October Crisis

It is a well known fact that through Canadian history, English and French Canadians did not get along very well. French and English Canadians had many differences throughout history, and as time got closer to the 21st century, situations between these two groups of people got worse and worse. Their main differences, as seen in the visual component of my CPT, were usually around times of war, when conscription was a very big topic. However, we cannot forget the post World War II situations that caused Canada to change forever. Therefore, the top three events that really caused transformations in relations of French and English Canadians were the conscription crisis of 1917, the Union Nationale of the 1930s, and the Official Languages Act of

From the overthrowing of the Russian Tsar to the exile of the Nationalists, the world has been in a state where radical movements have been the main focus of citizens, even in democratic societies. The October Crisis was one of these extraordinary events that had occurred. It was a period of international and national revolutionary movements that used violent acts against constitutional measures. The 1970 October Crisis was a pivotal moment that had an undeniable and lasting impact on Canadians as it revealed the wisdom of Trudeau’s decision to enact the War Measures Act, demonstrated that the FLQ (a left-winged terrorist organization) was not a good representative of the French-Canadians, and it

In Canadian history, nationalism and sovereignty tend to be common themes prevalent since Confederation. A well-known example of this in Quebec was during the Quiet Revolution which strengthened the need for change through Premier Lesage’s reforms and in turn, developed a strong sense of nationalism in Quebec. In contrast to beliefs that the rapid modernization of the Quiet Revolution had a positive impact on Quebec, it rather had a negative impact on Quebec and its citizens and identity. The three consequences which arose in Quebec as a result of the revolution are the encouragement of separatism, the elimination of traditional values and roles and the establishment of powerful bureaucratic control. Quebec’s attempt to be more like the

Since FLQ was a terrorist group and the government had to tackle it very carefully, it did not have any safe options to consider. The FLQ kidnapped British trade commissioner James Richard Cross on October 5, 1970 and demanded the release of 23 political prisoners (that were actually, convicted criminals), in exchange for Cross’s life. This was an extreme step taken by the FLQ. It began as a revolutionary group that held demonstrations and protests to separate Quebec from Canada, turned into a terrorist group that started bombing the province and eventually, became a group of kidnappers and blackmailers. People were terrorized and the government realized that the sooner it acted, the better it would be. But, Pierre Trudeau and his democratic government faced a tough challenge. They could either release the 23 criminals for James Cross or take a strict action against FLQ to stop it and face the consequences. Many discussions were held to find a solution to this problem in the best possible way. The leaders deliberated for days to find a way out through non-violence until the

When it comes to Canadian History, perhaps the most controversial and widely disputable topic of debate would have to be one of Canada’s greatest wars: The War of 1812. A wide array of views are held on many aspects of the war ranging from who won to what ramifications the war would ultimately sire. In yet another discussion on the ever so controversial War of 1812, a new question was posed and deliberated by five historians: whose war, was it? Like any other question posed about this war a multitude of ideas would ultimately arise in each of their differing viewpoints. In their roundhouse discussion, the historians would ultimately serve to paint the War of 1812 as a war that transcends much further than the nationalistic view. A view that, though an important part of Canadian history, has been exaggerated to the point of choking out the many voices who fought and continue to fight for inclusion in the narrative. In their remembrance of the War of 1812, society unwittingly failed history in their lackluster commemorations which exclude important narratives and voices and stand tainted by the misuse of history to serve the nationalistic agenda.

In 1917 during WW1, the Canadian government justified in enacting the Military Services Act to register and conscript men for war. Almost all French Canadians opposed conscription because they felt they had no loyalty to France and Britain. Other Canadians were at ease with the conscription as they supported the British Empire. The farmers, union heads, and pacifists were all opposed of the conscription like the French Canadians. I believe the Military Services Act was not the best choice because it ripped up the relations between the English and the French Canadians, it eliminated the freedom of the people by forcing them to go to war, and caused a riot in Quebec City leading to a few deaths. The

“French Canada: the rise and decline of a ‘church-nation’” by Sylvie Lacombe covers the influence the Canadian Catholic Church had on French-Canadians from the early nineteenth century until the mid-twentieth century. It explores how the failed Upper Canada rebellions led to British parliamentary control over the French via the Act of Union in 1840.  This enabled the Catholic Church to take over several provincial social institutions which came to influence nationalistic ideas and values.  Thus, many French-Canadians believed themselves to be part of a “church-state”. However, Irish Catholic immigration, new Anglo-Saxon imperialistic ideologies and the loss of French-speaking schools in the

Due to the bitter rivalries of their mother countries, the two sides also had a strong feels of animosity against one another. This animosity was furthered when the French surrendered New France. This cession of French territory to the British occurred after the French and Indian Wars of the mid 18th century; specifically after the treaty of Paris in February 20th of 1763. The essential annexation brought about much anger within the French. This was illustrated during the highlights of the Patriote movement (the rebellions of 1837 and 1838) and the secession of New France to become British. These events, along with prior rivalry with Britain and its colonies brought forth a substantial amount of Francophone nationalism. Though the rebellion was also caused by famine and poverty on some level, it was the strong French nationalism was the spark that brought about Canada’s first “civil war.”

Not only did they have trouble fighting on enemy lines, but there were also political battles to be addressed within the country itself. Despite the enthusiasm with which most Canadians approached the war effort, there was, from the start some quiet voices of dissent. Those voices that would grow in volume as the slaughter in France became more apparent and dragged on from year to year. The dispute that took place from the beginning and all the way through the war was mainly divided into two groups: the English- Canadians and the French-Canadians. The English-Canadians felt that it was their duty to aid Britain in the war and their dedication never faltered during those long years. However, the French-Canadians were simply upset that so much Canadian effort was being put into a fight that was not really their own. Henri Bourassa, a French-Canadian politician and nationalist, spoke publicly against the war in I916. His parliamentary followers backed his opposition; this united front, however, was built more on circumstances than it was on deeper political principles. Most Canadians agreed that the German’s idea of expansionary war was unnecessary, destructive, and evil. They agreed that “The Great War” needed to be ended before too much damage was made. However, they could not come to an consensus about how that was to be accomplished. The French-Canadians did not believe

The act of applying conscription during the First and Second World Wars have nearly torn Canada apart. The conscription crisis of 1917 was a treacherous event that occurred during the First World War. During this time the relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada were in an all time low in our Canadian history. The Québécois thought conscription was merely unnecessary no matter what circumstance; while all other Canadians did essentially want conscription occur. The contrast was inevitably high on the issue of conscription between the Québécois and the rest of Canada thus creating a solution when conscription was indeed needed was impossible. However while William Lyon Mackenzie King was the Prime Minister during the Second World

Soon after the outbreak of World War II, Trudeau began to study law at the Université de Montréal. Pierre was strongly against signing up to fight. Like most French Canadians at that time, he didn`t believe that it was just a war. Rumours about the Holocaust swirled around campus. Nothing could distract Pierre from his studies. A few months later, he heard a speech by Ernest Lapointe, who was Prime Minister Mackenzie King`s right-hand man and Quebec lieutenant. He promised the crowd that there would be no absolutely no conscription, or so Pierre thought.

As the 20th century comes to an end, Canada is a transcontinental nation whose interests and representatives span the face of the globe and extend into every sphere of human behaviour. However this was not always the case. When the four colonies of British North America united to create Canada on July 1, 1867, the new country's future was by no means secure. Canada was a small country, with unsettled borders, vast empty spaces, and a large powerful neighbour, the United States. Confronting these challenges was difficult for the young country. Though Canada was independent in domestic matters, Britain retained control over its foreign policy. Over the next fifty or so years, Canada's leaders and its

Firstly, the Conscription Crisis of 1942 provoked conflict between the French and English Canadians, but also changed Canadian identity positively during the 1940s. Ever since World War ll began and Canada joined the war the French Canadians highly opposed to the idea of conscription; “[...]English-Canadians, who were mostly in favour of conscription, and French-Canadians, who were strongly opposed.” To begin with, the prime minister of Canada at the time, Mackenzie King had acknowledged the great disagreement the French Canadians had against conscription and made a promise to the nation: “King’s government [...] had promised the nation, and particularly Quebec, that it would not send any conscripts to serve overseas.” The last thing that King wanted to do was to impose conscription especially when Quebec strongly believed in anti-conscription: “The Quebec ministers kept a strong vigil over King's anti-conscription predisposition, reminding him of the terrible divisiveness of the World War 1

Finally in 1867, the United Canadas joined two other British Colonies, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to form the Dominion of Canada (McRoberts 1991, 413). French-Canadians continued to fight against assimilation and received autonomous privileges with exclusive jurisdiction over matters regarding its cultural distinctiveness***. Thus, the Francophone language and culture has always been at the forefront of Quebec priorities. Since Confederation, Quebec nationalist have felt that the Francophone language and culture has been at risk of assimilation by the rest of Canada. As a result, Quebec nationalism is fundamentally rooted in the preservation of the Francophone language and culture (Guiberneau 2006, 52). Political leaders in Quebec continuously urge for the recognition that Canada is composed of two nations or cultures (McRoberts 1991, 413). Prior to confederation Quebec enjoyed numerous autonomous privileges. Unfortunately, post-confederation Quebec did not enjoy as many autonomous privileges because Canada was created as a relatively centralized federation (Beland and Lecours 2007, 406). A centralized federation not only took several of these autonomous powers away from Quebec, but it also threatened the Francophone language and culture (Beland and Lecours 2007, 406). With this said, Quebec nationalism has placed a great deal of pressure on the federal government to decentralize, giving more powers to provincial governments.

Next, Jacques’ attempt to shine light on Adelard Godbout’s progressiveness also led to the unveiling of traits that may describe a “traitor”. Adelard was viewed as a traitor to the French-Canadians for multiple reason but mostly for trying to conscript them into the war, and his good relationship with Mackenzie King. His action to send a military to fight Hitler was derived from the Nazi’s saying: “To conquer Eastern Canada, we must subjugate French-Canadians”. Andre Laurendeau drew comparison from the way English-Canadians oppressed French-Canadians in the same way Hitler oppressed smaller nations like Poland. In the height of his political career, Adelard continued to push for conscription which led to the Conscription Crisis of 1944. This was a less drastic version of the Conscription Crisis of 1917, which Mackenzie King tried very hard not to replicate. In fact, Mackenzie King’s negative view on conscription was caused by his experience with it in 1914, which is why he always voted against it when he had political clout. Adelard got very serious backlash from