I'm looking for the story of how Quebec and the Catholic church fell out

[KurtNYC]

I'm fascinated by what I have heard so far but am looking for a website or book in english about how the close relationship between the Quebec government and the Roman Catholic church lead to abuses and then ultimately to a kind of revolution around 1960 which greatly marginalized the church.

This seems to be part of the key to the Quebecois psyche.

Here is part of what I have found so far (which may illustrate why I think this is a fascinating part of history):

It was this shakeup of traditional Catholicism that was seen in Quebec in the early 1960s. Of course, we must not exaggerate the significance of the break with the past that happened in 1960, and of the dark period preceding it. But the Quiet Revolution really happened. It was first and foremost a phenomenon of rapid secularization, which coincided with the Second Vatican Council. In a few short years, the Church lost most of its secular power in Quebec, as noted by my father, Léon Dion, in his book on Bill 60, which created the Department of Education. The profound repercussions of the clergy's loss of power over the daily lives of Francophone Catholic Quebecers can never be underestimated.

Those of us who are older all have our own memories of that era. I remember how the neighbours' children used to say to us: "You Dions are going to burn in Hell because you don't go to Mass every Sunday." And then suddenly, one Sunday morning, there they were beside us on the ski slopes.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=PressRoom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=20000330_e.htm

Even if I could Google names of some of the key figures (I have only Duplessis so far) I could probably find enough of the story to satisfy my curiosity.

[CHIMO]

1. Hope This Helps

The CBC should be a good resource.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-68-109/arts_entertainment/refus_global/

[KurtNYC]

3. Thanks for that

Some interesting interviews and clips.

There are several fascinating angles on Quebec history which play out in the Quiet Revolution. I read one article which compared New France to an orphan, traded by France at the end of the War of 1812 for sugar colonies. I get a sense of the abandonment the young nation must feel. In the orphan metaphor, the orphan becomes the charge of the Roman Catholic church who procedes to run its life for 100 years.

Another interesting comparison, I thought, was to the French Revolution. The parallels include Paul-Emile Borduas' role in unleashing a revolution who's fruits he would never taste. The throwing off of the Roman Catholic church (complete with renaming streets) and a kind of enlightenment and nationalism (separatism) that follows.

France's orphaned child grows up to pursue a similar course, as if a kind of national genetics were expressing themselves. It is epic stuff.

[CHIMO]

4. You May

Want to go back to the establishment of Upper and Lower Canada and the understanding that Quebec had when it joined Canada, as to what the union meant.

[Maple]

2. It was called the Quiet Revolution

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Quiet+revolution+Quebec&meta=

Quebec went from being agrarian and deeply catholic, to aerospace and the lowest birth rate in Canada.

An amazing change under Jean Lesage. 1960 to 1966

[Ken Burch]

5. It would probably also be useful

to find the articles that Pierre Trudeau wrote in CITE LIBRE,
a publication of progressive, Catholic and secular Quebecers who were
resisting the Duplessis/Church regime in Quebec during the late 1940's and 1950's.

[northamericancitizen]

6. The quiet revolution

La révolution tranquille got that name because that was one of the only "REVOLUTION" that went out without violence (except for a few bombs, the killing of one member of the Canadian Parliament and violent threats from the FLQ)

The changes that took place between 1960-1980 cut so deep in the fabric of our society that the it changed the meaning of who we were.

In the 70s if a political figure went to give a lecture to university students he was addressing it to "French Canadians", now they are talking to Quebequers.

It went farther than that: A quebequer is now a person who lives here and embrace our culture without losing his or her own. Some extremist still think that the only one who has the privilege to call themselves "Québéquois" are the francophone "pure laine*" which means born in a family who has been here for many generations.

* pure wool

I was born in 1953, so I grew up during that time. I am really proud to be a child of that revolution.

Like most French-Canadian Quebequer, I see myself as being a francophone who doesn't hold a grudge or who is being paranoid about the Anglo Saxon culture.

Hope I was able to share with you some of the reason we are proud to call ourself "Québéquois".

Lise

[Ken Burch]

7. So, did you vote "non" in the referenda?

I remember watching the election night parties on the second referendum(CSPAN in the U.S. was running the CBC coverage)
and feeling that, while I would probably have voted against the referendum, it looked as if I would have feld more at home amongst the
"oui" crowd. They looked like scruffy socialist types(of which I consider myself one) and their signs had peace symbols on them.

[CHIMO]

8. What Is The Point Of

Your question.

A persons' vote is a personal affair. If one did not live through the quiet/noisy revolution then one doesn't have the same perspective.

How did you vote? How a person votes is none of your g** d** business.

[northamericancitizen]

9. I don't mind answering. I consciously canceled my vote.

Even thou I always felt closer to the souverainists, in 1995 I did not think that the Province of Québec was ready yet or even should break away from Canada. I also had and still have big reserve about dealing with 2 governments.


On the eve of the referendum I was living with an Anglo. (English-Canadian) He is the father of my son.

We had agreed to watch the results sharing the time between the english TV channel and the French- Canadian one. Half an hour
each channel alternatively.

When it was officially reported that the "Yes" side had lost by 1/2 a point... we both cried. He from relief: Canada was saved. Me from sadness : a majority of my people lost again.

Strange feeling.

[Ken Burch]

12. What do you feel your people would have gained

from sovereignty, northamericancitizen? I would like to get a better understanding of that Quebecers feel is intolerable about their current arrangement with the rest of Canada. Is there still a feeling that the French language is in jeopardy? Or is it a fear about the survival of francophone culture in some other sense?

As a past supporter of Irish nationalism, who has also seen the limits of putting the question of national identity ahead of other considerations yet still sees the importance of asserting that identity, I am quite interested in the Quebec situation.

[Ken Burch]

10. I meant no offense, Chimo.

And, of course, no one has to tell me how they vote.
I was just wondering, since I thought I surmised that the poster was telling me they were a francophone federalist.

Sorry, didn't mean to overstep any bounds.

[Ken Burch]

11. Having raised the subject, Chimo, could you tell me, in brief

How I might see the matter if I had lived through the quiet revolution?

I have great respect for francophones and Quebec culture. My own feelings on the matter as an outsider are that I would have difficulty believing that francophone Quebec would do better under English-speaking right-wing American economic dominance than it would remaining part of Canada. Francophone separatists kept the right-wing Mulroney government in power and hurt all Canadian and Quebec workers by letting NAFTA go throug.

Is political sovereignty ultimately worth it for anybody if it comes at the price of economic subservience?

I mean, if the boss sends you a layoff notice because he's moving the plant to China, does it really matter what language the pink slip is in?

[CHIMO]

16. Well

If I might try to explain my perspective. It was from the point of view that if one was not there, then one was from the rest of Canada(ROC).

Depending on ones location, mainly, it would define your vision of the country.

Essentially that was what was on my mind. It was not on the outcome of the vote.

[Ken Burch]

20. Oh, I see.

From the way you initially responded, I thought you were a Quebecois.

[CHIMO]

15. No Offense Taken

And I would like to apologize for stating that one had to live through something to be able to form their own opinion.

[Ken Burch]

18. Thanks for the clarification, Chimo.

[iverglas]

13. one of those misreadings of rights

In the criminal justice system, a person is "innocent until proved guilty" -- but that does not mean that if a person is found "not guilty", s/he did not commit the crime. An awful lot of people seem to think it does, though, or at least want to use the principle to preclude other people from discussing individuals' actual culpability for crimes. OJ.

In a liberal democracy, a person's vote is secret, but that does not mean that s/he cannot disclose his/her vote, and it also does not mean that it is always improper to ask someone how s/he voted.

The point of a secret ballot is to protect individuals from reprisals that those in power might take against those who voted against them.

It is *not* to preclude public discourse about issues.

If I am listening to someone's opinion about something, I very much want to know something about the person I am listening to. If she is calling for a flat tax, is she rich? If he is calling for universal free child care, does he have eight children? If she is calling for the introduction of private elements into the health care system, does she own stock in an insurance company? If he wants to adopt a school voucher system, is he a religious fundamentalist?

I want to know whether the person I am listening to can reasonably be regarded as speaking out of naked self-interest, to start with, no matter how altruistic or public-minded her arguments might sound. I want to know whether there is potential bias on her part.

I also want to know whether I am listening to a hypocrite: someone who wants the world to do as he says, but does not do it himself. Or who simply talks a good line, but cannot be relied on to follow his own thoughts into action.

If the person does not want to give me such information, that is his/her prerogative and, yes, his/her right. But there is absolutely no rule in the world to say that I can't ASK.

In this particular instance, none of the factors I mention might be relevant -- the question really is simply a matter of interest, of knowing how someone with that perspective looks at the contemporary scene. There are a lot of people in Quebec who had the utmost sympathy for, and in many cases allegiance to, the initial nationalist sentiments and movement, but who have little sympathy for or allegiance to its modern manifestations. Their reasons are worth knowing, as are the reasons of those who maintain a sovereignist, or a particular kind of sovereignist, stance -- to a listener who simply wants more understanding of the issues.

I don't have any problem telling anyone how I voted about anything, and telling 'em exactly why. I have no fear of reprisals from anyone if I do so. (That's not to say that there are others who might not; I know a prominent Liberal who has voted NDP, and I'm sure he doesn't advertise this in Liberal circles, and that's fine.) If I want to influence how anyone thinks about anything -- and don't we all? -- I certainly don't expect not to be asked questions that would give people the information they want in order to assess the things I say.

Wanna know how I voted on Meech Lake? "No". I regarded it as having little to do with the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec, and lots to do with power-grabbing by right-wing provincial politicians, and the undermining of the very essence of Canada.

Wanna know why I voted Tory in the 1974 federal election, and Liberal in the 2003 Ontario election? I'll be happy to explain (and in fact have, at DU).

Wanna know how my Montreal anglo brother, who voted "Yes" on the referendum, voted in the last Quebec provincial election? Well, I suspect he didn't vote; I haven't got around to asking him, since we don't talk much. But I know that he, like me, regards the present-day PQ as a right-wing mutant offspring of the movement that originally expressed and worked to further the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec. And he'd have no problem saying how he voted, and why.

It is absolutely legitimate to ask how someone voted, if the person you are asking is engaged in persuasive speech about a matter that was an issue in that vote, or has offered to inform you about his/her personal perspective on issues to which that vote is relevant.

[CHIMO]

17. You Are Right

One may ask. But my reply will be, "That it is none of your ruddy business."

However, if we became involved in a discussion of political principals and personalities in a political race I would in all probability volunteer who would get my vote.(Assuming a few things).

[Ken Burch]

19. "Hey, Iverglas, why DID you vote Tory in the 1974 federal election and

Liberal in the 2003 Ontario election"?

[iverglas]

21. ha

Conservative federally in 1974 -- because I hated Trudeau economics (the current manifestation of Trudeaumania remembers his laudable left-wing social aspect, but neglects his evil right-wing economic aspect -- but we who were there remember), lived in a not-NDP-this-decade riding, and Red Tories weren't yet extinct.

Liberal provincially in Ontario in 2003 -- because I hated Harris conservatism beyond all measure, and lived in a not-NDP-provincially-that-election riding. And it simply wasn't possible for the McGuinty Liberals to be worse than the Conservatives.

A strategic vote is a hard thing for the queasy of conscience to swallow, but sometimes ya gotta. Those are the only two times in 30+ years I've held my nose and done it.

It's when it's done stupidly that it's so, well, stupid. People too often confuse national trends with the situation in their own ridings. Jamie Heath was on a Newsworld thing this morning about the last federal election, talking about people "strategically" voting Liberal in Trinity-Spadina to prevent a Conservative win, when the race was exclusively Liberal vs. NDP in that riding -- final results:
LIB ... 23202 . 43.57%
NDP . 22397 . 42.05%
CON ... 4605 ... 8.65%

Same thing happened in my riding in '88 ... a riding that hadn't been anything but Liberal in decades (and was, granted, highly unlikely to go NDP anyway), where our vote went down several percentage points because people who hated Mulroney switched from us to the Liberals to defeat a Tory who wouldn't have won the riding if the Liberals had been running a dead dog ... which was pretty much what the no-hope Tories were running anyhow ...

[Ken Burch]

22. So, broadly speaking, you were voting tactically in both cases.

I can understand the reasoning.

[iverglas]

23. yup

Very specifically speaking!

"Strategic voting" has always been a factor in a multi-party, first-past-the-post system. Where there is no provision for preferential voting, for example, the candidate with a plurality takes all, and it is not uncommon for that candidate to be one that would obviously be the least favourite of everybody who did not vote for him/her, but the "anti" vote was split into votes "pro" two others.

It has gained more formal attention recently, when the NDP in particular has had to acknowledge that some people who would otherwise be its voters do this -- even people like me, a member since I was 16 and a former candidate. The problem occurs when it's done without sufficient information (and of course there can never be perfect information; that's what the election itself is for!) and out of, basically, panic, without regard even to what is known/knowable, as in Trinity-Spadina and my old riding.

Where parties are relatively close in platforms, and/or where there really is a huge need to keep a particular party out of power (say, where there was a possibility that a truly fascistic party might emerge the winner), two parties might formally agree not to oppose each other in situations where a vote split that would be disastrous is foreseeable. They would then hope that their combined seats in the legislative body would outnumber the other party's, and that a government by formal or informal (minority government) coalition could be formed. That situation hasn't really arisen in Canada.

BC politics, though, does provide a sort of example on a large scale, where it is the right wing that has formed the coalition. As people have noted here, the right wing has essentially coalesced into an "anti-NDP" party, going by whatever name is convenient at the time.

This phenomenon has long been apparent in municipal politics in various medium/large cities. Party politics was uncommon in municipal politics here, and has only recently emerged in the rest of Canada, having basically started in Vancouver (and Montreal, where it was somewhat different). In Vancouver, the line was very obviously NDP/anti-NDP, although the party names were not actually used; there were organized "parties", but each group used more neutral titles. The right wing in municipal politics throughout Canada has long been informally organized as an untitled Liberal/Conservative coalition of candidates against the untitled NDP slate of candidates, all the while loudly protesting any attempt to formally incorporate "partisan" politics at that level, i.e. portraying itself as the non-partisan element interested only in the good of the ratepayers and portraying the NDP as trying to insert allegedly irrelevant and destructive "politics" into the situation.

The emergence of actual party politics in municipal elections, as in Toronto recently, makes it less likely that the "NDP" candidates can be ganged up on in that way, and more likely that a split of the right-wing vote will lead to left-wing success.

If only you guys in the US could figure out a way to split your right-wing vote, eh?

[Ken Burch]

24. definitely. We need two or three religious fascist parties, not just one.

BTW, why didn't a tactical voting arrangement emerge between the Liberals and the NDP for the 1988 election? Both parties were fighting hard against the implementation of NAFTA, and an arrangement like that(with say the NDP not nominating candidates in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the Ontario ridings they didn't already hold and the Liberals quitting the field in B.C., Saskatchewan and
any ridings where the NDP candidate was running second to the sitting Tory) would have guaranteed NAFTA's demise.

[iverglas]

25. good one

BTW, why didn't a tactical voting arrangement emerge between the Liberals and the NDP for the 1988 election? Both parties were fighting hard against the implementation of NAFTA ...

You're a furriner, so your gullibility is forgiven. ;)

The Liberal Party (historically the continentalist party) fighting hard against NAFTA. haha, haha. For the NDP to have entered into any kind of electoral coalition / voting arrangement based on that one, we would have had to believe it!

Not to mention all the other things that Liberals promise when they want to get elected. Lemme see ... child poverty's been in the dustbins of history what, it must be nearly 5 years now, eh?

http://www.firstcallbc.org/publications/MR%20Nov%2003%20Legacy.htm
(just a handy list)

Parents logging on to the Liberal Party web site might easily think that Chrétien and the rest of the Liberal team have solved each and every problem facing each and every family and created a virtual heaven on earth in barely ten years.

“Every Canadian child, from coast to coast to coast, needs - and deserves - the best possible advantages in life,” the web site says glowingly. “Since 1993, the Liberal government has done nothing less than to ensure that all Canadian families and their children have ample opportunity to generate income, have access to education, and develop good health.”

Imagine what a shock those statements must be to the million or so Canadian children and their parents living in poverty? The child poverty rate finally started coming down in the late 1990s, but it’s still higher than it was in 1989. Many people remember 1989 as the year that the Liberals and every other party in the House of Commons agreed to work to wipe out child poverty by 2000.

Of course, what really happened in 2000 was that Paul Martin, then Finance Minister, handed our asses to the rich on a plate:

Or what about all those hints of a “children’s budget” in 2000? What we got instead was a tax-cut budget, with the largest tax cuts going to the wealthiest Canadians.

Then there was child care ...

And how many parents remember the Liberals’ 1993 Red Book of campaign promises - specifically the promise to spend $720 million to create 150,000 new child care spaces over the following three years? The Liberals flatly abandoned that commitment in 1996 and barely mentioned child care again until early this year <2003>.

So what happened in 1988 was that the Liberals got what they wanted -- NAFTA with no blame, and a Tory govt so hated, and party so in disarray, by the end of its brief second term that the Liberals could return to their rightful place for another couple of decades ...

[Ken Burch]

26. Oh. Got it. "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as The Who put it

[KurtNYC]

14. NAC: In the time since I started this thread, I have read quite a bit on

La révolution tranquille including the websites and paths of investigation suggested here. Thanks to all.

I was in Montreal during the blackout of 2003 which darkened Ontario and much of the eastern US. The lights stayed on in Montreal/Quebec and it was like unofficial Quebec appreciation day as we watched New York, Toronto and other cities struggle with the problem on TV.

I'm glad that Montreal is as close as it is. My visits there and more recently to Toronto, made me more curious about Canada's internal politics and recent history. I appreciate your perspective and j'adore Quebec.

[applegrove]

27. Kurt - I still say you could be Karl Rove in disguise looking for a good

wedge in Canada Ha Ha Ha Just kidding!

I am sure he is looking for something to get the Liberals out of power forever... like missile defense. You know people in Quebec are totally against it and had our PM voted for it - it could have been a deathly wedge. Karl Rove must be very mad. Paul Martin was very right in listening to the people of our country.

The Business community can run around like chickens with their heads cut off and clucking... but all they will ever be is paid mouth-pieces of the GOP machine.

We will join missile defense if it ever seems like a good idea. So far it does not promise anything.