Archived - Notes for an address at the Société d’histoire de Toronto and the Alliance française de Toronto’s monthly conference
This page has been archived on the Web.
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Linguistic duality in Canada and narratives on language: for a different reading of history
Toronto, September 22, 2010
Graham Fraser - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Beginning of dialog
Ladies and gentlemen, good day.
I would like to thank you for inviting me to inaugurate the 2010–2011 season of monthly conferences. I would also like to congratulate you on the work you do to promote the history of Ontarians and French Ontario. History is often the weak link in our schools, and the work of the Historical Society is essential in promoting a better understanding of our past, particularly among our young people and those who arrive from abroad.
Understanding our history is not necessarily easy. It is easier to talk about a revolution than a gradual evolution; rebels are more readily available and more likely to hold our attention than conciliators.
Indeed, throughout Canadian history it is easy enough to find negative narratives of language and language policy, narratives that often emphasize conflict. There are whole schools of interpretation based on the negative view that Canadian history is a series of failed attempts to wipe out the French language: the Conquest, the putting down of the Rebellion of 1837, Lord Durham’s recommendation in 1839 to assimilate French-speaking Canadians as quickly and efficiently as possible, the hanging of Louis Riel in 1885, Regulation 17 in Ontario in 1912 and the Manitoba Schools Question in 1916, which ended all minority language instruction, the Conscription Crisis in 1917, the sequel to the Conscription Crisis in 1942, the War Measures Act in 1970, and what some called the Night of the Long Knives in 1981.
It is easy to find or to construct a negative narrative of these events. The Conquest continues to shape a significant part of Quebec intellectual thought, as Christian Dufour’s 1991 book Le défi QuébécoisFootnote 1 makes clear. Similarly, the Rebellion of 1837 figured in dramatic terms in Pierre Falardeau’s film 15 février 1839.Footnote 2
When John A. Macdonald refused to commute Louis Riel’s death sentence, a Quebec newspaper wrote “Riel n’est qu’un nom: c’est l’élément canadien-français et catholique qu’on veut faire danser au bout de la corde.” And Honoré Mercier, then leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec and later premier, told a massive rally in Montreal that the execution was “a blow struck at the heart of our race.”Footnote 3 It took a century for the Conservatives to recover from the effects of that blow.
The late Université de Montréal historian Michel Brunet argued that Laurier’s failure to protect French-language schools in Manitoba was proof that he had failed to lay the foundation of a common patriotism, which did not exist, and that French Canadians were seeking an impossible dream.
“French Canadians were looking to square the circle, or for the philosopher’s stone.” He also writes that “such common patriotism did not exist. Prime minister of Canada for 15 years, Laurier himself had not succeeded in laying its foundations. The war in 1914, the conscription crisis and the educational persecution in Ontario forced even the most oblivious and optimistic French Canadians to question the true nature of the Canadian union”[translation]Footnote 4.
The events Brunet spoke about had a profound effect on the political thought and action of people like Henri Bourassa, nationalist politician and founder of the newspaper Le Devoir, and the canon Lionel Groulx, nationalist historian and editor of the publication Action Française. These events – quickly referred to as “struggles” and “battles” – influenced the identity narrative of French Canadian nationalists like Bourassa and Groulx at the start of the 20th century. Depending on historians’ interpretations, this episode may be seen as a conflict and from a negative perspective.
At the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century, Bourassa gave a number of speeches – in English Canada, in Parliament, and as far away as Edmonton – in which he presented the principal theses of French Canadian nationalism and in which he denounced the repressive measures taken against the French language across the country. He did the same thing in the newspaper that he founded in 1910. According to historian Michel Bock, for Bourassa, “Confederation was a pact between two founding peoples, protecting the rights of the French minorities, and the future of the country depended on the respect for this guiding principle.”[translation]Footnote 5 His positions – on conscription and language issues – drew the wrath of English Canadians at the time. However, as Sylvie Lacombe says in her work on Henri Bourassa’s political thought, “Bourassa’s positions remained relatively moderate when compared to the opinions expressed in certain French-Canadian newspapers, in which anti-British sentiment was standard fare.”[translation]Footnote 6 However, according to the same work, a number of historians consider the rejection of Bourassa’s nationalism by the English Canadians at the time, and the rise of imperialism among Anglophones at the turn of the 20th century, as yet another example of the conflict that pitted Anglophones and Francophones against each other, and the attempt, as Brunet puts it, to “square the circle.”
Lionel Groulx was also very much interested in the Métis rebellions in western Canada and, more specifically, the conflicts over schools (particularly in Ontario). However, according to historian Guy Frégault, this contact only served to reinforce Groulx’s pessimism about Francophone minorities. According to Frégault, Groulx concluded bitterly that there would henceforth be “within the Constitution, two Canadas: a French Canada, respectful of everyone’s freedom, but confined to its Quebec reserve, and an Anglo-Protestant Canada, unable to tolerate in even small measure the teaching of the Catholic faith and the French language.”[translation]Footnote 7 According to Frégault and a number of historians that followed him, these were the events that led Groulx to believe that the French Canadian nation was increasingly turning inwards within the boundaries of Quebec.
Those who see Canada as an unending series of defeats can construct their narrative accordingly. Normand Lester did this with his three-volume series Le Livre noir du Canada Anglais, which became a bestseller in Quebec.
Lester is by no means alone. In a textbook used in Quebec, Histoire du XXe Siècle, the only reference to Pierre Trudeau is his proclamation of the War Measures Act, describing it as a vicious attempt to eradicate Quebec nationalism and terrorize society.Footnote 8
Similarly, Pierre Godin, journalist and René Lévesque’s biographer, described the 1982 Constitution as “destroying little by little” Quebec’s language, and section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as “the final attempt to anglicize Quebec.”Footnote 9
On a smaller scale, interested historians provide a number of accounts of certain key moments in the history of French Canada and minority French communities, such as the Franco-Ontarian community. In his book Le deuil d’un pays imaginé, historian Marcel Martel examines French Canada and its identity transformations between 1960 and 1976. According to Martel, “the terms ‘breakdown,’ ‘fracture’ and ‘rupture’ are appropriate when describing these changes.”[translation]Footnote 10 Another historian, Gaétan Gervais, speaks about “the quiet rupture” and “the fragmentation of French Canada” [translation] in his book describing the change from French Canada to French Ontario.Footnote 11 The narrative of Quebec’s abandonment of minority Francophone communities predominates not only among a good number of historians, but also in the teaching of this period in minority Francophone communities’ history.
One of the textbooks used to teach history in French-language secondary schools in Ontario states that “French-Canadian nationalism became Quebec nationalism (neo-nationalism). Like a shattered glass, French Canada broke up into as many pieces as there were Canadian provinces and territories. This was the breakdown of French Canada.”[translation]Footnote 12 This same textbook describes the rise of the neo-national movement in Quebec as being one of the factors that caused this rupture. The manual goes on to say, “This movement is specific to Quebec, which it would have made an independent country. The movement was strongly rejected by the minority groups and created a divide between the minorities and Quebec.”[translation]Footnote 13
In contrast and, I hope, to encourage you in your mission to inform, let me propose a more positive narrative, a narrative based on inclusiveness and respect.
When he was Canadian High commissioner in London, Mel Cappe discovered that in the days after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759, the British army informed the citizens of Quebec City that their language and religion would be respected. Michel Brunet – who was, as Christian Dufour points out, hardly an uncritical historian and one of the founders of a nationalist school of Quebec history – wrote that “the generosity of the Conqueror, his benevolence, his concern for the general interest, his spirit of justice, won the hearts of the defeated.”Footnote 14
In the debate in the British House of Commons on the Quebec Act in 1774, Sir Edward Thurlow, the Attorney-General, made the government’s intentions clear. “You ought to change those laws only which relate to the French sovereignty, and in their place substitute laws which should relate to the new sovereign,” he told the House. “But with respect to all other laws, all other customs and institutions whatever, which are indifferent to the state of subjects and sovereign, justice and wisdom conspire equally to advise you to leave to the people just as they were.”Footnote 15
Edmund Burke, a politician and member of the official opposition at the time, echoed the refrain, arguing that if the French in Canada received English liberty and an English constitution, they would make valuable and useful contributions to Great Britain whether they spoke French or English, and remained Catholic or not.Footnote 16
The first key steps toward Canadian democracy were taken, hand in hand, by Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine in 1842. As John Ralston Saul wrote, it was the first strategic act in the creation of the country: the reformers suddenly understood that Francophone and Anglophone reformers had to co-operate.Footnote 17
We remember Lord Durham, but we forget the fact that ten years later, his successor, Lord Elgin, read the speech from the Throne in French and English, thus marking the return of French as an official language of Parliament.
John A. Macdonald understood this, and in 1856 – a decade before Confederation – he summarized the duty of a prime minister. “He must make friends with the French; without sacrificing the status of his race or language, we must respect his nationality,” he wrote to a friend. “Treat them as a nation, and they will act as a free people generally do – generously. Call them a faction, and they become factious.”Footnote 18 Macdonald’s comment proved to be prescient: those of his successors who treated French-speaking Canadians with respect were greeted with generosity, while those who treated them as a faction were treated with factiousness.
In order to get a broader sense of the English-Canadian narrative of respect, let me skip ahead a few decades. In December 1940, during World War II, Quebec premier Adélard Godbout spoke to the Canadian Club in Toronto. In his speech – which was reprinted in Le Devoir and praised by both L’Action nationale and The Globe and MailFootnote 19 Godbout singled out a group of English Canadians who, in his words, “have responded to our gesture of brotherhood.”Footnote 20 The names on his list are barely known today, including W.H. Moore, Arthur Hawkes, P.F. Morley and Lorne Pierce.
I came across this speech and wondered: Who are these people? Why would they be singled out then – and why should I mention them now, six decades later? I believe they laid the foundation for a Canadian identity which includes linguistic duality – an element that has been critical to defining Canada as a country and has made tolerance and the acceptance of others one of our basic values.
In 1916, during World War I, several of them established what was called the Bonne Entente, an attempt to reconcile the growing rift between Ontario and Quebec. In concrete terms, it resulted in a group of Ontario professionals and business people visiting Quebec, and a Quebec delegation visiting Ontario. The organization fell apart over the first conscription crisis, and in later decades, the phrase “bonne entente” became almost a joke, evoking images of businessmen piously singing “Alouette” as a clumsy gesture of goodwill following their after-dinner speeches. But the original Bonne Entente had significant long-term positive effects.
First, and more immediately, the “Bonne entente” permitted the creation of the Unity League of Ontario in 1921 by Franco-Ontarian senator Napoléon-Antoine Belcourt and a group of influential Anglophones. Historian Robert Talbot describes the Unity League of Ontario, whose principal goal was the repeal of Regulation 17, as follows: “In 1923, the League had around 150 members. All but one were Anglophones of non-Catholic faith. It was made up of […] representatives of all the religious denominations and all the political parties […]. It was telling that the ULO included among its members a number of individuals who had worked in the BUAFootnote 21 and the LBE [la Bonne Entente].”[translation]Footnote 22 In 1927, as a result of the extensive and perennial efforts made by the Francophone community and the ULO, the Ontario government announced that it would no longer apply Regulation 17.
Let us examine the case of W. H. Moore.
William Moore was an improbable defender of French-language rights in Canada. He was, as he listed proudly in his biography, of United Empire Loyalist descent, and a farmer in Pickering, Ontario. He was a graduate of the University of Toronto in 1894, and studied law at Osgoode Hall. Later, he would be chairman of the House Banking and Trade Committee. In 1918, when World War I was still raging and in the aftermath of Regulation 17, which abolished French-language education in Ontario, Moore wrote a remarkable book entitled The Clash: A Study in Nationalities. In the book, he argued that British traditions called for bilingualism and inclusion, and shrewdly contrasted them with what he called the rigid Prussian approach.
Moore also set the record straight on English-Canadian hypocrisy, which stressed corruption in Quebec politics while ignoring it in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. “We English Canadians have habitually had our good eye upon French-Canadian faults and our blind eye upon our own,” he wrote.Footnote 23
Referring to Regulation 17, Moore contrasted Ontario’s move to eradicate French with Quebec’s tolerance of an English and Protestant school system, and evoked the famous contract in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, where Shylock had the right to take a pound of flesh if Antonio defaulted on a loan: “[Ontario] has taken fifteen of the sixteen ounces of flesh to which it is entitled under the British North America Act; Quebec has never drawn the knife.”Footnote 24
This was not a popular view at the time. During the election campaign of 1917, cartoonists showed Laurier (who opposed conscription) cavorting with the Kaiser, and a map of Canada in imperial red except for Quebec, which was black. One MP called Quebec “the spoiled child of Confederation,” and another English-Canadian political activist called it “the plague-spot of the entire Dominion.”Footnote 25
At the same time, the Anglophone press and the defenders of conscription reserved similar treatment for Henri Bourassa due to his positions on conscription and linguistic issues. According to Sylvie Lacombe: “some Ontario MPPs called for Bourassa to be imprisoned, and others, even more fanatical, called for him to be hanged.”[translation]Footnote 26 Gaétan Gervais explains that, “while Bourassa was speaking about Ontario’s ‘Prussians’ and ‘Boches,’ his enemies were calling him ‘Von Bourassa.’”[translation]Footnote 27
Twenty years later, in a book of profiles of Canadian political figures, Léopold Richer, a parliamentary correspondent, saluted Moore – by then a Liberal MP – for his convictions, calling him “Liberal, profoundly liberal, the most complete and the most typical representative of true liberalism, in the philosophical and political meaning of the word.” Moore’s liberalism, Richer wrote, “gives him an armour of tolerance that protects him from aggressive doctrines.”Footnote 28 What a delightful phrase: “an armour of
tolerance.” The memory of Richer’s book lived on. Unusual for the time, it was translated into French.Footnote 29 Richer concluded his profile by observing that French Canadians were in Moore’s debt.Footnote 30
To borrow the words of historian Damien-Claude Bélanger, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Ottawa, William Henry Moore was “the Anglo-Canadian counterpart” of Bourassa’s thinking.Footnote 31
Arthur Hawkes was a journalist and previously a publicist for the Canadian Northern Railway. (As a journalist he wrote an eyewitness account of the fire that burned the Parliament buildings.) Concerned about poaching along the Minnesota-Ontario border, he successfully lobbied for the creation of Quetico Park, which was created by the Ontario government in 1909. In his 1919 book The Birthright,Footnote 32 he attacked prejudice: against Quebec, against French Canadians, and against immigrants. He denounced the fact that French was not recognized as an official language in Ontario.
With Toronto lawyer J.M. Godfrey (the grandfather of Toronto Liberal MP John Godfrey), Hawkes was one of the founders of the Bonne Entente organization, which was established to develop better knowledge, contact and understanding between French- and English-speaking Canadians.
A third book was published that year making some of the same arguments: Bridging the Chasm, by P.F. Morley. Like Moore, Morley argued that the British tradition was one of respect and inclusiveness, pointing to “an Empire in which the Welsh, the French of Jersey, the natives of Malta and the Sikhs of the plains of the Punjab are equally at home and equally respected in their language rights.”Footnote 33 Morley argued for recognition of French-language education rights in Ontario. He also attacked the often-repeated views that Ontario was an English province, and that for many English
Canadians the very term Canadian was synonymous with English Canadian. “Why should not English and French Canada each preserve its identity and regulate its life in the way that seems best?” he asked.Footnote 34
The three authors had an impact on the sense of vulnerability and suspicion among French-speaking Quebecers, who were otherwise confronted with what must have seemed a steady flow of hostility from English Canada. The moderate discourse of these Anglophones was in marked contrast to the dominant one of the time, which emphasized Canada’s attachment to the British Empire and to the English language (to the detriment of French).
When Jean-Charlemagne Bracq, a literature professor at Vassar College, wrote The Evolution of French Canada in 1924 – translated and published in French in 1927 he concluded on a positive note, mentioning in particular the work of Moore, Hawkes and Morley. “Decidedly, the English Canadians have come to see their French-speaking compatriots from a broader and truer angle,”Footnote 35 he wrote.Footnote 36
Similarly, Lorne Pierce, the publisher of Ryerson Press, developed a view of a bicultural Canada in his essay “Toward the Bonne Entente,” published in 1929. He consistently wrote about the linguistic duality of Canadian culture. In some ways, his most important contribution was as publisher of textbooks – and as a patron of the illustrator C.W. Jeffreys – which gave a visual image of French-Canada’s history to thousands of pupils in English Canada.
As Robert Craig Brown and Ramsay Cook pointed out, for all its good intentions the Bonne Entente failed, despite organizing several reciprocal visits to Ontario and Quebec and attracting prominent Quebecers (including a young Quebec City lawyer named Louis St-Laurent). “French Canadians appear to have hoped that Bonne Entente would aid in a satisfactory resolution of the language issue in Ontario; English-Canadian members expected it would convert their French-speaking compatriots to a greater enthusiasm for the war,”Footnote 37 they wrote. By 1917, the movement had died, unable to withstand the hostilities that exploded during the conscription crisis. However, as Robert Talbot has shown, this movement continued, in a variety of forms, “to advocate moderation and unity in an otherwise divided society,” and it had heirs, including the Unity League of Ontario.
No matter how short-lived, Bonne Entente was somewhat like the Group of Seven. In its case it helped motivate writers to define Canada as a country that was inspired by British traditions, but independent; North American, but carving out an identity separate from the United States. A key part of that identity involved respect for and co-existence with a French-speaking society. That sense of respect became part of the definition of Canada as a society that would welcome those of other cultures and languages.
These notions of respect, openness and inclusion can also be used in examining the historical narrative of French Canada and minority Francophone communities.
Rather than considering the unpopularity of Bourassa’s ideas on Canadian nationalism among Anglophones as a negative – with a number of notable exceptions, such as Moore, Morley and Hawkes – we might rather view this as one of many important milestones. A milestone that paved the way towards what? Towards the development of a truly Canadian identity that today includes recognition of English and French as our two official languages, and recognizes linguistic duality as a fundamental value of our country.
I am not a historian, but the fact that we are speaking about the period of 1963 to 1969, about the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism – and not the commission on multilingualism and multiculturalism – and about the Official Languages Act of 1969, is proof of the continuity and resilience of Bourassa’s ideas and those of his Anglophone counterparts. Let us not forget that André Laurendeau would become editor-in-chief of Le Devoir in 1957 and sat as co-chair on the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
We may also see the nationalist ideas of Lionel Groulx in a different light. Rather than seeing in them the beginning of a “provincial” French Canadian nationalism centred on Quebec and its institutions, the forerunner of the “rupture” and the “abandonment” by Quebec of the Francophone minorities, we might rather see an example of what Bock calls “an organic construction of the French Canadian nation that lent greater importance to notions of tradition than to territorial possession or political structures.”[translation]Footnote 38
The narrative of certain key events in the history of French Canada and its minority Francophone communities can also be presented differently. Rather than seeing a series of defeats or, in the case of the États généraux of French-Canada, a rupture and trauma, this event may be seen as the start of a new chapter in the evolution of the Francophone communities from one end of the country to the other.
This distancing between Quebec and the Francophone minority communities – which was already underway and which the États généraux brought out into the open – was accompanied by an increasing openness towards Quebec and French language and culture on the part of the federal government.Footnote 39 While this openness was certainly directly linked to the rise of Quebec nationalism – a fact that I have never denied – it is because of this nationalism that the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was created, which in turn led to the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969.
The emergence and development of a large, proud French-speaking society in Canada by mid-century is also tied to the rise of Quebec nationalism.Footnote 40 But there is a tendency to misstate or misunderstand the role that English Canadians – at the turn of the 20th century as much as during its last 40 years – have played in supporting, encouraging and enabling this transformation. Canada’s Official Languages Act and policy of linguistic duality would not have been possible without the support of English Canadians.
It was Lester B. Pearson who established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in 1963 and who, in 1966, even before the Commission published its report, set out the principles of a bilingual public service.Footnote 41
But Pearson was not alone. Davidson Dunton was co-chair of the Royal Commission, Frank Scott one of its key members, and Michael Oliver the co-director of research.
The Official Languages Act was passed in 1969 and led to the creation of the position I now hold. Both the first and second Official Languages commissioners, Keith Spicer and Max Yalden, were English-speaking Canadians, born in Toronto and educated at the University of Toronto. Both played an enormously important role in winning support in English Canada for the official languages policy.
Thus, just as there is a linguistic duality in Canada, there is a duality, even a plurality of Canadian historical narratives. Sometimes the boundaries between the different narratives are blurred; sometimes they are clearer, particularly when dealing with people from a different language community. However, it is this diversity of narratives, people and events that enriches our understanding of our history as Canadians.
I once heard a historian say that, essentially, someone who is good at teaching history is someone who can tell an interesting story. Even if our history does not include grandiose revolutions like those of the French or Americans, it has personalities, events and a variety of interesting and engaging narratives. It is up to us, as Canadians, whether Anglophones or Francophones, to help others discover them, and to tell these stories as you are doing with this type of event.
I would be pleased to answer your questions now.
- Footnote 1
Le défi québécois, by Claude Dufour, Montreal, Éditions de l’Hexagone, 1989
- Footnote 2
See also 15 février 1839 : lettre d’un patriote condamné à mort, Chevalier de Lorimier, by Marie-Frédérique Desbiens and Jean-François Nadeau, Montreal, Comeau & Nadeau, 2001.
- Footnote 3
Cited in “The Hanging of Louis Riel” in As I Recall, Si Je me souviens bien: Historical Perspectives, with John Meisel, Guy Richer and Arthur Silver, edited by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal, 1999; pp 70-71.
- Footnote 4
Michel Brunet, « Les Canadiens-Français face à la Confédération » dans Québec Canada Anglais: Deux Itinéraires, un Affrontement, Montréal, les éditions HMH, 1968, p. 168.
- Footnote 5
Michel Bock, Quand la nation débordait les frontières, Les minorités française dans la pensée de Lionel Groulx, Montréal, les éditions HMH, 2004, p. 74.
- Footnote 6
Sylvie Lacombe, La rencontre de deux peuples élus, Comparaison des ambitions nationales et impériale au Canada entre 1896 et 1920, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, 2002, p. 92.
- Footnote 7
Cited by Michel Bock, op. cit., p. 61.
- Footnote 8
“Cette tentative hargneuse d’éradiquer le nationalisme québécois et de terroriser la société constitue en quelque sorte le coup d’envoi de « l’ère Trudeau », qui durera une quinzaine d’années.” Histoire du XXe Siècle, by George Langlois in association with Jean Boismenu, Luc Lefebvre and Patrice Régimbald, Laval, Beauchemin, 1999; p. 251
- Footnote 9
Pierre Godin, René Lévesque : L’homme brisé (1980-1987), Montréal, Les Éditions du Boréal, 2005, p. 177 et 191.
- Footnote 10
Marcel Martel, Le deuil d’un pays imaginé, Rêves, lutte et déroute du Canada français, Ottawa, Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 1997, p. 18.
- Footnote 11
Gaétan Gervais, Des gens de résolution, Le passage du « Canada français » à l’« Ontario français », Prise de parole, Sudbury, 2003, p. 194-195.
- Footnote 12
Michel Bock, Gaétan Gervais et Suzanne Arseneault, L’Ontario français, des Pays-d’en-Haut à nos jours, Centre franco-ontarien de ressources pédagogiques, Ottawa, 2004, p. 181.
- Footnote 13
Ibid., p. 182
- Footnote 14
Michel Brunet, La présence anglaise et les Canadiens, Montreal, Beauchemin, 1958, p. 142, quoted by Dufour, op. cit., p. 23
- Footnote 15
Quoted by W. H. Moore in The Clash: A Study in Nationalities, Toronto, J.M. Dent & Sons, 1918, pp 16-17
- Footnote 16
Quoted by Christopher Moose in 1867: How the Fathers Made a Deal, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1997; p. 70
- Footnote 17
Reflections of a Siamese Twin: Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century, by John Ralston Saul, Toronto, Viking, 1997; p. 175.
- Footnote 18
John A. Macdonald, The Young Politician, by Donald Creighton, Toronto, Macmillan of Canada, 1952, p. 227
- Footnote 19
Godbout, by Jean-Guy Genest, Sillery, Septentrion, 1996; pp 179-80
- Footnote 20
“Quebec and Pan-Canadian Unity,” An Address by the Honourable Joseph Adélard Godbout, The Empire Club of Canada Speeches 1940-41 (Toronto, Canada: The Empire Club of Canada 1941, pp 225-242); available online at www.empireclubfoundation.com
- Footnote 21
Better Understanding Association
- Footnote 22
Robert Talbot, « Une réconciliation insaisissable : le mouvement de la bonne entente, 1916-1930 », Mens. Revue d’histoire intellectuelle de l’Amérique française, vol. VIII, no 1 (automne 2007), p. 100.
- Footnote 23
The Clash: A Study in Nationalities, by William Moore, Toronto, J.M. Dent & Sons, 1918. p. 305
- Footnote 24
Ibid, p. 458
- Footnote 25
Canada 1900-1945, by Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1987; p. 131
- Footnote 26
Sylvie Lacombe, op. cit., p. 92
- Footnote 27
Gaétan Gervais, « Le règlement XVII (1912-1927) », Revue du Nouvel-Ontario, Sudbury, Institut Franco-ontarien, no 18, 1996, p. 158. See also Chantal Terrien, Le Règlement 17 et l’affaire Montfort : L'apport de la perspective des cadres à l'étude des enjeux linguistiques au Canada, Thesis in political science presented to the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral studies of the University of Ottawa, 2010, 195p. for an analysis of the issue framing used by newspapers covering the Ontario schools question and Regulation 17.
- Footnote 28
Silhouettes du monde politique, by Léopold Richer, Montreal, Éditions du Zodiaque, 1940; pp 187-190.
- Footnote 29
Le Choc : Étude de Nationalités, by William-Henry Moore, translated from the English by Ernest Bilodeau, Montreal, Librairie Beauchemin Ltée, 1920.
- Footnote 30
Silhouettes du monde politique, op. cit., p. 145.
- Footnote 31
Compte-rendu de Damien-Claude Bélanger, de l’ouvrage de Sylvie Lacombe La rencontre de deux peuples élus, Comparaison des ambitions nationale et impériale au Canada entre 1896 et 1920, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, 2002, dans Mens. Revue d’histoire intellectuelle de l’Amérique française, vol. 3, no 1 (automne 2002), p. 99-102.
- Footnote 32
The Birthright: A Search for the Canadian Canadian and the Larger Loyalty, by Arthur Hawkes, Toronto, J.M. Dent & Sons, 1919.
- Footnote 33
Bridging the Chasm: A Study of the Ontario-Quebec Question, by Percival Fellman Morley, J.M. Dent and Sons, Toronto, 1919, p. 83.
- Footnote 34
Op. cit., p. 11
- Footnote 35
The Evolution of French Canada, New York, Jean-Charlemagne Bracq, The Macmillan Co., 1924; in French L’évolution du Canada français, Jean-Charlemagne Bracq, Montreal, Librairie Beauchemin, 1927, p. 450. Available online at www.uqac.ca.
- Footnote 36
About the three English-Canadian writers, Bracq wrote: “The Clash de W.H. Moore est une étude du Canada français riche en inductions historiques, mettant au point la question des écoles françaises dans l'Ontario, et insistant sur la haute valeur du Canadien comme facteur de la vie nationale. Se plaçant sur une base sociologique et dominé par le plus pur libéralisme britannique, il démontre que les adversaires des Canadiens, dans le Haut-Canada, se sont détachés des traditions et idéals britanniques. Le Birthright de Mr Arthur Hawkes, protestant contre un impérialisme officieux qui ignore les droits du Canada, met incidemment en relief la valeur du peuple de Québec. The Bridging of the Chasm de Mr Percival Tellman Morley, est un noble plaidoyer en faveur d'un traitement plus impartial et bienveillant des anciens fils de la France."
- Footnote 37
Canada 1896-1921: A Nation Transformed, by Robert Craig Brown and Ramsay Cook, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1974; p. 265
- Footnote 38
Michel Bock, op. cit., p. 422-423.
- Footnote 39
Voir Frédéric Nolet et Chantal Terrien, « Le gouvernement Charest et les minorités francophones hors Québec : un renouveau ou une continuation ?, dans l’ouvrage sous la direction de Linda Cardinal, Le fédéralisme asymétrique et les minorités linguistiques et nationales, Prise de Parole, Sudbury, 2008, p. 293. Voir également Anne-Andrée Denault, « Abandon ou solidarité ? Les positions politiques des partis politiques du Québec à l’égard des communautés francophones de 1970 à 2007 » dans Joseph Yvon-Thériault, Anne Gilbert et Linda Cardinal, L’espace francophone en milieu minoritaire au Canada : nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Fides, Montréal, 2008.
- Footnote 40
See PQ: René Lévesque and the Parti Qébécois in Power, Toronto, Macmillan, 1984; réimprimé sous le titre de René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois in Powe, McGill Queen’s University Press, Montréal, 2002. Voir également : Vous m’intéressez… Chroniques, Montréal, Éditions du Boréal, 2002.