A History of and the Case for French Canada

A History of and the Case for French Canada

By Rick Smith

Turmoil in the sphere of politics in Canada has been dominated on-and-off again by the federalist question for years. Mostly, this revolves around the status of Quebec, which is tied directly to the issue of language. If there is to be hope for real, long-lasting and empowering political change in Canada this issue must be resolved. To resolve it requires an understanding of how the idea of a Quebecois nation came to be, analyzing the sources and history of Quebec nationalism, and ultimately exploring a solution of community socialism.

French explorer Jacques Cartier was only the second European to explore Canada’s East coast since the Vikings, and his French successor Samuel de Champlain established the first permanent European settlements after his arrival in 1603. These settlements were Port Royal in 1605 and Quebec (modern Quebec City) in 1608. These settlements would eventually grow to the colony of New France, respectively becoming the capitals of the provinces of Acadia and Canada. To do this, the French had to displace many Natives and ultimately saw many skirmishes and wars to assure French dominance over the Native population. Population growth in the colonies, however, was very slow and ultimately it was this that contributed to the downfall of New France to the English.

Beginning their conquest, the English sought to settle in Newfoundland to the northeast and the Thirteen Colonies to the south. Intercolonial wars forced France to give up the mainland Nova Scotia portion of Acadia in 1713, the French inhabitants of which were later expelled en masse, and in 1763 Canada fell into English hands. It was Canada that would become the Province of Quebec. British settlers then moved in and settled the Great Lakes region that would later become Upper Canada. This settlement caught the French population along the Saint Lawrence River between Anglophones in the west, east and south. At this time, New France’s population had been around 50,000 settlers, nearly all of them French-speaking. However, the British colonies had over one million people and after the American Revolution vast territories south of the Great Lakes that had previously been part of Quebec were ceded to the United States. To accommodate Loyalists to the United Kingdom the Province of Quebec was split into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, the former being Anglophone and the latter remaining Francophone.

With the influx of Anglophone Loyalists to Upper Canada and the Maritimes, the Francophone population quickly became minorities. It was the solidly-grounded settlements in Quebec that may have saved the Francophones from ultimate assimilation, rooting the French language and their culture in North America and giving the Francophone diaspora an anchor. The Acadians were some of the hardest hit in terms of assimilation, with the Great Expulsion sending many of them off to Louisiana for refusing to swear loyalty to the British Crown. The Cajuns, as they were renamed, number 600,000 with only 18,680 speaking Cajun French. This testifies to the rate that a language can be swallowed up, and even though Francophone communities exist in all of Canada’s provinces, their numbers are very small. Comparing the numbers to the Anglophone population in Quebec demonstrates that the dominance of English in Canada has very much eroded the French heritage of both Canada and Quebec itself. There is a notable sociological difference between the Francophones in Quebec and in other provinces. This difference must be taken into account when discussing the possibilities for a firmly united Canada.

The conquest of French Canada did not end at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but instead a new battlefield arose. With eastern North America firmly in their possession, the British managed to displace Natives and Acadians, but yet failed to push the Francophones out of the Saint Lawrence River valley. It was here that the Francophones had developed, and would continue to develop, a culture very much influenced by Roman Catholicism, French Civil Code, and their exposure and dealings with the Natives. Their lack of connection with France and their continual resistance to England prompted a uniquely French Canadian culture to develop, as opposed to English Canada, where Loyalists firmly took root and continued to maintain strong ties with Great Britain. The English took every opportunity to maintain peace within the Saint Lawrence valley, either through allowing freedom of language and religion, or by outright domination.

This domination became more apparent when Upper and Lower Canada were split to accommodate their respective Anglophone and Francophone populations. As was typical at the time, British North America was ruled by an upper class clique with little or no power vested in the common people. Even with an overwhelmingly Francophone population, the Anglophones in Quebec exercised enormous influence because of their ties to the British Crown. In fact, the Chateau Clique that ruled Lower Canada for decades was exclusively Anglophone despite the deceivingly French name. When the people of Lower Canada demanded Responsible Government (ie. responsible to the people) the assembly that they were given was weak and in fact exercised no real power. This culminated in the Lower Canada Rebellion, a well-known counterpart to the Upper Canada Rebellion around the same time. Through all of this, the Anglophone powers in British North America embarked on a campaign to replace French with English throughout the colonies, a move that affected thousands from former Acadia to what is now Northern Ontario and in between.

Another highly erroneous move by these governments was to persecute the Roman Catholic Church. This happened on and off again throughout the 18^th and 19^th Centuries and was another attempt to assimilate the Francophones similar to the linguistic campaigns. Although these attempts were largely unsuccessful with Quebec today maintaining a high Roman Catholic majority, the move itself again illustrates the obsession that the British Empire had with persecuting the way of life of the Francophone population of their colonies. This in itself likely has roots in the centuries of conflict between the Kingdoms of England and France. It is likely that much like the Acadians, the other Francophones were viewed with suspicion and thought to be perfect candidates for sabotage within the British Empire. Yet even considering all that they had been subject to at the hands of the English, Confederation brought Lower Canada into a union with Upper Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. However, it is here that the Quebecois beg to differ as to exactly what it meant. It is widely believed in Quebec that Confederation was supposed to be the union of two ethno-linguistic nations – Francophone and Anglophone – and it is clear that they treated it as such. After all, the West was blazed not just by Anglophones and Eastern European settlers, but many explorers of what then encompassed the Northwest Territories who came from Quebec. Even though their numbers are not as distributed across Canada as the Anglophones, the French Canadians have had an incredibly important hand in building this country. Yet more evidence of the Quebec mindset of “unity of two nations” can be seen in former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s faith in official bilingualism. This illustrates that he, as a federalist Quebecois, desired for his people to be able to enjoy the country just as much as their Anglophone countrymen. It is a dream that has yet to be realized but has become a rallying point for both separatism and Anglo-nationalist federalism.

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when separatism, or even Quebec nationalism, gained its foothold. One theory is that the Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837 was the catalyst and others claim that it was conscription in the First or Second World War. The question, however, is not why nationalism exists – that is clear through the damage caused by Anglophone dominance – but why does nationalism have its place in Quebec society but not among Acadians or other French Canadian communities outside Quebec. Two possibilities exist, the first being that Francophone Quebecois have a sort of majority complex wherein they seek to exercise their rights as a majority within their provincial borders. This means breaking away from the Anglophone-majority Canada. The second explanation is related to the first in that it draws on the fact that Francophones make up the majority solely in Quebec as a province. Expanding on this, the concepts of nationalism and provincialism come into play. Certainly Quebecois separatists are nationalists in the sense that they see their people as being in need of a separate state apart from English Canada. This is made clear by the frequent use of words relating to Quebec (Quebecois(e), Quebec, etc.) as opposed to “Francophone”, indicating that their interest is not limited to the French language but has elements of provincialism.

Simply put, the perspective of Quebec nationalists has been limited by their lack of exposure to positive elements of English Canada. Whereas Francophones outside of Quebec and Native people, who have been just as damaged by English Canada, seek to be members of Canada, the condition in Quebec is altered by provincialism. Their exposure to Anglophones has included domination, subjugation and outright attacks on their culture and language. This is especially true for the Quebec working class, who identify their fellow workers as Francophone and the dominant ruling class as Anglophone. Therefore, the idea of “Quebec” as the manifestation of the struggle of Francophones becomes popular. In fact, the history of Quebec as described above shows that it came into existence as a result of imperial decisions from the British crown that were made based on which lands could be resettled by their own subjects. The borders of Quebec were not based on where the Francophones resided, but based on where the British knew they faced an uphill battle.

Keeping this in mind, it is clear that “French Canada” and “Quebec” are two different things. From a sociological perspective, the former is a nation, composed of people who share a common background. French Canada is all Francophones living in Canada, Quebec included. Therefore, what is “Quebec”? Quebec, as mentioned, is a province drawn up as an organizational entity in British North America, and nothing more. The concept of a Quebec nation is born from the need of residents of Quebec to attach themselves to a government that embraces them, particularly the working class who saw the pattern of Francophone workers and Anglophone bosses as being consistent in all aspects of society. This certainly helps to explain the overwhelming opposition to Quebec separatism from Francophones outside of Quebec, as they have been exposed to Anglophones in the same socioeconomic class as them and do not therefore see English Canada as the grand enemy. Quebec nationalism’s roots are in the socioeconomic separation of Anglophones and Francophones in Quebec where the majority Francophones were always subject to the will of Anglophones. They came to view Canada as being solely English Canada, and as they English were their oppressors, it is no surprise that Francophone-majority Quebec became a rallying point for them.

The principle scourge that drives a wedge between Quebec and the rest of Canada is not language: Francophone Canadians live happily and peacefully outside of Quebec, from Acadians in New Brunswick to small communities in Yukon and British Columbia. The scourge is hierarchy, the system where government and the economy are structured to place one person above another. The hierarchy in Canada was forged by the British Empire and thus has always been in the hands of Anglophones. This hierarchy exists today in English Canada, and it exists in Quebec, and in both cases they have rallied the common people behind them. This pits common Quebecer against common English Canadian all in the name of loyalty to a province or country, neither of which are loyalty to a people. For in reality, a country is just land ruled by a government and loyalty to either is a form of self-subjugation. In reality, loyalty must be placed in the hands of one’s fellow human. This means breaking free from the bonds that the concepts of “English Canada” and “Quebec” have to offer and instead striving down a path that leads to a united Canada emerging as a completely bilingual entity, with Francophone and Anglophone communities dotting the country, some areas having concentrated majorities of either one, and other areas split almost evenly between the two.

The only path to a future of happiness for all Canadians, Anglophone and Francophone, is to forge one nation under two languages. Canada was born as a separate nation from Britain under the guise of two nations uniting into one, but in fact English Canada soon swept away French Canada as an equal partner in the Confederation. This is a ridiculous betrayal that must be mended. Canada is a country of peace, harmony, and equality. Our culture is inseparably linked to the pasts of English Canada and French Canada and especially what they have accomplished together. The time has come to end the apartheid of the two as advocated by either Anglo-Canadian nationalism or Quebec nationalism. The French Canadians outside of Quebec see this clearly, as do many Anglophone Canadians as well as many Native Canadians. There is no path to a prosperous and viable future that involves provincialism or nationalism in any way. The issue of language must be solved by making an effort by both French and English Canadians to embrace both languages in daily life. By bringing both into daily life from Atlantic to Pacific Canadian culture retains its value as distinct from American culture. If Canada’s greatest fear is to be annexed by the United States, the only way to legitimately remain distinct is to become distinct, which means bringing our French heritage to the forefront across the land. The culture of French Canada is valuable and has much to offer English Canada, and vice versa. The time to live as distant strangers is over and any goals of creating separate countries or by marginalizing one by the other must be eliminated.

The concept of rejecting devotion to a “country” has arisen and must be embraced. A country is simply land, and while few would argue that Canada’s land is not beautiful in many regards, it is still simply land. What makes Canada a great place is the people and nothing more, and it is from the common person that true peace must come. Community socialism is truly the only answer to the divisions that fracture Canada. This requires instilling community-democracy and placing the means of production in the hands of all Canadians and not either private hands that will exploit and destroy it or the hands of a centralized government that will not serve the needs of all people. It is through the local governance of community-democracy and also the convergence of these communities that Canada’s various cultures and lifestyles can be protected and remain livable while eliminating the ignorance brought on by provincialism’s lack of scope beyond locality. Whether one lies in the rural West, big city Ontario, or a fishing village in Newfoundland; whether one is a working class Quebecer or a middle class Albertan; whether one lives in an isolated town in Nunavut or in the heart of Canada’s biggest cities; community socialism is the only thing that offers a desirable life to all people.

Canada is a wonderful country. Canadians are blessed to have a land of such natural beauty where pristine waterfalls, majestic mountains, primeval forests and thousands of kilometers of coastline remain available to all. It is up to every resident of Canada, however, to reject outright devotion to land or government and instead begin to devote their loyalty to their fellow person regardless of any factors, particularly language, for it is only through perfect unity that Canada can be an example for the entire world.