Nationalist Movement of Quebec within Post Confederation Canada

Nationalist Movement of Quebec within Post Confederation Canada

Institution:

Course:

Name:

Date:

Nationalist Movement of Quebec within Post Confederation Canada

The development and transformations of elite Francophone classes can be attributed to both modernization and globalization. Both modernization and globalization paradigms shaped the Francophone class, who moved from religion to politics to businesses they moved from one paradigm to the other. In addition, they shaped the societal institutions, both Québécois and Canadian, which helped in transforming the elite. The continuous interactive nature of institutional and political forces offers a better understanding of the transformation of nationalist movement of Quebec within post confederation Canada. Modernization led to emergence of educated elite within the existing Catholic educational facilities, who then developed new secular institutions in partnership with labor unions and created a modern Quebecois identity so as to fight against traditional barriers to their advancement. It is such “Quiet Revolution” political institutions that created new elites who came up with new economic ideologies with a global focus. The aim of this paper is to highlight the social and political aspects of modernization and globalization which developed Quebec nationalism within post confederation Canada.

For better understanding, the paper begins with definition of key terms used in discussing Quebec nationalism movement. Modernization is a state-centric mode and theory of development that harnesses social, political and economic forces to this singular focus. In the post-WWII period this has meant the development by each state of its own industrial base, Keynesian economics and the welfare state. Unlike modernization, globalization is an internationally focused mode and theory of development that tends to place limitations on state governments to ensure common and open terms of trade between countries. This has generally entailed the de-industrialization of rich countries and the curtailment of the previous welfare state. In practice, both processes have been at work throughout the post-war period. They have been separated here for the sake of clarity. A case can be made for doing so because while they overlap in practice, they have been somewhat more separate as successively dominant theoretical paradigms for elite action. Our definition of elites is kept necessarily broad, in order to draw out larger, generalized transformations of Quebec nationalism. By elites, we mean only those in the educated classes prominent enough to influence the direction of Quebec nationalism.

Discussion

According to McRoberts, urbanization, industrialization and the rise of new social classes led to the conversion of Quebec nationalism to the goals of modernity in French Quebec society[1]. Modernization created both a new middle class of industrial workers and a new professional class in Quebec. Industrialization took place early in the twentieth century in Quebec and the eventual institutional modernization of the Quiet Revolution owes itself to this material change in the forces of production. While these new classes had been raised and educated within the old traditional structures of the church, the church alone could not provide modern employment opportunities for such vast numbers of educated professionals. It also lost control of the labor movement as the unions grew and moved their discourse to the secularized left. Both these modern classes, workers and elites, could see a common enemy in the Anglophone business community. The province’s wealthy Anglophone minority exclusively occupied the top positions in Quebec’s big businesses.

Elite political influence and events played a crucial a role in the timing of the transition from traditionalist to modern Quebec nationalism. French-Canadian nationalism has its roots in traditional, ethno-cultural institutions. From the Quebec Act of 1775 up until the Quiet Revolution[2], the pillars of Francophone identity were the Roman Catholic Church, the Civil Code, the Seigniorial system of land holding and the French language. However, all that time a more modern liberal conception of the nation existed and tried repeatedly to take power. The Constitution Act of 1791 gave representative assemblies to both Upper and Lower Canada and led to struggles for control of the house between Anglo leaders and an emerging Francophone Petit Bourgeoisie in league with the majority agrarian population of Lower Canada. McRoberts describes how these struggles eventually led to a nationalist movement and in 1837, armed insurrection. The defeat of this rebellion led to the merging of the Canadas and a surprising cooperation between French and English Canadians. Throughout confederation Quebec struggled with the rest of Canada over the meaning of Canadian federalism. In the twentieth century the long hold on power of Premiere Maurice Duplessis conservative Union Nationale (1936-1959) with its base in traditionalist rural Quebec, meant that the Quiet Revolution took place later than it otherwise might have. Duplessis rode to power on a platform of faith, language, and race; a perfect example of pre-modern nationalism[3]. However, new forces were emerging in Quebec. The political alliance between the Francophone elite and the growing labor movement finally secured a new conception of nationalism, based on modernization in Quebec.

Modernization recommended a particular kind of nationalism and elites would seek to shape their movement in this image. The earlier Duplessis government was not ideologically animated by modernization theory and so, while it guarded its own political rights, it did not seek to intervene in the social or economic life of the province. In 1960, with the election of the Quebec liberal party of Jean Lesage, the new Francophone elite were in and they quickly began taking control of the social, economic, and political life of the province[4]. Lesage articulated this new conception of the role of government perfectly. Francophone nationalism now gave way to Québécois nationalism, a territorially-based concept that reflected the transfer of the reigns of the nationalist movement from a porous culturally-based movement that might exist beyond Quebec in other French speaking parts of Canada, to a political one bound by Quebec provincial jurisdiction.

Industrial modernization also required the continued influx of new immigrants to work in factories. Therefore Quebec nationalism could no longer be based on ethnicity and became based primarily on language, which any new immigrant could learn. This meant the province would place extreme importance on control of language laws. New immigrants had to be compelled to learn French or the nationalist project would be undermined. Lesage began calling the province L’Etat du Quebec and elite nationalists would soon begin to push for some sort of constitutional protection of their political gains. The nationalist government began to intervene in the Quebec economy, gearing it towards the nationalist project. The imbalance in pay that had existed between Anglophones and Francophone within the province was overcome.

Modernization ensured the social democratic character of Québécois nationalism. In taking over the political, social, economic life in Quebec from more traditional conservative elements the modernizing liberal elite also tied its new brand of Quebec nationalism to socially progressive policies. Denis & Denis have found the rise of nationalism and labor unions in Quebec to be intimately intertwined and the labor union was itself an institutional product of modernization. Their power is based on mass production, mass consumption, collective bargaining, Keynesian demand management and the welfare state. Cooperation was crucial for Quebec politicians in making their initial claim to represent the interests of the entire Québécois nation. In 1964 the Quebec government’s new Labour Code was the envy of workers throughout the rest of Canada. In the middle 70s, Quebec unions helped to create the Parti Québécois. During the Quiet Revolution Francophone elite power was based on democratically elected governments with the support of labor. However, they were not yet firmly entrenched in business. Had they secured top positions in business before government, one wonders whether the result would still have been a social democratic nationalist movement[5].

Modernization also created a much stronger conflict between French and English Canada in two important ways. Firstly, the older French-Canadian nationalism had been largely focused on private, church-based institutions[6]. Thus the nation could be advanced in ways that did not influence at all on the Canadian political order. The commitment of both groups of elites to modernization theories of development meant that both pursued modern state building projects along the same political, social and economic lines simultaneously. Of course, each had in mind a different state that reflected their power base. Secondly, each side thought of the issue in a slightly different context. The Canadian state defined itself in opposition to increasing post-war American encroachment. Since Quebec and Canada both defined themselves in opposition to possible assimilation into a larger whole, both felt unity was required at lower levels in the face of the larger threat. As a result, Quebec and the federal government did not negotiate the question of Quebec nationalism with exclusive reference to one another but also in reference to their own specific concerns.

Politicians at both the nationalist and federal level also brought their own specific understandings of modernization and nationalism to the table. The Pearson government had flirted with a more asymmetrical, dualist approach to Quebec’s demands. It enacted a “contracting out formula" that allowed the Quebec government to take control of a series of social program policies that were the preserve of the federal government elsewhere in the country. Intellectuals in Quebec and English Canada pushed the idea of an English-Canadian nationalism that would have then allowed for cooperation with French-Canadian nationalism in a dualistic state[7]. However, these pleas were rejected with the election of Pierre Trudeau. Prime Minister Trudeau continuously equated Quebec nationalism with its traditional, ethnicity-based roots and would not credit any notion of modern, liberally based nationalism. For him modernization was based on individualism and was explicitly non-national. Trudeau sought to re-orient Francophone loyalties toward the Canadian state and away from the province of Quebec. His language legislation, establishing bilingualism within the federal government and across the country was emblematic of this. Trudeau’s limited conception of the role he would allow the Quebec government would lead to nationalist elite conversion to the goal of secession.

Not only did Modernization encourage different reference points for each party, it also framed the competition in a particular way. As long as the competition was political, the existing Canadian state possessed the obvious advantage of being an actual state. Within the Modernization framework, there was no greater authority. Quebec politicians could make league with the labor movement and ordinary French Canadians but there was no higher institution above the state they could appeal to[8]. The federal government thus controlled the game. During the 1980 referendum the feds threatened hard financial bargaining and potential financial ruin in the case of Quebec secession. They could also reach down to disrupt Quebec unity. Trudeau’s multiculturalism policy was certainly viewed in this light. Granting minority group rights threatened to turn Quebec nationalism into just one of many minority group concerns in Canada. This problem would plague Quebec nationalists who wanted secession from Canada. After defeat in the 1995 secessionist referendum, Jacques Parizeau stated the referendum had failed due to “money and the ethnic vote”. Despite the offensive way Parizeau framed his statement it was largely true. The vote had been extremely close and the immigrant vote had decided the issue. The Prime Minister could also play provinces against one another. During the 1982 constitutional debate, Trudeau was able to detach the Quebec premiere Rene Levesque from a provincial premier’s coalition and get an agreement signed without Quebec’s ratification. With this act, Trudeau locked in his specific understanding of modernization with the protection of individual rights over group rights.

Globalization offered a new way towards sovereignty that harmonized with the ascendancy of newly emergent Francophone business leaders in Quebec. During the first years of the Quiet revolution most elites took jobs within the provincial state and public-sector. In the late 1960s, government jobs had begun to dry up, leading to calls to make French the language of business in Quebec[9]. In the late 1970s the Francophone business class, created by the 1974 Bill 22 language legislation, came to maturity[10]. Though both groups, political and business, continued to mutually support one another, the new business branch of the elite began to outgrow their provincial boundaries and look for a way to expand into foreign markets. The support of a large portion of Quebec’s political and business classes for continental integration was a reflection of their views on the new maturity of the Francophone segments within those classes and the need for structural changes that would allow those groups to reach their objectives.

Globalization gave a wholly different cast to the nationalist struggle of elites by offering the appeal to the higher institutions that had been lacking under the modernization paradigm. While the Quiet Revolution had been conceived of along modernization theory lines, it had been frustrated in its more state-centric, constitutional aims[11]. However elites understood that eventually the Quebec government would be restrained to some extent, along with the federal government. It began to give greater weight to private companies and placed increasing reliance on cooperative funds rather than direct state support. Another transfer of power now occurred, from the Quiet revolution era political elite, to the new business elite of Quebec Inc. Calls for privatization of state-owned businesses began to be heard, as earlier American perceptions of public subsidization of Quebec companies became a barrier to further export growth[12]. Globalization produced in elites a re-focusing away from the welfare state, towards an almost exclusive focus on economics. A year after the FTA was signed; a business roundtable chaired by Thomas Courchene provided a perfect understanding of the difference between the economic model pursued under Globalization and its essential difference in regards to the earlier modernization program. Under globalization, the state-centric focus of Quebec and federal elites would weaken significantly. This would urge a break with the elite’s former coalition partners, the labor unions.

Whereas state-centric Modernization theory had encouraged a broad based nationalist movement, with strong cooperation between elites and the labor unions, globalization would largely remove elite interest in union support. The close identification of the nationalist Quebec government with globalization, represented by the Free Trade Agreements, would now lead it to abandon the labor unions, who had been important partners during the Quiet Revolution[13]. Along with labor unions, a significant portion of the Quebec electorate did not support the FTA and an even larger share of the electorate did not support NAFTA. Hamilton asserts the Quebec “public” is generally supportive of free trade. But his statistics, while showing a higher level of support than in the rest of Canada, indicate an evenly divided public at best and he admits in his footnotes that removing elite opinion from this statistical free trade support leaves one with opposition levels similar to those in the rest of the country. This difference of opinion represents a fracturing of the social contract within Quebec nationalism. At this point it is necessary to offer one important aside to our general line of argument. While globalization has created tension between the Québécois elite and the public on whom they initially based their authority, the earlier, strong identification of Quebec nationalism with social democracy and the welfare state, has made these institutions harder to dislodge. Popular support for programs associated with the Quiet Revolution may put them in a slightly more defendable position. Nonetheless, the downward trend in labor’s position is unmistakable.

Quebec Politicians had begun re-structuring nationalism around the new Globalization paradigm even before the signing of the FTA. The election of the Parti Québécois led to a mass exodus of Anglo-businesses from Quebec and this had an arguably positive effect for elite Quebec nationalism. It concentrated Quebec politicians on reinforcing Francophone ownership of Quebec businesses[14]. To this end, Quebec became a leader in financial de-regulation in order to create huge concentrations of financial capital that could then invest heavily in Francophone businesses. Many important Quebec companies became essentially "take over proof" because they were largely owned by these mammoth-sized Francophone financial interests. The financial elite took over from government the task of meeting regularly to decide industrial policy for the province. Interestingly enough, after the unsuccessful 1995 referendum (and a year after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement), Lucien Bouchard proclaimed that Quebecers were tired of referendums and wanted the province to focus on getting its finances in order. This sentiment was not shared by the unions (mentioned earlier) who maintained support for the Parti Québécois only to the extent that they officially continued to support sovereignty for Quebec[15]. But for the nationalist elite, Globalization, initially justified in aid of sovereignty, had made sovereignty less important.

Conclusion

It is evident that modernization and globalization favored very different institutions, which in turn influenced the Quebec nationalism. Elite Quebec nationalism used these institutions for its own ends. Paradoxically however, its ends and its identity were altered in turn by these different paradigms. In examining the interrelation between these phenomenon; elitism, nationalism, modernization and Globalization, we gain a deeper understanding of the true nature of each. Modernization, entailing the coordination of social, political and economic policy pushed elites towards the goal of an independent Quebec nation-state. In pursuing this end they would partner themselves with ordinary Québécois in the labor movement and build a large welfare state. Having achieved so much and yet failed in their quest for sovereignty, they would try a different tact in turning to globalization. This new paradigm would alter the basis of their power and lead them to forsake their old institutional partnership with the unions for free trade agreements that promised to limit federal government intervention and increase their new business power. The elite Quebec nationalism is perhaps balanced by the fact that labor and the welfare states identification has at least made these institutions stronger in Quebec besides their relative decline under globalization.

Bibliography

"Official Languages Act". Laws-Lois.Justice.Gc.Ca. 1988. Accessed February 25, 2018. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-3.01/page-1.html.

"Report of The Royal Commission On Bilingualism And Biculturalism-Canada". Publications.Gc.Ca. 1967. Accessed February 25, 2018. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/bcp-pco/Z1-1963-1-5-1-1-eng.pdf.

Bélanger, Claude. "Quebec Nationalism - Quebec History". Faculty.Marianopolis.Edu. 2000. Accessed February 25, 2018. http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/QuebecHistory/events/nat-all.htm.

Côté, Denyse, and Simard Étienne. "De L’Utopie Radicale À La Bonne Gouvernance: Le Cas Du Québec.". Ejournals.Library.Vanderbilt.Edu. 2005. Accessed February 25, 2018. https://ejournals.library.vanderbilt.edu/index.php/ameriquests/article/download/157/177.

Des Granges, Cara. "Finding Legitimacy: Examining Quebec Sovereignty from Pre-Confederation to Present." International Journal of Canadian Studies 50 (2014): 25-44.

Heller, Monica. "Globalization and the commodification of bilingualism in Canada." Globalization and language teaching(2002): 47-63.

Lammert, Christian. "Nationalist movements and the state in Canada and France: ethno-territorial protest movements in Québec and Corsica, 1960 to 1995." ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KANADA STUDIEN 21, no. 2; ISSU 40 (2001): 135-151.

Mackey, Eva. The house of difference: Cultural politics and national identity in Canada. Vol. 23. University of Toronto Press, 2002.

McRoberts, Kenneth. "Quebec Nationalist Movement (Canada)." The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements.

Mendelsohn, Matthew. "Measuring national identity and patterns of attachment: Quebec and nationalist mobilization." Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 8, no. 3 (2002): 72-94.

Rocher, François. "The evolving parameters of Quebec nationalism." International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4, no. 1 (2002): 74-96.

Salée, Daniel. "Quebec Sovereignty and the Challenge of Linguistic and Ethnocultural Minorities: Identity, Difference, and the Politics of Ressentiment." Contemporary Québec: Selected Readings (2011): 472-493.

---

[1] McRoberts, Kenneth. "Quebec Nationalist Movement (Canada)." The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements

[2] McRoberts, Kenneth. "Quebec Nationalist Movement (Canada)." The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements.

[3] Mendelsohn, Matthew. "Measuring national identity and patterns of attachment: Quebec and nationalist mobilization." Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 8, no. 3 (2002): 89

[4] Des Granges, Cara. "Finding Legitimacy: Examining Quebec Sovereignty from Pre-Confederation to Present." International Journal of Canadian Studies 50 (2014): 31

[5] Salée, Daniel. "Quebec Sovereignty and the Challenge of Linguistic and Ethnocultural Minorities: Identity, Difference, and the Politics of Ressentiment." Contemporary Québec: Selected Readings (2011): 478

[6] Heller, Monica. "Globalization and the commodification of bilingualism in Canada." Globalization and language teaching(2002): 55

[7] "Official Languages Act". Laws-Lois.Justice.Gc.Ca. 1988.

[8] Bélanger, Claude. "Quebec Nationalism - Quebec History". Faculty.Marianopolis.Edu. 2000.

[9] "Report of The Royal Commission On Bilingualism And Biculturalism-Canada". Publications.Gc.Ca. 1967

[10] Des Granges, Cara. "Finding Legitimacy: Examining Quebec Sovereignty from Pre-Confederation to Present." International Journal of Canadian Studies 50 (2014): 33

[11] Heller, Monica. "Globalization and the commodification of bilingualism in Canada." Globalization and language teaching(2002): 58

[12] Salée, Daniel. "Quebec Sovereignty and the Challenge of Linguistic and Ethnocultural Minorities: Identity, Difference, and the Politics of Ressentiment." Contemporary Québec: Selected Readings (2011): 482.

[13] Des Granges, Cara. "Finding Legitimacy: Examining Quebec Sovereignty from Pre-Confederation to Present." International Journal of Canadian Studies 50 (2014): 29

[14] Lammert, Christian. "Nationalist movements and the state in Canada and France: ethno-territorial protest movements in Québec and Corsica, 1960 to 1995." ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KANADA STUDIEN 21, no. 2; ISSU 40 (2001): 143.

[15] Bélanger, Claude. "Quebec Nationalism - Quebec History". Faculty.Marianopolis.Edu. 2000.