Canadian And French Relations In The Past 100 Years. Essay, Research Paper
Throughout the ages, many colonies of earlier empires have arisen from
their colonial status to become their own country. For many of these, such
as the United States, French Indochina and many African nations, their was
a common culture which served as a base for uniting their population. In
Canada however, their were two very different cultures present, the French
and the English. These two peoples had originally had many battles to see
who would hold dominance over the colony, and now they had to unite if
their was any hope of achieving confederation. The French people of lower
Canada and the English people of Upper Canada had many differences, and
weren’t extremely trustworthy of each other. The French Canadians were in
a tough spot when the call for confederation came around. They were afraid
of losing their culture if they joined the Canadian confederacy, but they
also didn’t want to get assimilated into the United States. The French
Canadian attitudes towards confederation in the eighteen sixty’s, can best
be seen through the views of the leading French Canadian politicians of the
day.
In French Canada around the period of confederacy, their were two main
political parties, the bleus and the rouges. In the 1860’s, the leading
French Canadian party was the conservative bleu party. This party, had the
largest bloc of French Canadian legislative seats in parliament.1 The
leader of this party at the time that confederacy was being debated by
leading Canadian politicians was George Etienne Cartier. Cartier was born
in 1814,2 and his grandfather had been a member of the Lower Canadian
assembly in 1809.3 Prior to becoming a French leader in the move towards
confederation, Cartier had been involved in the Rebellion of 1837 that was
lead by Louis Joseph Papineau.4 When the question of confederation came
up, Cartier was quick to add his support to the movement. At the time,
their had been debates whether the current Parliament like assembly should
be elected on the basis of representation by population. This was not an
idea that any French Canadian would have been in support of, because of the
substantial population difference between the English and the French. This
idea of “rep by pop” had many French Canadians worrying about losing their
culture because of the lack of governmental representation for their
people. Cartier was one of the leading opposition to “Rep by pop” in
Canada. He didn’t want to see the French Canadian culture squeezed out of
the people because the English were making all of the laws.
One of the main problems that many people saw with Canadian confederacy
was the differing cultures. No one thought that these cultures would be
able to work together in running a country. The leading English politician
of the time, was John A. Macdonald. He and Cartier were long time
political allies.5 When Cartier heard Macdonald’s plan for confederation
he was quick to jump on the confederacy bandwagon. Cartier`s opinion was
that the local control of provinces under confederacy would be instrumental
in the survival of French culture.6 Cartier thought that a federal union
would prove to be very prosperous, and no one culture would come to
dominate it, because of the diversity of the nations population.7 Also on
the subject of differing cultures, Cartier compared the confederation of
Canada to the United Kingdom. He said that their are three very different
cultures residing in the United Kingdom, and that hasn’t stopped them from
prospering, or becoming one of the most powerful nations in the world.8
Cartier didn’t seem to think that the differing cultures were that much of
a problem. He believed that having multiculturalism within the nation
would lead to each party involved contributing to the general wealth of the
nation and that because of this, prosperity of the new nation would
increase.9
Another one of Cartier’s concerns for French Canada was if they didn’t
join the Canadian confederation, that they would be annexed into the United
States and completely lose their French identity.10 In the end, Cartier’s
attitude towards Canadian Confederation can be summed up in one of his
speeches in parliament in 1865 when he said “Shall we be content in mere
provincial existence, when, by combining together, we could become a great
nation”11
All of French Canada’s politicians weren’t as optimistic about
confederation as Cartier. Joseph Perrault a member of Quebec’s Rouge
party didn’t share Cartier’s view of a United prosperous Canada. Perrault
thought that under the new confederate parliamentary system, French Canada
would not have enough representation to hold up their views.12 Perrault
felt that if confederation occurred, French Canada would have to be in
constant defense of their own political rights because of their lack of
representation in the new parliament. Perrault’s party shared his
pessimistic view of confederation. They thought that confederation was a
threat to the culture of French Canada.13 One of Perrault and his parties
other concerns was that within the new parliamentary system, the two French
Canadian parties would have to ban together to get any voice heard, and if
they did this, the English parties would ban together and crush the French
vote.14
Another member of Quebec’s rouge party, Antoine Aime Dorion shared
Perrault’s view on confederacy. Dorion, leader of the rouge party in
1865, thought that the power given to the federal government under
confederation to control the local legislatures was the same as Britain’s
veto power that was held over non-confederate canada.15 This is
illustrated in Dorion’s speech at the debates on confederation in 1865 in
Quebec when he said “Now, sir, when I look into the provisions of this
scheme, I find another most objectionable one. It is that which gives the
General Government control over all the acts of the local legislatures This
power conferred upon the General Government has been compared to the veto
power that exists in England in respect to our legislation”16 The main
concern for most French Canadians in respect to Confederation was their
lack of representation in the federal parliament causing them to lose their
culture and identity. Dorion believed that all French Canadian voters
under confederacy would go to the polls and all vote for the same party
just so they could have a chance of a large representation in parliament to
protect them from losing the French culture.17
The opinions on confederation within the political forum in French Canada
were vary differing. Hector Langevin, a member of Quebec’s conservative
party felt that under confederation, French culture would be protected and
that English and French cultural interests would remain as they are.18
Langevin firmly believed that under the new confederate parliamentary
system, that the local legislatures would have complete control over
everything that goes on within their given province without federal
interference. This is illustrated in Langevin’s speech at the
confederation debates in Quebec in 1865 when he said, “I may add that,
under confederation, all questions relating to the colonization of our wild
lands, and the disposition and sale of those same lands, our civil laws and
all measures of a local nature-infact everything which concerns and affects
those interests which are most dear to us as a people, will be reserved for
the action of our local legislature.19 Although Langevin was a firm
believer in the confederacy movement, not all of his partymates had the
same view as him.
Christopher Dunkin, also a member of Quebec’s conservative party saw
confederation a lot differently than Langevin. Dunkin beleived that the
English majority Federal government with the power over the local provinces
legislature would have clashes of interests and exercise their power to
veto legislature.20 Dunkin, like many in Quebec opposed to confederation
disagreed with “rep by pop” and was against the federal governments power
over local legislatures. The French Canadian population simply didn’t want
to lose their identity under a British dominated Confederation. Their
choices were slim because of the threat of annexation into the U.S if they
did not join Canadian Confederation.
Another prominent French politician of the time was Sir E.P Tache.
Tache, was the French Canadian premier in 1865.21 Tache did not agree with
Dunkin’s views and thought that confederation would allow French culture
and institutions to remain intact because of the provincial legislatures.22
Tache agreed with Cartier on the point that confederation was the only
answer to being annexed into the United states and losing their cultural
identity completely.23 Tache was a firm believer in the Parliamentary
system that would be set up under Confederation. He thought that
Confederation would save the French culture in Canada, and also save French
Canada from being annexed into the United States.
French opinion on the Confederation idea throughout the 1860’s was very
different depending on who you talked to. Even members of the same party
had very differing views on the topic. The whole idea of setting up a
parliamentary system that the French knew they would be a minority in
didn’t sit well with some. French Canada had its full of supporters and
opponents to Confederation. G.E Cartier, leader of Quebec’s bleu party was
a firm believer in confederation and thought that without it, French Canada
would surely be annexed into the United States. Also, he believed that
French culture would be preserved under confederation. Sir E.P Tache,
premier of Quebec around the time of confederation shared his views on both
subjects. On the other hand, Joseph Perrault and Antoine Dorion of
Quebec’s rouge party saw things a lot differently. They believed that
confederation would mean the demise of French culture and that the
parliamentary system would not hold enough French representation.
Conservative Christopher Dunkin agreed with the rouge parties arguments
while Conservative Hector Langevin agreed with Cartier and Tache. As one
can see, the attitudes and opinions of the French Canadians on
Confederation in the 1860’s was very different throughout the political
forum. No one side held dominance until Confederation was achieved in
1867.
Bibliography
Bartlett Gillian, Galivan Janice. Canada: History in the Making. Toronto:
Wiley Publishers, 1986.
Bliss J.M, Canadian History in Documents, 1763-1966. Toronto: Ryerson
Press, 1966.
Crowe S. Harry, Mcnaught Kenneth, Reid Stewart H. A Source-book of Canadian
history. Toronto: Longmans Canada Limited, 1959.
Keshen Jeffrey, Morton Suzanne. Material Memory: Documents in Post
Confederation History. Toronto: Addison Wesley, 1998.
Martin, Ged. The Causes of Canadian Confederation. Fredricton N.B:
Acadiensis Press,
1990.
Christopher Moore, 1867: How the Fathers Made A Deal. Toronto: The Canadian
Publishers, 1997.
Morton, W.L. The Critical Years: The Union Of British North America 1857-
1873.
Toronto: The Canadian Punlishers, 1968.
EndNotes
1)Christopher moore, 1867: How the Fathers Made A Deal. (Toronto: The
Canadian
Publishers, 1997) p141.
2) ibid.p138
3) ibid.p138
4) ibid. p138
5) ibid. p137
6) J.M Bliss, Canadian History in Documents, 1763-1966. (Toronto: Ryerson
Press,
1966)p.145.
7) ibid. p.112
8) ibid.p.113
9) ibid.p.113
10) Christopher Moore, 1867: How the Fathers Made A Deal. (Toronto: The
Canadian
Publishers, 1997) p.142.
11) ibid.p.142
12) J.M Bliss, Canadian History in Documents, 1763-1966. (Toronto: Ryerson
Press,
1966)p.124.
13) Christopher Moore, 1867: How the Fathers Made A Deal. (Toronto: The
Canadian
Publishers, 1997) p.148.
14) J.M Bliss, Canadian History in Documents, 1763-1966. (Toronto: Ryerson
Press,
1966)p.124.
15) Jeffrey Keshen, Suzanne Morton. Material Memory: Documents in Post
Confederation History. ( Toronto: Addison Wesley, 1998) p 4.
16) ibid.p.4
17) ibid.p.5
18) ibid.p.5
19)ibid.p.6
20) ibid.p.7
21) J.M Bliss, Canadian History in Documents, 1763-1966. (Toronto: Ryerson
Press,
1966)p.111.
22) ibid. p112.