Quebec Independence Day Research Paper

English and French Canadians have had one of the most complicated and intriguing relationships throughout all of history. Even though they share the prosperous country of Canada, they could not be more divided as a nation. Factors such as language, culture and political beliefs have separated these two vast majority of Canadians for a very long time. Throughout the last century, French-English relations have slightly improved over time, yet there is still an unstable peace between the two peoples. This will be clearly demonstrated throughout this essay, which will explore three critical time periods that changed French-English relations in Canada. Between the years 1914 and 1929, relations amongst the English and the French are shown to be very unstable and unpleasant, due to the events which occurred in that timeframe. Later on between the years 1930 and 1945, relations improved slightly because much was learned from the previous time period. In the years after, the unstable peace and division between French and English Canada, even to this day, was established.

Between 1900 and 1929, Canada became significantly more autonomous socially, politically, and economically from Britain and the United States; however, there were still times where Canada’s autonomy had decreased due to Canada’s dependence on Britain and the United States. Canada had gained political autonomy from Britain when it was officially and internationally recognized as an independent nation. Economically, Canada was very reliant on British and American investment. However, Canada’s social autonomy had increased because of the first world war and entertainment, like art and literature. Politically, Canada’s autonomy had increased greatly from 1900 to 1929.

Conscription proved itself on angering many French Canadians. The October Crisis showed how French Canadians can fight back against Canada. The 1992 and 1995 Referendums demonstrated the actions that the French can take if they are ignored. Becoming aware of Canada’s actions can prevent straining French-English relations to the point where it cannot be

When it comes to Canadian History, perhaps the most controversial and widely disputable topic of debate would have to be one of Canada’s greatest wars: The War of 1812. A wide array of views are held on many aspects of the war ranging from who won to what ramifications the war would ultimately sire. In yet another discussion on the ever so controversial War of 1812, a new question was posed and deliberated by five historians: whose war, was it? Like any other question posed about this war a multitude of ideas would ultimately arise in each of their differing viewpoints. In their roundhouse discussion, the historians would ultimately serve to paint the War of 1812 as a war that transcends much further than the nationalistic view. A view that, though an important part of Canadian history, has been exaggerated to the point of choking out the many voices who fought and continue to fight for inclusion in the narrative. In their remembrance of the War of 1812, society unwittingly failed history in their lackluster commemorations which exclude important narratives and voices and stand tainted by the misuse of history to serve the nationalistic agenda.

This discussion tackles the Quebec 1995 referendum, more especially regarding what would have been the consequence of a Yes Vote during the referendum. This topic is important, considering that it focuses on as issue of high political ramification, which has also found subsequent applications worldwide, with several other sections of different countries holding referendums to seek for a right to govern themselves as sovereign states. The significance of this topic rests in the fact that the Quebec 1995 referendum had a long political history which did not have an implication on Canada alone, but high potential implications on

In the political history of Canada there was no greater event to test the strength and harmony of Confederation than the first referendum for Quebec sovereignty in 1980. Interestingly, the 1960’s and the Quiet Revolution brought a renaissance for French Canadian culture and sense of identity to the people within Quebec. For nearly two decades the French Canadians within Quebec reverted to their historical roots and with the help of essential politicians, Quebec was on the forefront of independence. Therefore, what were the catalysts for the first referendum in 1980 and were there any political, economic, or cultural factors, or a combination thereof that formed the catalysts? The Quebec Referendum of 1980 was due to a combination of catalysts

The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) was a paramilitary group, who was very left winged; they believed in socialism and nationalism. These people were considered terrorists in the eyes of the British, whereas some Quebecois saw these people as heroes. The FLQ was responsible for 8 deaths with approximately 160 violent attacks on civilians. This terrorist organization endorsed the Quebec Sovereignty Movement. This movement was essentially a political movement that wanted Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada and become an independent nation. In addition, it declared that the members of the FLQ would rebel against anyone that were considered “Anglo-saxon” imperialism. It also wanted to overthrow the current Quebec government, and along with the separation from Canada, it wanted a French-speaking society with only Francophones. This group caused much chaos, but its peak and most destructive affect on Canada was known as the October Crisis.

This historical study will examine the complex provincial affiliations related to Canadian Confederation that demanded complex political maneuvers to unify the Anti-Confederate party and the Confederate Party to support the Quebec Resolutions of 1865. The Anti-Confederate vantage point of George Etienne Cartier’s Parti Bleus was a primarily French region, which sought its own sovereign country. More so, the Atlantic/Maritime colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia rejected the idea of a Canadian federal government, which was based on the political leadership of William Annand of Nova Scotia and Albert J. Smith of New Brunswick. In contrast, the Confederate leadership of James A. MacDonald in Ontario sought to unify Canada due to the rising

Countries fight themselves am I right? American fought themselves twice in the mid 1800s and 1900s. During the mid 1900s, Canada did their movement also it was called the Quebec Separatist Movement. The movement was about Quebec’s independence. The movement contained the Prime Minister and this group called Front de Liberation du Quebec. They had kidnapped most influential people in Canada. In the Quebec Separatist Movement, Quebec’s citizens ambition to become independent, the whole country became violent.

The Quebec act was an act established in 1774. The act of Quebec was “passed by the British Parliament to institute a permanent administration in Canada replacing the temporary government created at the time of the Proclamation of 1763.” With this act the British had high hopes of restoring the French form of Civil law. The British hoped to win over the French Canadians by giving them more land and rights such as to use of their own laws and freedom to practice their own religion. The Quebec act can be described as an act used to make more effective provision for the Government of the province of Quebec in North America. Of the many things, the British hoped to achieve Expansion of territory to take over part of the Indian Reserve which was happening around 1763, states to include what is now southern Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota.

The final section of this paper deals with recognition. Sovereigntists feel that Quebec needs to be recognized since it is a distinct nation, as shown above, but that Canada refuses to do so. Federalists argue that Canada has already given Quebec recognition for its distinctness.

The next year, in an attempt to improve the situation, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau passed an act and made the country’s official languages, both French and English. However, in 1970, things took a turn for the worst, and “the terrorist Quebec Liberation Front [kidnapped] and [killed] the provincial labor minister, and [took] a British diplomat hostage”, Trudeau was forced to use martial law (Cooper). Eventually, the pressure pushed the issue to an election, in 1980, and, in a 60/40 vote, Quebec ends up remaining a part of Canada, which causes supporters to throw blame (Cooper). It finally seems like the issue is resolved, but, no less than two years after the election, the British North America Act is adopted as Canada’s constitution, and all of the provinces, excluding Quebec, meet and change the constitution to give them equal voices in the government, but Quebec rejects the change (Cohen). By the time the 1990 rolls around, there is still no solution for the constitution issue, and the debate only grows deeper. In 1992, however, the provinces and territories compromise, and recognize Quebec as a “distinct society”, which was rejected later that year (Cooper). Four years later, everything was authorized to declare Quebec’s independence, but, negotiations with the rest of Canada fail to produce an agreement, so, it fell through. The topic is not brought up

Active since 1963, the Front de Liberation du Quebec’s (FLQ) violent actions in October 1970 cost Canadians citizens their rights and freedoms in an attempt to establish Quebec as a separate nation. Prior to Canada becoming a nation and to this date, Quebec has engaged in a tense relationship with English Canada and harbours longstanding resentments over language, religion and multiculturalism. Throughout the 1960’s, the province underwent profound change during the Quiet Revolution and Quebec nationalism soared. During this time, the FLQ organized several bombings and riots. The culmination of the FLQ’s actions in 1970 is referred to as the “October Crisis” which translated into the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and the murder of Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte. The October Crisis also represents Canada’s only encounter with domestic terrorism and the third time the War Measures Act was invoked. The decision to invoke the War Measures Act was a controversial one made by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa since it imposed national martial law. Upon examination of the FLQ’s actions during the October Crisis, the response from the federal government and the impact on Quebec nationalism and the rest of Canada, it is apparent that the government handled the October Crisis tactfully and was correct to invoke the War Measures Act.

Quebec has struggled with a need to be maitres chez nous “masters of their own house” (Young, 1998). Many attempts at resolving Quebec's issues has resulted in tensions from both sides. Because Quebec has a strong national identity, and do not define themselves as strictly Canadian, Quebec is seen as difficult, unyielding and discontented. Quebec's separation perhaps is inedible and the future of Canada questionable. Canada without Quebec will bring about many complications and whether there is a rest of Canada (ROC) after Quebec a major challenge. Western alienation and the lack of representation in federal affairs will be a factor; moreover, past actions and

When Independence Day hit theaters in 1996, it generated immense buzz stemming from its mind-blowing visual effects – the most prominent of which depicted an alien space ship annihilating the White House, along with other notable global landmarks. The film would go on to be a monster hit, and to a degree, it has managed to withstand the test of time – at least 20 years later.