The Quiet Revolution and its Negative Impact on Quebec

Though the beginning of the separatist movement was marred by fighting and violence, the vast majority of the conflict has been a political one. The reason for the revolution in Quebec stems from the restrictions placed upon the populace by the English. These restrictions were on both the language and culture of the Quebecois, and caused them to feel trapped in under the English rule, for lack of a better term. This revolution is on a much less certain foot than the others however, with many of the younger citizens not remember the restrictions of days

For some time, many Quebecois had faith in the FLQ, believing the group would speed the process of separation from Canada; however the FLQ’s loyalty to these beliefs is questionable. Ultimately, it was perceived that the FLQ’s only goal was to give Quebec its justice; they wanted to see them united in a free society. On the other hand, during the October Crisis, they had not been able to prove that. When the FLQ kidnapped British diplomat James Cross, it publicized 7 demands, of which only one concerned French-Canadians, pertaining to fairer working conditions which was later dropped (Tetley, 2007). The rest concerned the FLQ themselves: publication of the Manifesto (a public declaration of policy and aims), the name of an informer, $500,000 in gold, the release of 23 jailed terrorists, and to transport them to either Algeria or Cuba (Knowlton, 1990). A goal of Quebec’s at the time, the protection of the French language, was a cause that preoccupied much of the nation, but was not a particular concern for the FLQ. In fact, the 1970 Manifesto was written in and proclaimed in informal French and “Fringlish” (Knowlton, 1990). The FLQ’s dedication to their cause is doubtful. FLQ believed that they weren’t going to get caught, hence their slogan “Independence or death” (Brown, 2011). However, when justice prevailed, the members chose exile rather than martyrdom. This made it clear that the FLQ’s dedication

Nationalism is an important aspect of national pride and identity for countries around the world. For example, Canada takes pride in its cultural identity, one that is claimed to be different from other ‘Western’ more ‘industrialized’ nations, such as countries in Europe, and the United States. Even though Canada currently has a national identity that differs greatly from that of other more established countries, history has dictated the way in which a particular national identity exists today. In Canada, Samuel De Champlain and the French established colonies that created a cultural clash between the French Europeans, and First-Nations Canadians within the country. However, this notion of French Canadian Nationalism isn’t necessarily embraced by all of the Canadian Population. This paper seeks to analyze important pieces of Canadian History that have contributed to a broken concept of what constitutes Canadian nationalism, with an emphasis on how historic events prevent and affect coherent Canadian Nationalism in modern society. Through the analysis of the notions and histories associated with ‘First-Nations Nationalism’, ‘Quebecois Nationalism’, and a broader ‘Anti-American’ identity embraced by many Canadians, this paper seeks to locate common ground within the culturally diverse Canadian population in order to progress toward a singular coherent

The late 1960’s and early 1970’s in Canada was a time of political upheaval, especially in Quebec, with the rise of the separatist/ liberation movement. The Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) gained popularity by expressing the outwardly harmless goal of Quebec independence from Canada and the creation of a French workers’ society. But the FLQ attempted to achieve this goal through acts of domestic terrorism, such as planting bombs in Canadian federal institutions like mailboxes,and creating mass hysteria, especially in English communities. By doing this, the FLQ managed to even further separate the French and English in Quebec. In October 1970, the FLQ kidnapped the British trade commissioner, James Cross, and the vice premier of Quebec, Pierre Laporte. In response, “Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau sent soldiers and tanks into the streets of Montreal”. The Prime Minister had declared martial law in the province of Quebec, the only time that Canada has ever done this.

This essay looks to discuss Quebec sovereigntists and federalists, and how they differ in their understandings of Canada and Quebec. To accomplish this, the paper looks at three points of contention; how to understand history, the nature of the Quebec state, and recognition of Quebec. The three points of contention show where the two view diverge and why, but the paper views these points as merely pieces of the puzzle. As such only after looking at all three points does the paper reach a conclusion about the real differences between the two views. The paper concludes that sovereigntists view Quebec as distinct enfranchised nation within the confines of Canada, and while viewing Canada as a subjugator and an enemy to Quebec. In comparison,

Within Quebec tensions and emotions ran high as families, friends and neighbours passionately debated "Oui" (supporting separation) or "Non" (opposing separation).” ("Oui" or, 2001) This shows that the Quebec’s population was even in conflict at the time to separate or not. This must have impacted emotionally as people began choosing sides. This proves that Quebec population wasn’t even sure to split or not because the people had opinions on both sides of the matter since, their people were people on both sides of the spectrum. The population was influenced by the FLQ since there was both people who were against it and people who sympathized with them. The media influence the population until the death of a hostage and it is projected by the government; “Several members of the Quebec National Assembly and government ministers criticized the media sharply. The Liberal Party whip, Louis-Philippe Lacroix, accused the journalists of being responsible for the death of Pierre Laporte; he labeled them the gravediggers of

It should come as no surprise that Quebec’s history is distinct and as a result, has transformed the province into a distinct region within Canada. Canada’s fête without Quebec, an article in The Globe and Mail written by Antonia Maioni, illustrates the division between Quebec and the rest of Canada – especially on Canada Day. Maioni discusses the importance of July 1st for Quebeckers as the fête de déménagement, when rental leases often change hands in the province, and not the celebration of Canada. She notes that for francophone Quebeckers, Canada Day is nothing short of the ordinary since their lives do not revolve around being patriotic flag wavers (Maioni). This deep-seated resentment remains over Confederation and what is seen as a less then perfect deal stuck in order to unite what Canadians know today to be Canada. With 2014 being historically significant in marking the 150th anniversary of both the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences, the gathering in Quebec has been largely omitted. Maioni argues that it is the Quebec conference that should merit some reflection since that is where the constitutional framework was established. Unlike in Charlottetown, which become a commemorative cottage industry as a result of central Canadians intervening on what was once supposed to be a Maritime union (Maioni). This paper will discuss how Quebec’s relationship to Canada is framed in the media and how it affects regional experience as a result.

In his book, The October Crisis: An Insider’s View, William Tetley specifically focuses on the FLQ as an actor for independence, while ignoring the variety of other goals within the FLQ manifesto. Tetley begins with an evaluation, stating that the ultimate goal of both the 1963 and 1970 FLQ was a separate Quebec. Tetley proposes that the FLQ was less interested in the minor grievances of the Quebec society, but instead focused on a larger goal. Tetley cites FLQ member Pierre Schinder, who believed that “in Canada, democracy never existed.” This statement supports Pelletier’s proposal that extremists ignore the political foundation of Canada. However, Tetley critiques Schinder for his admiration of Louis Joseph Papineau, a Quebec patriot, due to the fact that Papineau “opposed the use of force by his followers.” Therefore, Tetley believes the democracy that the FLQ targeted is in itself a greater Canadian democracy, which has managed to unify the rest of the nation. This differs from Cook’s understanding, because it relies on the existence of a larger, culturally diverse group who understands itself as Canadian, instead of an individual who believes in liberalism and the use of that liberalism within political institutions. According to Tetley, the entire Canadian society was targeted by the FLQ due to its existence within the democratic framework, a symbol of English domination in Quebec. However, as Granatstein cited, the “Rally for Canada” and speaking against the

Active since 1963, the Front de Liberation du Quebec’s (FLQ) violent actions in October 1970 cost Canadians citizens their rights and freedoms in an attempt to establish Quebec as a separate nation. Prior to Canada becoming a nation and to this date, Quebec has engaged in a tense relationship with English Canada and harbours longstanding resentments over language, religion and multiculturalism. Throughout the 1960’s, the province underwent profound change during the Quiet Revolution and Quebec nationalism soared. During this time, the FLQ organized several bombings and riots. The culmination of the FLQ’s actions in 1970 is referred to as the “October Crisis” which translated into the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and the murder of Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte. The October Crisis also represents Canada’s only encounter with domestic terrorism and the third time the War Measures Act was invoked. The decision to invoke the War Measures Act was a controversial one made by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa since it imposed national martial law. Upon examination of the FLQ’s actions during the October Crisis, the response from the federal government and the impact on Quebec nationalism and the rest of Canada, it is apparent that the government handled the October Crisis tactfully and was correct to invoke the War Measures Act.

During the 1960’s to 1970’s, Vaillancourt argues that Quebec first established a Quebec model of social policy, which he terms Model 1. Modern nationalism gave rise to the increasing role of the Quebec government in social policy, while the Federal government was still distrusted This model see the state playing an interventionist role in social policy. At this stage, however,

Yet, despite this critical shortcoming, curiously, the common denominator in the framing of a national Canadian identity is nevertheless institutional, even by detractors, and completely sidesteps the implication of Parliament’s unclear role. Canadian self-consciousness, presuming such a concept exists, is fickle. Outside Quebec, George Grant in Lament for a Nation lampooned the notion of an indigenious Canadian identity as a failed but tried experiment, an identity of statist Tory conservativism never meant to be in a divided nation, let alone to stand manifest in a converging North America. Parliament, Grant argued, failed to live up in practice to its ideal – but his mid-1960s requiem for an independent Canada did not fully materialize, or at least not yet. Institutionally-speaking, other theories implied Canadian national sovereignty was born an accident in the making. Both Seymour Lipset and Louis Hartz swapped Canadian agency in defining its own “Canadianism” for the coattails of the American War of Independence, the former as Canada the foundational bulwark of the Loyalist counter-revolution and the latter as the fragments of the European revolution itself. Key to all three theories is the role of federal institutions, whose political role for its most predominant cousin is stubbornly not defined. Put in other words, the exception is not

There are many ways to look at situations, places, or people in this world. Keeping this in mind, one ought to realise that different strokes may well be for different folks. One of the many resourceful and effective manners of doing so would be to look at what constitutes a subject as this allows for one to understand how it functions as well as how it is put together from within the inside out. In Canada’s case, this may be applied when asking the widespread question: “Should Quebec be recognized as a ‘distinct society’ in the constitution similar to the agreement known as the Meech Lake Accord in 1987?” The French province of Canada should be led to separation as this would undoubtedly have major implications on the fates of all factions

One way of expanding my understanding of Jean Lesage’s role in Quebec is by looking at the Cause and Consequence dimension of historical thinking. The dimension Cause and Consequence suggests that in order examine the consequences; we must first search for causes and study human agencies. Individuals and groups, play a part in stimulating, modelling, and fighting change. Causes are multidimensional and may result in lasting or temporary consequences. In fact, this dimension answers the question: “Why do events happen, and what are their impacts?” One way of answering this question is by looking at the core aspects of Cause and Consequence, one of which looks at the agency that events result from historical actors operating in conditions. In

This fosters an important change from the psychology of us versus them, to accepting an increasing amount of pluralist tendencies, and the beginning of the satisfaction of Sen’s quote. At this point, the different nations and their populations have left their differences behind and began to form international bonds, with each nation coming together to contribute under a single banner, forming what we know to be a civic nation. An example of the events leading up to the formation of a civic nation, one shaped by interactions and relationships formed as a British colony, were the events that transpired during the British invasion of New France, and the subsequent creation of a bilingual Canada that took place in 1800s. Within this new country of Canada, the French citizens who remained a part of the new civic nation, along with the native tribes that coexisted with the European settlers in the area, came together to form a united Canada. This showed a rare case of the British, who traditionally considered the French to be their mortal enemies, coming together and forsaking their xenophobic tendencies. Additionally during the warfare that occurred during the conquest of Quebec by the British empire, some of the local natives were called up into the French ranks, allowing both groups greater exposure

How has mounting separatist feeling in the province of Québec altered the way in which Canadian history is written in the textbooks used by both the French and English school boards?