Introduction
Any nationalist movement is perceived in society as a radical event that must bring negative consequences for some reason. It is justified because nationalism is still associated with Nazism and does not distinguish the features of their difference.
Nevertheless, national ideas related to the desire to preserve one’s language, culture, and history continue to arise in society. Such examples can be seen in world history, and Canada is no exception. As a former colony, the language and national questions were acute in the post-war period. It was particularly true of Quebec, which was almost entirely French-speaking. The problem of national movements in Quebec led to a referendum in 1995: there was the question of separation. Quebec nationalism results from a profound cultural and national experience of the people.
Introduction to Nationalism as a Natural and Normal Part of History
Nationalism is an ideology and trend of politics whose underlying principle is the thesis of the nation’s value as the highest form of social unity, its importance in the state-forming process. Nationalist movements are thought to be synonymous with the oppression of other national groups (Dufour et al. 670).
However, a stereotype has arisen against the background of a lack of savvy in the field. Nationalism in its healthy form is a way of transforming society without a particular ideology to a new format of culture. It is expressed in the respect for language, historical events, and the preservation of rituals and traditions inherent to the people. Nationalism is a movement that reminds people of their culture and the need to honor it.
There are radical branches in specific movements, but they are not always negative. Political nationalism is a common movement that focuses on people’s rights. People are united based on their territorial affiliation, and self-identification is not condemned. Ethnic nationalism focuses on the “organic unity” of the people forming the nation, which may be cultural or genetic. The members of a country are united by a common heritage, language, and an emotional attachment to the land so that together they form one people.
Combining these two forms of nationalism is the state’s most working and realistic possibility. Many parts of countries secede because they want to preserve their language and culture and defend their rights to freedom of expression concerning their nation. National movements must cease to be perceived as unfavorable because it imposes significant restrictions on preserving culture and traditions. The transition to a solid national idea will likely allow each city/region/country to change in a new direction of changing the consciousness of the people and the recognition of their ethnic identity.
Historical Overview of Quebec
The colonization of New France began with the founding of Quebec by Samuel de Champlain in 1608. Champlain, who was first engaged in fishing in the St. Lawrence River, quickly realized the benefits of the fur trade. To facilitate this trade, he met with a large group of Montagnards at a temporary post at Tadoussac in 1603, where he allied with this group of Algonquins (Basta 68).
Quebec became the first major French settlement in America because it had several advantages: there were many furs; the river here was narrow and could be easily controlled; there were plenty of fertile lands (Turgeon et al. 15). The French government did not want to invest in the colony, and it granted the development of the settlement to a trading company, which was given a monopoly on the fur trade and was to settle the territory for its part.
Quebec underwent various colonial structures: French rule lasted until the mid-18th century, when the British crown began to claim the territories. After the conquest, British authorities wanted complete control of the colony and the assimilation of French Catholic settlers (Basta 73). The Royal Declaration of 1763 formalized British rule over Quebec and established the legislative and regulatory conditions for achieving the goals above (Dufour et al. 660).
The British soon felt uncomfortable among the French-speaking majority and began to insist that the British authorities reduce the benefits that the 1774 Act granted to the Franco-Canadians (Turgeon et al. 19). After a while, the Franco-Canadians voiced their dissatisfaction with the limited powers granted them by the 1791 Act. The Patriotic Party tabled 92 resolutions in the Lower Canadian Legislature that summarized all the grievances accumulated by the Franco-Canadians since 1791.
In 1840 the British Parliament passed the Act of Union, which united both Canadas and took steps to assimilate Franco-Canadians. Both legislative assemblies were consolidated into a single chamber in which French Canadians had a minority vote. In the 1860s, there was a need to eliminate problems: the Union Act of 1840 did not bring the expected results (Maass 95). New Canada was formalized by the British North America Act of 1867.
Each side received satisfaction: the Anglophones received more provinces and a majority at the federal level. The Francophones received a majority in the region of Quebec with the necessary tools to protect their language and culture (Rocher). The government for all of Canada was established, creating conditions for rapid economic development and the building of railroads from west to east.
FLC & October Crisis
Nationalist movements in Quebec are linked to many movements, but the October 1970 crisis, which resulted from the activities of militants from the Front de libération du Québec (FLC), occupies a special place. FLC was a Canadian left-wing underground organization created in 1963 (Dufour et al. 663). It fought for the national liberation of the French Canadian minority and the creation of an independent Québec. Its formation was the result of the accumulated experience of oppression of cultural heritage and the Canadian government’s desire to control Quebec’s territory under harsh conditions.
The reason for its creation was probably the public dissent against the policies of Canada and the revolutionary desire to change the constitutional order of Quebec. The FLC was a strong group whose objective was to fight against “Anglo-Saxon Imperialism” and favored segregation on cultural grounds rather than principles linked to the acquisition of territory (Maass 108).
The group aimed to create the conditions for an independent Quebec state that could secede from Canada and go into full democracy without outside pressure or interference. The FLC allowed the use of any means necessary for this purpose, up to and including violence. The FLC only existed for seven years (until 1970), but the number of violent crimes they committed reached 200.
Many factors that influenced the creation and direction of the FLC are linked to the “French Revolutionary” phenomenon. France’s experience of revolution is one of the most striking and essential in world history, and, logically, revolutionary movements have spread to French-speaking Quebec (Bayne). Although there is no proven genetic link, the psychological and cultural attitudes transmitted through the French language and style of communication pushed the population toward revolutionary nationalist movements in many ways.
The FLC had at least two terrorist cells: Libération, engaged in armed operations, and Chénier, engaged mainly in financing. From 1963 to 1970, the FLC carried out at least 200 armed actions: bombings (including the Montreal Stock Exchange bombing), bank expropriations, hostage-taking, and assassinations (Bayne). Three people were killed in the bombings, and two were shot dead. In 1966, the organization prepared a plan, Stratégie révolutionnaire et le rôle de l’Avant-garde, describing a long-term strategy for subsequent armed actions with the ultimate goal of revolution.
The Crise d’Octobre refers to the kidnapping and assassination of Pierre Laporte in 1970. The FLC militants used the Deputy Prime Minister of Quebec to push for the issuance of a manifesto containing their demands for independence. They demanded a $0,5 million ransom and the release of all prisoners with restrictions lifted. The manifesto was broadcast freely in all media and for as long as the FLC (Maass 95) required. Nevertheless, the situation escalated, and the conditions remained unfulfilled, leading to a crisis. On October 17, Pierre Laporte’s body, with signs of strangulation, was found in the trunk of a car near Saint-Hubert Airport.
The federal government’s response to the kidnapping has caused mixed reviews in Canadian society. According to opinion polls, most Canadians supported the cabinet’s action. Still, Quebec nationalists and civil liberties advocates across the country denounced the action as excessive and set a dangerous precedent for the abolition of civil rights (Mohamed 558). Such prominent political figures criticized the government as René Leveque, Robert Stanfield, and Tommy Douglas.
In one way or another, the events of October 1970 stimulated public support for non-violent methods in the struggle for Québec independence (Bayne). They promoted political methods of achieving greater autonomy and independence. It was evident in the massive support for the Quebec Party, which, after winning the 1976 election, formed the provincial government.
The Québec National Question
The different views on the national question in Quebec emerged from the fundamentally different activities of the leading political figures. It is probably due to their French Revolutionary roots and how politicians saw democracy and a free society. The nationalism of the political opinion leaders was a result of the influence of the Marxist-Leninist movement.
Although imperialism and the experience of the USSR served as “red flags” for Quebec’s independence, not all FLC politicians admitted their mistakes and defended their rights to terrorist activity to the end of their lives. Freedom Outrage, 1994 (La Liberté en colère) shows the views of politicians who were key figures during the nationalist actions of the FLC.
The most important figures are Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon, who led the groups and were responsible for many order violations. The men in the film are tired because they failed and could never reach their goals. Charles Gagnon was a communist; he believed in Marxism and thought that Quebec at the time needed new ways to overcome its imperialism. Quebec’s independence was a question of his freedom and the possibility of not being oppressed based on nationality (Mohamed 552).
In 1970, however, the crisis undermined him, and the film shows that he no longer sees the point of nationalism. He admits the errors of his violent actions; moreover, in 1980, he voted against the segregation of Quebec (Lafond). His discourse on revolution is no longer centered around a specific idea: he has probably abandoned it altogether.
Pierre Vallières behaves differently: he does not recognize the mistakes of the past and continues to be convinced of the power of political parties. He believed that a peaceful solution was not possible for Quebec (Lafond). He was more than once responsible for militant attacks, which makes him a vivid left-wing political activist. Vallières believed, and will continue to think so, that power should be in the hands of the workers. He has now renounced militant action but continues to believe in the potential of revolution and secession.
Francis Simard is perhaps the most representative of all because this politician is held responsible for the murder of Pierre Laporte. As a member of the Chagné faction, Francis has repeatedly spoken out about the need for a violent solution to the Quebec question. In the film, he often emphasizes that the assassination was a chance for a revolution that never materialized. He took the Cuban experience as an example, promoting nationalist currents at the University of Montreal, where he tried to force students to switch to French (Phelan). For the rest of his life, he did not regret his mistakes or change his views, and he called the assassinations of Laporte a sincere necessity.
Robert Comeau is not as significant, but his views were perhaps the most forward-looking. He believed that workers were the spine of the state and that if they wished to hold referendums and secession, the fulfillment of this will was the way to an independent democracy (Lafond). He changed his views on the secession of Quebec somewhat because he realized the lack of political orientation of the region, and he was now interested in raising the political sociality of the population.
Advantages of Secession for Quebec and Canada
The secession of Quebec can be seen from several angles: there were several advantages for the province and Canada. First of all, a national-cultural issue: the preservation of the French heritage in Quebec, which still clashes with the Anglophone currents there. The clash between French and English is considered one of the main separation issues, and both Canada and Quebec would benefit from the break (Phelan). Quebec would gain a separate independent territory in which French would be the state language. The absence of bilingualism disputes would spur both cultures to concomitant development and end conflicts in state documentation.
Second, Quebec is already a segregated territory where French-speaking goods and services are thriving. It is a region with its debt and financial structure, in which international interactions are firmly entwined (Bayne). French subsidiaries create many goods in Quebec, later distributed throughout Canada. In this respect, the separation of Quebec is a big plus in creating its stable economy, independent of Canadian law (e.g., the terms of trade of 2021).
It would also be a big plus for Canada because it would take away its obligation to sponsor a large territory and relinquish its authority to govern it (Rocher). Moreover, the independence of Quebec would give Canada a more favorable international outlook: respect for foreign cultures and bilingualism, respect for democratic principles, and more.
Thirdly, the secession of Quebec meant not only the creation of a national unity, coupled with French culture and traditions, but also adequate control of immigration policies. Citizenship processes are likely to be simplified, and the government will be more willing to create jobs for people moving from Canada (Fox et al. 415). In addition, easier entry and citizenship procedures will allow Quebec to develop political and civic currents (Phelan). For a combination of reasons, this would create a favorable environment for developing partisanship and democracy.
For Canada, the separation of Quebec would have the advantage of reducing the budget available for compensation payments. They tie up wholesale buying and selling relationships and summarize bonus programs to keep trade stable. Moreover, separating Quebec is an opportunity to shed its debt because Quebec would be obliged to assume about 20% of the debt shared with Canada (Fox et al. 417). Although Canada is likely to regret the loss of its territories and the separation processes will be complex and conflictual, it will be able to maintain and replace its budget reasonably quickly, unlike Quebec.
Conclusion
Thus, Quebec nationalism arose due to French revolutionary roots, disagreement with Canadian politics, and fatigue with British rule. Nationalism is not a bad thing because it carries the goal of preserving language and culture. For Quebec, however, the radical FLC led to a crisis and slowed down the revolution and separation.
Views on this matter differ: Marxist-Leninists believe that the strength lies in political parties and communism, while others see only the way to introduce culture forcibly. Although the secession of Quebec would have brought advantages to both Quebec and Canada (cancellation of debts, development of the economy), it has not been accomplished, and the question is in limbo.
Works Cited
Basta, Karlo. “Canada and Quebec from the Quiet Revolution to the 1995 Referendum.” The Symbolic State: Minority Recognition, Majority Backlash, and Secession in Multinational Countries, vol. 7, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021, pp. 63–85.
Bayne, Nicholas. “So Near and Yet So Far: The 1995 Quebec Referendum in Perspective.”London Journal of Canadian Studies, 2017, vol. 32, no. 1.
Dufour, Pascale, et al. “Social Movements and the National Question in Quebec: The Institutional Legacy of a Cleavage.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 53, no. 3, 2020, pp. 658–675., doi:10.1017/S0008423920000347.
Fox, John, et al. “The Polls and the 1995 Quebec Referendum.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, vol. 24, no. 3, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1999, pp. 411–424. doi: 10.2307/3341396.
Jean-Daniel Lafond, director. Freedom Outraged. 1994.
Maass, Richard W. “To the North: Canada and U.S. Annexation.” The Picky Eagle: How Democracy and Xenophobia Limited U.S. Territorial Expansion, Cornell University Press, 2020, pp. 84–120.
Mohamed, Rahim. “Unfinished Business: Reflections on Canada’s Economic Transformation and the Work Ahead.” The Independent Review, vol. 21, no. 4, Independent Institute, 2017, pp. 545–568.
Phelan, Timothy. “The Viability of Secession: The Case of Quebec.” Federalism, 2017, vol. 18. doi: 10.24908/fede.v18i1.13578.
Rocher, Francois. “The Evolving Parameters of Quebec nationalism.”International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 2002, vol. 4, no. 1.
Turgeon, Alexandre, et al. “A History of Quebec in the Shadow of the Quiet Revolution.” Quebec: A Painting by Adam Miller, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017, pp. 13–24.