English speaking Upper Canada

|. and mixed representation from

Lower Canada where some
English speaking settlers also
lived. It also provided high
Property qualifications for voting,
thus disqualifying large numbers
of French habitants. It placed
restrictions on the rights of
Catholics, and provided that the
French language be removed by
the end of a 15-year period.

This attack on the national rights
of the French Canadian people
aroused such a storm of opposition
that the Executive Council and the
British government were forced to
back dwon and abandon the idea.
Thus the struggle for their national
rights once again asserted itself,
and the Act of Union was stillborn,
it served however, to draw the
French Canadian people closer
together in their struggle for
national survival.

* * *

The years following the War of
1812 were marked by rapid
€conomic developments in Canada
which sharpened the struggle for
responsible government in Upper
and Lower Canada between the
People and their colonial rulers.
This found reflection in the
Struggle over who should control
the finances and expenditures in
the two provinces. The two popular
assemblies in Upper and Lower
Canada insisted on rights to govern
which were constantly blocked by
the irresponsible actions of Crown-
appointed Executive Council which
represented the ruling clique
known as the Family Compact. In
this struggle the Executive Council
repeatedly disbanded the elected
assembly.

The ending of colonial rule and
the establishment of responsible
government was demanded by the
populace in both provinces and by
the rising capitalist class.
Although Upper and Lower Canada
had separate assemblies a parallel
movement arose in both provinces
demanding responsible govern-
ment. In Upper Canada (Ontario)
the reform movement was headed
by William Lyon MacKenzie and in
Lower Canada (Quebec) by Louis
Joseph Papineau.

The demands formulated in both
provinces were similar, calling for
democratic elections, responsible
government, control of revenues,
religious freedom, vote by ballot,
free trade and education, abolition
of colonial control, etc. In Lower
Canada, however, these demands
for responsible government were
Joined with demands guaranteeing
the national rights of the French
People, such as no allegiance to
Britain and establishment of a
republic, religious freedom and
Use of French in public affairs, as
well as abolition of feudal tenure.

The sharpened struggle for
Tesponsible government led to the
1837 Rebellion in Upper and Lower
Canada which was ruthlessly put
down but it brought into play the

democratic forces opposing the «

feudal, and colonial Family
Compact. It also brought into play
hose forces in Lower Canada who
wanted to ensure the national
rights of the French Canadian
People. Although the Rebellion was
Put down it did not end the
4gitation and demand for drastic

reforms which were led thirty |

years later to Confederation, in
1867.

Following the Rebellion of 1837
bs British government suspended
: © Constitution Act of 1791 and
Stablished a virtual dictatorship
With all power in the hands of the
vernor and his appointed
Uuncil. The elected assemblies in
‘Pper and Lower Canada were
Ssolved. In 1841 the British
Sovernment revived the Act of
Nion which it tried to impose in
: se and was forced to abandon
seal of popular protest. Now
@ dictatorship existing, the
T™ms of the Act were again im-
Posed.

The two provinces were brought

together under thoroughly un-
democratic terms with the rights
of the French Canadian people
placed in great jeopardy. The

French Canadian people were.

unable to resist due to the abolition
of their democratic rights. The new
assembly was to have an equal
number of representatives: from
both provinces, 42, which gave
advantage to the English. The Act

did away with equal status for the

French language and provided for
property qualifications of 500
pounds to be a member of the
United Assembly.

The Act of Union did not
establish responsible government
for the colony even though that had
been proposed in the famous report
of Lord Durham who had been sent
from Britain in 1839 to investigate
the conditions in the colony which
had brought on the Rebellion. The
most progressive proposal in the
Durham Report was for the
establishment _ of responsible
government, but on the question of
the rights of French Canada he

adopted a chauvinistic and
reactionary stand.
Durham recognized the

existence of the French nation in
these words: “‘I expected to find a
contest betweena government and
a people: I found two nations
warring in the bosom of a single
state...” But the solution he
offered was, ‘“‘that sooner or later
the English race was sure to
predominate even numerically in
Lower Canada, as. they
predominate already by their
superior knowledge, energy, en-
terprise and wealth. The error,
therefore, to which the present
contest must be attributed, is the
vain: endeavor to preserve a
French-Canadian nationality in the
midst of Anglo-American colonies
and states.” :

The conclusion Durham drew,
and which was incorporated in the
Act of Union, was to de-nationalize
the French Canadians over a pe-
riod of time, to abolish their lan-
guage and customs, and absorb
them into the English-speaking
population. It was for this reason
that he had proposed representa-
tion by population in the Act of
Unionsothat the English would as-
sume superiority. This reactionary
and anti-French policy was im-
posed ona people who had been de-
nied any democratic right of ex-
pression or opportunity to fight
back, but they did not then, and
have not since, accepted the policy
enunciated by Lord Durham for
their extinction.

* * *

In the years that followed the Act
of Union the struggle for respon-
sible government was resumed in
the assembly which included
representation from Upper and
Lower Canada. New political
alignments came into being among
liberal English and French
representatives who united against

In the War of 1812 French and English Canadians joined forces in defence of Canada and defeated attempts

by U.S. armies to annex Canada. In this first demonstrati

united to save the independence of Canada.

the Family Compact and tory
elements who opposed responsible
government. The forces for
responsible government were led
in Upper Canada by Baldwin, who
had been a leader in the reform
movement and. split with
MacKenzie in 1833, and LaF on-
taine from Lower Canada. They
entered intoa political alliance and
in the 1848 elections the reformers
were elected under Baldwin and
LaFontaine which led to establish-
ment of responsible government.
In the course of this struggle the
rights of the French language were
restored officially. Throughout
these events, the Parti Rouge (Red
Party) which had been formed in
Quebec and was led by Papineau,
continued to agitate and fight for
the national demands of the
French Canadian people.

The period in Canada’s history
from 1837 to Confederation was one
of economic revolution during
which the rising capitalist class
rose to dominant positions in the
economic and political life of
Canada. After winning responsible
government in the 1848 elections,
they turned their attention to
uniting all the British colonies in
Canada into one state. A process of
discussion which was to last for
many years began, culminating in
1867 with the adoption of the British
North American Act by a British
parliament and Confederation. The
rising capitalist class, which had

The Fathers of Confederation recognized national minority rights for

French Canadians
not resolve the issue 0
and_ therein

but not their rights as a nation. Confederation did
the relationship between Canada’s two nations,
lies the sources of the present crisis. Only a new

constitution ensuring full national rights for both nations can build a
bridge over Canada’s troubled waters.

established its economic domi-
nance, looked to achieving a united
country from Atlantic to Pacific. It
was the period of nation building
for the Canadian capitalist class,
but within that they had to find the
way to accommodate to the exist-
ence of two national peoples in
Canada.

Confederation was a progressive
step for Canada, although it con-
tained many undemocratic
features. It was essentially an
agreement between the ruling
classes of two nationalities in
which» the French. Canadian
masses had very little say. But the
Fathers of Confederation were
compelled to recognize the dual-
national character of the Canadian
people and Confederation bore the
impact of powerful democratic
pressure for recognition of the
rights of the French Canadian
people. But the state structure
envisaged by them provided for no
more than a minimal measure of
national equality.

The rights of the. French
Canadian people were to be
protected under the BNA Act by a
federal set-up which was to leave
certain powers to the provinces.
Quebec was to be one of the
provinces which would enjoy
“provincial rights’’ which were
supposed to ensure protection of
their national rights. Con-
federation recognized national
minority rights for the French
Canadian people, but it denied
them the rights of a nation. The
French, under Confederation, were
to have the- rights of a national
minority within a state structure
which was to be dominated and
controlled by the English speaking
majority. Thus Confederation did
not resolve the issue of -the
relationship of two nations, but
only incorporated minority rights
for the French as part of the new
state. ;

It was this denial of the rights of
the French as a nation in Canada
that was to continue to trouble
Canada from Confederation to this
day. The cramping framework of
Confederation was to erupt many
times in crisis such as at the time
of the execution of Louis Riel; the
conscription crisis of World War 1,
and now with the election of the
Parti Quebecois and the threat of
separatism and a divided Canada.

* * *
After more than 200 years of
struggle to preserve their national
rights the people of French

on of national consciousness, French and English

Reproduced from Ukrainian Canadian

Canada, under the impetus of the
great liberating movements of
today, and their growing sense of
national outrage, have reached the
point where they no longer are
prepared to accept minority rights,
but want recognition of their rights
as a nation which Confederation
denied them.

Peter Gzowski, whose late night
CBC program is watched by many
Canadians, wrote in an article in
Maclean’s Magazine a few years
ago that the people of French
Canada ‘‘want to run their own
nation, to decide their own fate.
They want to be not a minority but
partners in Canada — or they want
a country in which they can be the
majority.’’ Undoubtedly, he hit the
nail on the head. This is a demand
which can no longer be swept
under the rug.

Adding to their growing sense of
national outrage is the fact that
after more than 200 years they
number 80 per cent of the
population yet in income they rank
twelfth out of 14 groups listed by
ethnic origin; 85 per cent of the
economy of their province belongs
to non-French speaking owners;
and infant mortality and infectious
disease mortality figures are high-
est in those districts of Montreal
and outside where predominantly
French people reside.

It should be obvious to everyone
that the national question in
Canada has matured to the point
where a new relationship between
Canada’s two founding nations
must be worked out in a new
constitution which would recognize
the full equality of our two nations
and would at the same time give
Canada a new made-in-Canada
constitution which would measure
up to the needs of a-~modern
country. The old horse and buggy
constitution we have needs to be
changed.in the interests of English
speaking Canadians as well as
French Canadians.

The interests of demo¢ratic and
labor peoplein French and English
Canada merge today in the
struggle for a new constitution
which would ensure the ‘national
rights of French Canadians while
at the same time providing
changes in a new constitution
which correspond to the needs of
Canadian democracy. In that
struggle — as in the struggle for
Canada’s independence and
democracy in the past — French
and English speaking labor and
democratic people share a com-
mon cause.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 29, 1977—Page 11