French and the British. Canada also has its First Nations, its aboriginals.
The Quebec Act and the Constitutional Act
The Quebec Act, signed in 1774 under Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester, put on an equal footing French-speaking and English-speaking British subjects and, as expected, aboriginals and French-speaking fought the British in the American Revolutionary War. The Constitutional Act (1791) divided Canada into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, located closer to the Atlantic.
As for Royal Proclamation of 1763, it protected aboriginals. The Canadian Encyclopedia indicates that the Royal proclamation of 1763 was the Amerindians magna carta. With respect to Amerindians, the Proclamation, established the constitutional framework for the negotiation of treaties with the Aboriginal inhabitants of large sections of Canada, and it is referenced in section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Proclamation
established the constitutional framework for the negotiation of treaties with the Aboriginal inhabitants of large sections of Canada, and it is referenced in section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
In the case of French-speaking subjects, the Treaty of Paris 1763, was negotiated so that his “Britannick” majesty would protect his new French-speaking subjects. They should be at liberty to use their language and practice their religion. However, until 1774, contrary to the Aboriginals, French-speaking Canadians had no constitutional framework. The Quebec Act, 1774, would provide fill this gap. French-speaking Canadians would be at liberty to use their language and practice their religion. They could also keep their “thirty acres” (trente arpents) and their Seigneurial System.
In 1791, the Constitutional Act separated Upper Canada and Lower Canada. French-speaking subjects lived in Lower Canada, closer to the Atlantic Ocean, and viewed Lower Canada as their land, their patrie.
Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester, was largely responsible for the Quebec Act, which helped to preserve French laws and customs (courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-2833).
Religion and Education
In the province of Quebec, French-speaking citizens had the same status as English-speaking Canadian. However, East and West of the province of Quebec, they didn’t. For instance, in 1890, Manitoba abolished French-language schools. The Manitoba Schools Question is my best example, but I could also mention the New Brunswick Schools question. With respect to the establishment of French-language schools outside Quebec, the traditional excuse was that Catholic schools had to be private schools. This matter was a thinly veiled and unsavoury chapter in Canadian history.
To be perfectly accurate, as I read my father’s books, it became increasingly clear to me that governments outside Quebec may well have used religion, perhaps unconsciously,[1]to deny French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec an education in French. Foi et patrie (faith and land or language)were inextricably entwined in the mind of French-speaking Canadians, but they were, nevertheless, a founding nation. As Alexis de Tocqueville stated, the people of New France were not conquered, they were abandoned by France. (See Related Articles, no 1.), Tocqueville concluded that it was nevertheless best for French-speaking Canadians to believe they had been conquered rather than abandoned by France, their motherland. Tocqueville pointed a guilty finger at Louis XV. But the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763), did protect England’s newly-acquired territories and its French-speaking subjects, without creating an assembly for French-speaking Canadians.
The Quebec Act and the Constitutional Act
The Quebec Act, signed in 1774 under Guy Carleton put on an equal footing French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians and, as expected aboriginals and French-speaking fought the British in the American Revolutionary War. The Constitutional Act (1791) respected French Canadians. In fact, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 protected aboriginals mainly if not only. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, the Royal proclamation of 1763 was the aboriginals’ magna carta. The same could not be said of the French-speaking citizens of Britain’s new colony. With respect to Amerindians, the Proclamation
established the constitutional framework for the negotiation of treaties with the Aboriginal inhabitants of large sections of Canada, and it is referenced in section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
In short, France chose to cede New France under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, but that it did so conditionally. His “Britannick” majesty would not take away from France’s former subjects their language, their religion and their seigneurial system. Under the terms of Confederation, Quebec also kept its Civil Code, which is still in place. Moreover, under the Constitutional Act of 1791, Quebec included Labrador. (See Labrador, Canadian Encyclopedia.)
The Labrador Boundary Dispute was one of the most celebrated legal cases in British colonial history. Though Newfoundland’s claim to the watershed of all rivers flowing into the Atlantic Ocean is recognized in the Constitution Act, many Quebecers still consider Labrador part of “Nouveau-Québec.”
Consequently, French-speaking Canadians’ magna carta was the Quebec Act of 1774 and the Constitutional Act of 1791. But they and the British lived for the most part in Lower Canada where facing the “schools question” was easier to deal with. Each nation had its land. Yet, the schools question, French-language schools that were also Catholic schools was a legitimate request on the part of French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec. They were Catholics, but first and foremost they were one of the founding nations of an expanding Canada. The French, the voyageurs, in particular, with the help of Amerindians, opened the North-American continent, but the French and Métis were Catholics and Manitoba, a French-language province.
One could argue that French-speaking Canadians, living in provinces outside Quebec could have been educated in their mother tongue, had they not insisted their schools also be Catholic schools. Yet, one could also take the view, expressed above, that authorities outside Quebec had an easy, but questionable and somewhat justification to deprive members of a founding nation of their right to have their children educated in the French language, if possible.
Consequently, “the schools question,” the creation of language schools that were also Catholic schools was a legitimate request on the part of French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec. They were Catholics, but more importantly they were one of the founding nations. The Manitoba Act of 1890, the abolition of French as a teaching language was
[a]n Act to Provide that the English Language shall be the Official Language of the Province of Manitoba.
What of the two founding nations? Was Quebec to be the only part of Canada where children could be educated in French?
The Official Languages Act of 1969
The work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism resulted in the Official Languages Act, given royal assent on 9 September 1969. Most acts are amended, so there have been a few amendments to the Official Languages Act. In theory, the dispute is over or should be. Canada is officially bilingual. In other words, its official documents appear in the two languages and the federal government’s services are available in both languages.
By 1969, public schools were secularized in Quebec. The separation of Church and state has long been accepted. Until the 1960s, the people of Quebec had a French Catholic school board and an English Protestant school board. Problems arose after the Second World War. (See Laïcité, Wikipedia, note 7.)[2]Laïcité would also have benefited Quebec during the years that followed the Second World War. French-speaking immigrants were not necessarily Catholics. Which school were parents and students to choose?
Motto of the French republic on the tympanum of a church in Aups, Var département, which was installed after the 1905 law on the Separation of the State and the Church. Such inscriptions on a church are very rare; this one was restored during the 1989 bicentennial of the French Revolution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
However, despite their rights, it could be said that, in practice, Quebec’s Official Language Act may have harmed the citizens of Quebec and French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec. In 1974, Quebec declared itself a unilingual province, French, under Premier Robert Bourassa‘s, The Quebec government passed Bill 22. In 1976, Quebec elected its first separatist government under the leadership of René Lévesque, who had founded the Parti québécois. Quebec’s government passed Bill 101, or the Charter of the French language, in 1977, language bills. The face of Quebec had to be French and its immigrants would have to enter French-language schools.
In the 1980 referendum, 60% of Quebecers voted not to give the Quebec government the mandate it needed to begin negotiations that could lead to Quebec’ sovereignty. It was a “no” vote. A second referendum was held, in 1995. In 1995, the ‘no’ vote was 50.58% and led to the Clarity Act (2000).
An État providence or Welfare State
The goal of the Parti Québécois was sovereignty, but the goal of the Révolution tranquille was an État providence, or Welfare State, which could not be attained if language laws caused its most affluent citizens to leave Quebec.
Moreover, as early as the 1960s, separatists or sovereigntists had a terrorist branch: the Front de Libération du Québec, or FLQ. FLQ militants placed bombs in mailboxes, injuring postal workers, and they kidnapped British diplomat James Cross as well as Quebec’s minister of labour, Pierre Laporte, who was strangled. It could be that James Cross would also have been killed had Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau not invoked the War Measures Act. To civil libertarians, the War Measures Act seemed excessive, but James Cross was freed and acts of terrorism ended. These events are referred to as the October Crisis of 1970 and they would cause many to find Quebec an unsafe environment. That exodus was a loss for Quebec. Those who left were, by and large, affluent taxpayers. How could Quebec become an état providence, a welfare state, if taxes could not absorb the costs?
Bill 22, 1974 & Multiculturalism
With respect to Bill 22, it may have been passed to counter Pierre Elliott Trudeau multiculturalism, a notion that grew during the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I remember clearly that during the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, many Canadians rejected Bilingualism and Biculturalism, from the point of view of demographics.There were more Germans, Hungarians, Italians, or Ukrainians in their community than French Canadians. Their language should therefore be an official language, which would mean that Canada could now have more than 200 official languages. They also said that New France lost the battle of the Plains of Abraham (13 September 1759) and that the time had come for French-speaking Canadians to be told they lost the battle. Canada is increasingly multicultural and it will continue to welcome immigrants, but its founding nations remain France and Britain to this day. In Quebec, immigrants learn French because French Canadians no longer have very large families. In the rest of Canada, learning French is not necessary.
An Exodus from Quebec: the St-Lawrence Seaway or…
However, even if they were used to keep Quebec a French-language province, its Language Laws caused an exodus. Many argue that the opening of the St-Lawrence Seaway, which allows large ships to reach Toronto, provides a full explanation for this exodus. This explanation is not totally convincing. The October Crisis of 1970 alone would be disturbing and could result in the more affluent taxpayers leaving Quebec, Montreal especially.
An État Providence, a Welfare State
This matter is problematical. One of the goals, of the Révolution tranquille, other than secularization, laïcité, was the establishment of an État Providence, or Welfare State. Welfare States levy taxes that fund social programmes. Although Quebecers pay income tax to both their provincial and federal governments, I doubt that Quebec can be an état providence. I have not heard Quebecers complain bitterly. Students pay low tuition fees and day care costs are also inexpensive, but Quebec is not a Welfare State. In all likelihood, Language Laws have frightened citizens. It must be very difficult for Quebec to offer medical services that have become extremely expensive.
It must also be difficult for the government to pay high salaries. The harsh repression of asbestos miners, in 1949 (see Asbestos miners’ strike, Wikipedia), opened the way for the growth of strong labour unions. Employees would no longer be exploited by employers but a lot of Quebecers are syndicated, including part-time university teachers and university teachers.
According to sources outside Quebec, the province’s healthcare laws and practices “do not respect the principles set out in the Canada Health Act,” and amendments. Given that Quebec has not signed the Patriated Constitution of 1982, le repatriement de la Constitution, a Quebec healthcare card is refused by doctors outside Quebec. Hospital fees will be paid, which may not be enough. One could therefore state that Quebec’s healthcare laws and practices “do not respect the principles set out in the Canada Health Act” because it is not universal. Provincial healthcare cards should be valid everywhere in Canada and they should also buy you a bed in a four-bed hospital room and, if necessary, a two-bed hospital room.
René Lévesque and Pierre Elliott Trudeau were at loggerheads between 1980 and 1982, the year the Patriated Constitution was signed. In 1980, when the first sovereigntist referendum took place, 60% of Quebecers voted against given the René Lévesque’s Parti Québécois a mandate to renegotiate Quebec’s partnership with Ottawa, the federal government. Would that Quebecers did not have to pay the price! The Quebec government’s refusal to sign the Patriated Constitution did lead to what can be viewed as the erosion of the Canada Health Act.
Healthcare in Canada is universal but Quebecers’ Healthcare card is not valid outside Quebec, except in a hospital. I am a Canadian and so are other Quebecers. The Quebec health-care card is universal but only in Quebec. Quebec accepts the Healthcare cards of citizens living outside Quebec. Quebecers are therefore footing the bill. Yes, Quebec authorities should have signed the Patriated Constitution of 1982, because the people of Quebec are still Canadians. Are authorities outside Quebec treating Quebecers as though they were not Canadians. If so governments outside Quebec may be seen as complicit in the erosion of Healthcare in Quebec, a Canadian province.
I hope Quebec will sign the sign the Patriated Constitution of 1982 as quickly as possible and that it and other Canadians will not use unfortunate historical events to perpetuate quarrels and, unconsciously, participate and be in fact complicit in the estrangement of Quebec. It may be injudicious on the part of Ottawa not to ensure the welfare of Quebecers. Many Québécois wish to separate. Quebecers are Canadians. I realize that Education and Health are provincial responsibilities, but must a Quebecer who faces a health catastrophe outside Quebec, his province in Canada, pay the cost?
I would so like to know why Quebec’s refusal to sign the Patriated Constitution of 1982 has led to the erosion of universal heathcare in Canada. Quebec is a province of Canada. If he knew the consequences of his actions, René Lévesque, the then Premier of Quebec, may well have failed voters by not signing the new Constitution. Or was Pierre Elliott Trudeau forgetting the people, ordinary people?
Conclusion
Opening boxes of books was a challenge, but it became informative. However, discarding books had become more complex. My father’s books will be adopted by Sherbrooke’s Historical Society and the University of Sherbrooke. But these libraries need lists and will not pick up the books. That will be my duty. My father’s writings have been collated. He wrote editorials for Le Franc-Contact, a periodical published by the now extinct Conseil de la vie française en AmériqueFR. University research centres have replaced le Conseil de la vie française en Amérique.
Again, a belated Happy New Year to all of you and apologies for not posting for two months. Combining posting and settling in a new apartment was not possible.
Love to everyone♥
____________________ [1]Unconsciously, perhaps, the Quebec Act embodied a new principle in colonial government – the freedom of non-English people to be themselves within the British Empire. It also began what was to become a tradition in Canadian constitutional history – the recognition of certain distinct rights, or protections for Quebec – in language, religion and civil law. (Canada, a Country by Consent.)
1885 photo of Robert Harris‘ 1884 painting, Conference at Quebec in 1864, to settle the basics of a union of the British North American Provinces, also known as The Fathers of Confederation. The original painting was destroyed in the 1916 Parliament Buildings Centre Block fire. The scene is an amalgamation of the Charlottetown and Quebec City conference sites and attendees. (Caption and photo credit: Wikipedia)
The French Language in Canada
My next post is about the controversial language laws passed in the Province of Quebec in the 1970s: Bill 22, the Official Language Act, Quebec (1974), and Bill 101, or Charter of the French Language (1977). However, it would be useful to know how many citizens spoke French in the years that followed what many Quebecers still call the “conquest” until the last census.
French-speaking population
1663: 3,000
1712: 20,000
1760: 70,000
2011: 7.3 million
According to Wikipedia, the population of New France was 3,000 in 1663. It grew to 20,000 in 1712 and then jumped to 70,000 in 1760, the year the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (13 September 1760) was fought. (The plains belonged to an individual named Abraham.) At the moment. At the moment, “French is the mother tongue of about 7.3 million Canadians (22% of the Canadian population, second to English at 58.4%) according to Census Canada 2011.” (See French language in Canada, Wikipedia.)
This information takes us to and beyond the Official Languages Act (Canada), which recognized Canada as an officially bilingual country. The Official Languages Act became effective on 9 September 1969.
Although it ceded New France to Britain, by virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1763), France did not do so unconditionally. The inhabitants of New France would continue to speak French and practice their religion (Roman Catholicism). Moreover, they would retain their Seigneurial System, which was not abolished until 1854. (See The Royal Proclamation of 1763, Wikipedia.)
General Sir Guy Carleton(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
British soldiers and Provincial militiamen repulse the American assault at Sault-au-Matelot, Canada, December 1775, by William Jefferys(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Quebec Act of 1774
Motivation
Benefits to Quebec
England could have reneged on its promises, but its Thirteen Colonies, running down the east coast of the current United States, were threatening to become independent of their motherland, Britain. The Declaration of Independence was promulgated on 4 July 1776 and, in 1783, the Thirteen Colonies won the American Revolutionary War, with the support of France.
General Sir Guy Carleton, 1st baron Dorchester
Guy Carleton, 1st baron DorchesterKB, may have felt Britain could need the help of Quebecers and their Amerindian allies in order to fight rebellious “Americans.” This could be the case, but the status the “Quebec Act” gave French-speaking Canadians tends to outweigh other considerations. Moreover, the Act was unsolicited.
Be that as it may, in 1774, the “Quebec Act” was proclaimed. The “Quebec Act” was a British statute which “received royal assent 22 June 1774 and became effective 1 May 1775.” As defined in the Canadian Encyclopedia, the “Quebec Act:”
expanded the territory of the Province of Quebec;
guaranteed religious freedom;
provided a “simplified Test Oath, which omitted references to religion, enabl[ing] them to enter public office conscientiously;”
“restored French civil law;”
“provided for the continued use of the Seigneurial system.”[1]
According to Wikipedia, the following are the principal components of the Quebec Act:
Reference to the Protestant faith was removed from the oath of allegiance.
It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
It restored the use of the French civil law for matters of private law, except that in accordance with the English common law, it granted unlimited freedom of testation. It maintained English common law for matters of public law, including administrative appeals, court procedure, and criminal prosecution.
It restored the Catholic Church’s right to impose tithes.
“It would be easier to buy Canada than to try to conquer it.” Benjamin Franklin
Rebellious “Americans” did attack in 1775, but “the francophone upper classes allied themselves with the British. As a result, despite the capitulation of Montreal, the siege of Québec failed, prompting Benjamin Franklin’s famous statement that it would be easier to buy Canada than to try to conquer it.”[2]
Until the Révolution tranquille, the 1960s, a very high birthrate, the revenge of the cradle(s)(la revanche des berceaux), and “colonisation,” settling north, also ensured the survival of French in Canada. But it is unlikely that a vibrant French Canada would have developed had it not been for the “Quebec Act” of 1774.
I am not surprised, why would the First Minister of Scotland get entangled with Pauline Marois‘ effort to break Quebec’s ties with Canada? Mr Salmond has nothing to gain from such an involvement. (See The Globe and Mail.) He is seeking independence for Scotland and United Kingdom’s Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed to a referendum to be held in 2014.
In fact, so uneventful was Mr Salmond’s meeting with Madame Marois that it took place between two planned events, listed in his diary for 29 January 2014. He had not made room to see her. I doubt very much that he even had the time to “refuse” to help Madame Marois. (See The Globe and Mail.)
In short, although he received a lovely gift from Madame Marois and spoke with her briefly behind closed doors, Madame Marois’ visit to Scotland was not the high political drama the bevy of journalists who were following her expected.
Of greater interest, I believe, is the bill proposed by the New Democratic Party(NDP). The NDP is the federal party that took away all Bloc Québécois seats in Parliament as a result of the Canadian Federal Election, held Monday, 2 May 2011. The Bloc Québécois, a federal, rather than provincial party, is an indépendantiste or sovereignist party. Since the last Canadian Federal Election, it is inactive.[i]
Under the terms of the Clarity Act (Bill C-20), passed in 2000, there cannot be a “unilateral declaration of independence” on the part of Quebec. For instance, should an indépendantiste or sovereignist party win approval to secede as a result of a referendum, the Federal Government of Canada reserves the right to enter into further negotiations concerning the relationship between Quebec and the rest of what is now Canada.
In other words, should 52% of Québécois and Quebeckers vote in favour of secession from Canada in a referendum, and did so by a narrow margin (52% for; 48% against = 2%), Canada would not consider the results a clear willingness on the part of Quebec citizens to secede from Canada. In fact, whatever the results of a referendum, “secession” can occur only through constitutional reform, not a simple vote. (See The Globe and Mail.) This view is not shared by Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats. (See The National Post.)
So, sovereignty is under scrutiny not in Europe, but right here in Canada, and feathers are flying.
As for Madame Marois, although she succeeded in being elected Premier of the Province of Quebec, it would appear that some members of her Parti Québécois beg to differ with her with respect to certain policies. (See The Globe and Mail.)
Seasoned Globe and Mail journalist Paul Waldie has been following Madame Marois’ European journey and, in an article dated 28 January 2013, he suggests equivocation, or ambiguity in Madame Marois’ statements to a group of approximately 200 business people in London. According to Mr Waldie, Madame Marois
“has played down Quebec independence, telling a business crowd in London on Monday that there is no referendum in sight and that the province is open for business.” = no referendum
She is also reported not to have mentioned Mr Salmond in her speech to British businessmen. Paul Waldie writes that
“[i]nstead, she only briefly mentioned sovereignty, saying that she hopes that one day Quebec ‘will be a part of the concert of nations.’”
“But she added: ‘This, of course, is an internal debate and a decision regarding Quebec independence will be made only when Quebeckers are ready.’” (See The Globe and Mail.)
As for lowering the voting age for a referendum on sovereignty, Mr Waldie reports that,
“[w]hen asked whether she would like to drop the age for a referendum on sovereignty, she replied: “Until now that is not the case, but maybe one day.” (See The Globe and Mail.) = not now
“[t]he Quebec Liberals as well as the Coalition Avenir Québec party have refused to embrace the idea of lowering the voting age.” (See The Globe and Mail.)
Mr Waldie’s also reports that Madame Marois’ Parti Québécois faces opposition on the part of Canada’s Federal Government, which takes us back to the Clarity Act:
“The Clarity Act, passed by the Canadian Parliament in 2000, makes a similar deal difficult to strike. The legislation says secession can occur only through constitutional reform, not a simple vote. It also puts restrictions on the question that can be asked in a referendum and how large a majority is required for a Yes vote.” (See The Globe and Mail.)
The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister David Cameron (born 9 October 1966) has agreed to a Scottish referendum, which puts Mr Salmond in a more advantageous position than Madame Marois.
Moreover, as noted above, there seems to be dissent within the ranks of the Parti Québécois. We know that Pierre Duchesne, the Quebec Government’s Minister of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology, will not entertain the idea of free tuition during his great Summit.
Given his position regarding free tuition, Pierre Duchesne is making Madame Marois’ promises to students seem less than realistic and more clearly manipulative, which takes us back to lowering the voting age.
Comments
I believe that Madame Marois’ European journey may have been an attempt to justify the manner in which she won the Quebec General Election on 4 September 2012. Had Mr Salmond agreed to help her, albeit in one respect only: lowering the voting age, she would have come back to Quebec standing taller. She would have had the support of a greater leader.
Quebec had its revanche des berceaux (revenge of the cradle). Until 1960, its high birthrate kept Quebec’s population growing. As good Catholics, Quebec women did not use contraceptives. However, seeking a “yes” vote from sixteen-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds shows fear of losing a possible referendum and it tends to confirm suspicions that Madame Marois manipulated students during the events, a long and disruptive strike, that led to her electoral victory.
It is as though Madame Marois were admitting that students elected her to the Premiership of Quebec, which is not altogether “honourable” (for want of a better word), no more than her current attempt to lower the voting age. Pauline Marois’ bid to lower the voting age may hurt her. For that matter, lowering the voting age could also harm Mr Salmond. (See News BBC.UK.)
Conclusion
In short, Madame Marois reassured Europeans. Quebec is open for business. However, she now seems a lesser Premier. As for Mr Salmond, he received a lovely gift from Madame Marois.
Sitting in Parliament are Stephen Harper (Conservative), Thomas Mulcair (born October 24, 1954; NDP) and the Liberal Party, whose members are in the process of choosing a new leader. Michael Ignatieff, its former leader, was defeated in his own riding during the last election, as was Gilles Duceppe. Thomas Mulcair is replacing deceased New Democrat leader Jack Layton (July 18, 1950 – August 22, 2011).
“Will Ye Go Lassie Go”
Scotland Music Celtic Music songs folk Scottish traditional
Micheline's Blog 