Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
It is one of the truisms of Canadian politics that stable federal power cannot be achieved without support from the province of Quebec. Until 1896 the dominant political party, the Conservatives, was the one which held Quebec. Since that period, Liberal ascendancy has been based on solid strength in French Canada. The problem of creating sufficient inter-cultural agreement to make possible the formulation of federal policy has been the most important single factor in determining the character of national party competition. This difficulty has set a premium on those skills of negotiation and conciliation which have in fact distinguished most successful Canadian statesmen, and has, more than anything else, inhibited the formation of national parties with consistent principles and policies.
Political parties, as a condition of national success, have had to unite French and English elements; but thus far they have done so only on the most tenuous basis. For many purposes, a minimal consensus was sufficient, but it seems to have been inadequate to achieve the full measure of power and influence which the Fathers of Confederation envisaged for central government. Although judicial decisions, and economic and geographic forces, may have accentuated the trend to a decentralization far greater than that contemplated in 1867, the basic reason for this development has been the impossibility of creating national parties which would unite both French and English Canadians behind alternative programmes. In the words of a French-Canadian historian: “Les principaux auteurs de la Confédération n'avaient pas caché leur intention d'organiser un gouvernement central très puissant.” It must be concluded that they either seriously overestimated the range of shared assumptions between the two cultures, or badly underestimated the degree of unity on fundamentals which was necessary to run the centralized state they had tried to create. The only type of national political party which Canada has been able to construct successfully has not proved capable of fulfilling their intentions.
This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Ottawa, June 13, 1957.
1 Brunet, Michel, Canadians et canadiens (Montréal, 1955), 24.Google Scholar
2 En collaboration, sous la direction de Trudeau, Pierre-Elliott, La Grève de l'amiante (Montréal, 1956), 11.Google Scholar
3 O1ivar Asselin, Pensée française (Montréal, 1937), 50.Google Scholar
4 Ibid., 188 ff.
5 Groulx, Abbé Lionel, “Les Vingt Ans de l'A.C.J.C,” Action française, XI, 06 1924, 362.Google Scholar
6 Mounier, Emmanuel, Personalism (London, 1952), 101–2.Google Scholar (Tr. by Philip Mairet from first ed., Paris, 1950.)
7 “Trois Illusions de la pensée canadienne-française,” Le Devoir, 2 06 1954.Google Scholar
8 Mounier, , Personalism, 105.Google Scholar
9 Ibid., 104.
10 Hurtubise, Claude, “Compassion pour une jeunesse catholique,” La Relève, I, no. 2, n.d., 30.Google Scholar
11 Charbonneau, Robert, “Notes sur la jeunesse,” La Relève, II, no. 4, 12 1935, 103.Google Scholar
12 La Relève, III, no. 1, 09-octobre 1936.Google Scholar
13 Frégault, Guy, “Du côté des chefs,” La Relève, IV, no. 10, 01 1940.Google Scholar
14 Hurtubise, Claude, “Les Revues et les événements,” La Relève, IV, no. 10, 01 1940, 320.Google Scholar
15 La Relève, III, no. 1, 09-octobre 1936, 9.Google Scholar
16 “Lettre de Paris,” Action nationale, IX, 01 1937, 41.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., 41n.
18 La Nation, I, 27 08 1936.Google Scholar
19 E.g., Leur Inquiétude (2nd. ed., Montréal, 1944)Google Scholar; Pour un ordre personnaliste (Montréal, 1942).Google Scholar Sections of both books had previously been published as articles in Action nationale.
20 “Association professionnelle et corporation,” Action nationale, XI, 05 1938.Google Scholar
21 “La Corporation en marche,” Action nationale, XI, 06 1938.Google Scholar
22 Québec, 1953.
23 Le Canada française à la recherche de son avenir,” Esprit, XX, 08-septembre 1952, 276–7.Google Scholar
24 Edité par l'auteur ( Montréal, 1956).
25 “Aller à gauche et à droite,” Action nationale, XLVI, 10 1956.Google Scholar
26 “Anne, ma soeur Anne.…,” Le Devoir, 14 août 1953.Google Scholar
27 “L'Election fédérale: prodromes et conjectures,” Cité libre, no. 8, 11 1953, 9–10.Google Scholar
28 See especially three speeches of Bourassa's: “Le Nationalisme est-il un péché?” 30 avril 1935; “Le Nationalisme religieux est l'antithèse du catholicisme,” 9 mai 1935; “Catholiques et non-Catholiques,” 15 mai 1935.
29 See his Du régime temporel et de la liberté (Paris, 1933).Google Scholar
30 Mounier, , Personalism, 122.Google Scholar
31 Moyne, Jean Le, “L'Atmosphère religieuse au Canada français” and Pierre Vadboncœur, “Réflexions sur la foi,” Citré libre, no. 12, 05 1955.Google Scholar
32 de Grandpré, Pierre, “L'Inquiétude spirituelle et son expression dans les lettres récentes,” Action nationale, XLV, 06 1956.Google Scholar
33 “Le Québec laissé en dehors de la lutte électorale,” Le Devoir, 28 mai 1957.
34 La Réforme, 30 mars 1955.
35 This point is made with particular cogency in McNaught, K. W., “CCF: Town and Country,” Queen's Quarterly, LXI, summer, 1954, 213–19.Google Scholar
36 Quebec, 1956, 4 vols.
