|
May 13, 2017 - No. 17
150th
Anniversary of
Confederation
The Urgent Need to
Give Canada a Modern
Constitution and Definition of Rights
 
180th
Anniversary
of
1837-38
Rebellions
in
Lower
and
Upper
Canada
• Conference Held in Montreal on the
Conception of Rights in
Canada's Constitutions of 1840 and 1867
Presentations
• Things and Phenomena Reveal Themselves
- Ideological Studies Centre -
• The Need for Modern Institutions
Based on Defending the Rights of All
- Joseph Montferrand Collective -
150th Anniversary of Confederation
The Urgent Need to Give Canada a Modern Constitution
and
Definition of Rights
This July 1 marks the 150th anniversary of
Confederation, the date on which the British
North
America
Act,
1867
went into effect, which united the provinces of Canada West and Canada
East (formerly Upper and Lower Canada respectively, before the Act of
Union 1840), New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to form the Dominion
of
Canada. The BNA Act, 1867 was
"patriated" from the British Parliament
in 1982 after the addition of a Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms and an
Amending Formula and remains the constitutional framework for Canada
despite the fact that it is anachronistic. Not only does it vest
sovereignty in the Queen of England who continues to be Canada's Head
of State, but it does not provide the rights of the citizens and
residents with a guarantee and its power-sharing arrangements between
the federal and provincial levels of government are rooted in a bygone
era. It continues to deprive Quebec of its right to self-determination
and to impose colonial relations on the Indigenous peoples.
This itself requires serious thought. After nearly 150
years,
two world wars and the end of the bipolar division of the world,
the Constitution and the definition of rights flowing from it
need to be brought on par with the needs of the times. Far from
recognizing this, the Trudeau Liberal government has launched a
program for the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017 to
"celebrate our common values, our achievements, our majestic
environment and our place in the world." The official themes
declared by the government are "diversity and inclusion,
reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, environment and youth." A
private group called Celebrations Ottawa Inc. is responsible for
organizing the official events and also the disbursement of $210
million in government funding.[1]
Through this organization the government will
"invest strategically in activities that support the vision for
the 150th anniversary and encourage the direct participation of
Canadians." In other words, those who support "the vision" as
espoused by the state institutions of 1867 will receive official
support.
Who decided this vision? What about the activities of
those
who have another vision? Are they not entitled to receive
government support? The government has decided that those who
share the vision it espouses uphold "Canadian values." This
suggests that those who espouse a different vision do not share
"Canadian values." It is nonsense. If there is a common value
Canadians share it is the right of all human persons to their
conscience, to the vision of Canada they see fit to espouse. The
government says that our strength lies in our diversity, by which
it singles out various characteristics based on language,
religion, appearance, skin colour, race, ethnic origin, ability,
etc. In all of this, the right to conscience -- the very thing
that distinguishes us as human beings -- is not considered a
"common value." If this is the case, what does it tell us about
the basis on which citizenship rights are being conferred today?
The right of human beings to be must be the very basis of the
definition of rights in the 21st century, but the government pays
this no heed.
Since last year, the Communist Party of Canada
(Marxist-Leninist) has been holding meetings, seminars and discussion
on the significant issues arising from Canada 150 to involve citizens
and residents from all walks of life in the work for democratic
renewal, and to modernize the Constitution based on the principles that
rights belong to us by virtue of being human and a free and equal union
between Quebec, the Indigenous nations and the rest of Canada.
CPC(M-L) emphasizes that this is an historic task, not
a matter of a policy choice. It is required so that the working people
who produce all the wealth can take the centre stage of history and
carry out the changes required to overcome the problems facing the
society in the spheres of the economy and the natural and social
environments.
To contribute to this dicussion, in this issue TML
Weekly is publishing a report of the
conference held on May 7 in Montreal by the Marxist-Leninist Party of
Quebec to mark the
180th anniversary of the 1837-38 Rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada,
held under the
theme "For a Modern Constitution that Vests Decision-Making Power in
the People, Not the
Crown!" The two keynote presentations made at the conference follow.
Note
1. The federal government has set
aside $210 million for Canada 150 celebrations of which $20
million is to fund major events such as the festivities on Parliament
Hill in Ottawa. According
to government announcements, the remaining money is funding "signature"
events
(larger-scale projects with pan-Canadian reach) and smaller "community"
projects. Two
categories which are not to be funded include anything to do with
Canada's Constitution and
anything to do with Canada's history both of which are considered
potentially "divisive."
As of the beginning of May, The Ministry of Canadian Heritage has
revealed the recipients of
$113 million in funding for its two chosen categories of projects. It
says that other
announcements will be made in the coming weeks as the official July 1
anniversary
approaches.
The federal funding for the approved projects ranges between $30,000
and $416,000. This
includes an urban game of snakes and ladders in Calgary ($416,000), a
giant puppet show in
the West Kootenays ($30,000) and installing an immense flag atop a
15-storey pole in
Windsor at a cost of $150,000. The Great Canadian Flag Project was
supposed to be
dedicated in February in front of 300,000 people in Windsor according
to government records.
The event is now planned for May 20. Another $4.8 million went to an
icebreaker ship
piloted on a 150-day voyage from Toronto to Victoria via the Northwest
Passage with
promises to engage 20 million Canadians on the way. The most expensive
projects, coming in
at $10.5 million, are a tall ships regatta in Quebec City and a
multimedia show named Sesqui
that will feature an interactive dome and a 360-degree film touring
through Ontario.
Other events include the Tri-Conic Challenge in Port
Alberni,
BC that received $80,000 for races that pit runners against a
steam engine and cyclists against a freighter. The Red Couch
Tour, involves a leather chesterfield being taken from one end of the
country to the other for Canadians to be photographed sitting on
it along the way. The production company behind the tour has
received a total of $198,000 in federal funding. Smaller
community projects include mosaics and quilts in which
individuals will pool their efforts to create large works of art.
The cities of Selkirk and Steinbach in Manitoba received $6,000
each for Canada 150 mosaics made up of hundreds of small
tiles.
Arts and culture are at the centre of several projects.
For
$500,000, the government is funding the National Ballet School's
Sharing Dance project, which will prepare choreography that is expected
to be performed by one million
Canadians on June 2. The Ross Creek Centre for the Arts in Nova
Scotia will put on a musical recounting the suffragette movement
in Canada with a $50,000 grant. The Prince Edward Island Symphony
Society has a $115,000 grant to organize a poetry contest with
the winning works being set to music.
Still other projects are centred around websites and
apps. For example Passport 2017 will use a $1.3 million
contribution to help users find Canada 150 events.
The federal funding does not reflect
the
total cost of the projects, which also require money from other
sources, such as municipal grants and private donations.
An additional $300 million is budgeted by the Trudeau
government to repair cultural and recreational infrastructure,
including sports arenas, in a program that was advertised as part
of Canada 150 funding.
180th Anniversary of 1837-38 Rebellions
in
Lower and Upper Canada
Conference Held in Montreal on the Conception of Rights
in
Canada's Constitutions of 1840 and 1867
This year marks the 180th anniversary of the 1837-38
rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada. These rebellions aimed to bring
in arrangements that vested sovereignty in the people, not the British
Crown. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Quebec (PMLQ) held a significant
conference in Montreal on May 7 to examine the cause of the Patriots of
1837-38 in Lower Canada and how this struggle was brutally suppressed
by the British. Emphasis was on the conception of rights put forward by
the Patriots, as well as the conception of rights imposed by the
British in the Constitutions of 1840 and 1867. Importantly, the
conference looked at this history starting from the present -- what the
conditions reveal today -- going into the past to enrich our ability to
solve problems and open society's path to progress. In this regard, the
conference started by dealing with questions of historiography, the
approach to the study of history, and political theory, which deals
with the relations people enter into and what kind of society this
gives rise to. This included a militant call to oppose attempts to
divide the people for purposes of maintaining the status quo, a
practice introduced by the British colonialists and upheld by the
Anglo-Canadian state established on the basis of the suppression of the
nascent Quebec nation, the expropriation of the Indigenous peoples and
attempts to commit genocide against them, as well as a conception of
rights which are privileges and are given and taken away by "the Crown."
Many workers and youth attended as well as people from
other walks of life. The discussion
was very lively and included a significant intervention on the crisis
in which France is mired
today because its nation-building project is not being renewed but on
the contrary, lies in
tatters. Another intervention spoke about the relations between the
patriots in Lower and
Upper Canada, as well as help they received from American
revolutionaries at the time. A
significant intervention was made by an organizer of the Quebec
construction workers on the
state of rights today. He explained how the state uses its institutions
to make sure the workers
cannot take action in defence of their rights, including health and
safety on the work
sites.
 The struggle of the
Patriots espoused the most advanced ideals of the time. It was a
nation-building project based on the anti-colonial cause, the abolition
of the feudal seigneurial system, the granting of citizenship rights
equally without distinction as to origin or belief, including to the
Indigenous peoples -- and the establishment of a constitution to
enshrine those ideals as the law of the land in the form of a republic.
This cause was akin to the great wars of independence in Latin America
and the Caribbean at that time as well as the national movements in
Italy and other countries. Related developments in those days led to
the formation of the International Working Men's Association by Marx
and Engels in 1864 and, in 1871, to the Paris Commune. The Patriots
fought for institutions consistent with the needs of the times, and for
this their rebellion was crushed by the British through force of arms,
the suspension of civil liberties, mass arrests, burning of homes, the
hanging of 12 Patriots and the forced exile of 64 others.
Tackling
the manner in which the workers and society in general are under
constant attack today, the conference showed clearly the need for
the political movements of the people to take up the work for a
modern constitution so as to enshrine the rights which belong to
all by virtue of their being. Establishing cohesion within the
body politic around the independent politics of the working class
is urgently needed to open a path to progress and avert the
dangers of war.
  
In this issue, TML
Weekly is publishing the two main
presentations from the May 7 conference, one on historiography and the
other on the conception of rights contained in the constitutions of
1840 and 1867. Local meetings on these topics are being held by
branches of CPC(M-L) across the country on the occasion of Canada 150.
For more information or to join the work, email office@cpcml.ca.
Presentations
Things and Phenomena Reveal
Themselves
- Ideological Studies Centre -
This conference is held on the occasion of the 180th
anniversary of the rebellions of 1837-38 in Upper and Lower Canada as
well as in the context of celebrations organized by the Government of
Canada for Canada 150, the anniversary of Confederation by Royal
Proclamation in 1867. It is interesting that the Government of Canada
is handing out millions of dollars to organizations, community groups
and individuals so long as they have nothing to do with two topics --
discussion of the Constitution and discussion of history. ...
We come to this conference
not as historians which we are not
and do not pretend to be, although we have historians in our
midst. This does not mean, however, that we do not have our own
historiography. We do and it is partisan. We look at history
starting from the present, going into the past so as to secure
the future for all. By starting from the present, that is by
beginning from what is being revealed at this time and what it is
telling the people to do, we go to the past merely to enrich the
revelation of the present and to make us more capable of dealing
with the present situation.
Everyone is invited to contribute to this discussion
but let
us be clear about one point. The discussion is not designed to
take up this or that interpretation of this or that idea or
period in the pre-history of human society. The aim of this
discussion is to contribute to the development of modern
political theory, especially modern political theory which is
based on our own thinking and which is of our own making.
In this regard, we often hear it said that history has
a
gender bias or is filled with prejudices based on notions of
racial or cultural superiority or that there is black history,
native history and so on. On the occasion of Canada 150 we have
another interpretation under the rubric of L'Autre 150 (the Other
150).
As concerns gender-based history, it is true that women
and men do play different roles in all societies whether or not they
are class societies. This is due to their objectively different roles
in the production and reproduction of real life. Thus the relationship
between men and women, the roles they play in social life, do not have
any bearing on the kind of political theory in existence. These
relations are a product of something else. Politics is the concentrated
expression of economics but political theory, if it is to be truly a
political theory, is not concerned with what role a male or a female
may or may not play. It could be said that political theory is
gender-blind. It is also colour-blind as well as blind to a person's
ethnic origin, language, religion, level of wealth or ability.
Political theory arises as a superstructure on a
definite
economic base. In pre-class society, the process of production is
social and so is the expropriation of production. This economic
base gets negated at a later date and class society appears. The
question of political theory is tied up with the form of the
process of production and the form of the ownership of the means
of production at any particular time.
The oppression of women begins with the advent of class
society as does the exploitation of one person by another. The
exploited consist of both males and females even though females
receive the worst treatment as they also are discriminated
against by virtue of their womanhood. Political theory only
recognizes the relations people enter into, which determine what kind
of society exists at any particular time.
It is often said that history is written by the victor,
and
this is of course true. In this regard, many factors contribute
to the interpretation of an historical event, including factors
of bias and prejudice - even your own. But bias and prejudice and
partisanship are not the same. If we pose the question, what is
the aim, we can perhaps reach an understanding of the different
interpretations based on bias and prejudice and have fidelity to
a cause which favours those who are striving to vest sovereignty
in the people for purposes of opening society's path to progress.
That is partisanship to a definite cause.
For instance, the British saw all developments through
the
prism of their state power and their aim to hold on to it. They
declared that in Canada there were warring factions based on race
-- English and French -- and that their institutions represented
the unity of these warring factions. To this day, politics based
on identity are pushed for one purpose and one purpose only -- to
divide the people and keep them from acquiring an outlook which
serves them to find their bearings and intervene in the situation
in a manner that resolves crises in their own interests.
We cannot talk about the events of 1837-38 without
addressing
the matter of state power and, when talking about state power, we
must take note that the state is used to deprive people of an
outlook. This is what the British gave us when they suppressed
the burgeoning Republic of Quebec in 1837-38, leading to the
infamous Act of Union adopted
by British Parliament in 1840, which
took away part of the territory and population of Lower Canada
and gave them to Upper Canada, then gave equal representation in
the Legislative Assembly of the United Canada to both Upper and
Lower Canada (Lower Canada had 650,000 inhabitants and Upper
Canada only 400,000). It also unified the debt of Upper and Lower
Canada. (Upper Canada had recently incurred an enormous debt of
$5 million compared to Lower Canada's debt of $375,000). This is
how a "balance" was created between the so-called warring
factions. This "balance" did not create harmony, however, because
there was no equivalence between them despite the brutal
redistribution of land, people and debt. The Assembly became
paralyzed and dysfunctional which required action and ultimately
gave rise to the Royal Proclamation issued in 1867. Since then,
the people have been blocked by the state power from looking into the
situation in a manner which favours them and the popular will
remains disorganized because of what are called the democratic
institutions.
 Assembly of the Six Counties on October 23 and October 24,
1837, a gathering of some 6,000 Patriots held in Saint-Charles, Lower
Canada, in defiance of a British proclamation
forbidding public
assemblies.
The effort to block the need for recognizing and
defending
the general interests, which is the ensemble of social relations,
affects all people and collectives and all aspects of life. It
includes all the relations people enter into. Not only relations
but the rules and targets which govern these relations and
therefore all matters of war and peace, poverty, the environment,
etc.
It is important to recognize that according to the
bourgeoisie, the institutions given rise to in the 19th and 20th
centuries are not in need of renewal to affirm rights today.
There is no necessity for new forms because the content of rights
which they defend, which is privileges, remains the same. In
1837-38, the British smashed the republican form which the Quebec
patriots were striving to bring into being which was
revolutionary at that time, in order to make sure the republican
content could not prevail. The lesson we draw from these events
is that unless the revolutionary form is defended, the
revolutionary content cannot be defended. This is the crux of the
matter facing us today.
The great leader of the Russian working class V.I.
Lenin
explained the existence of "the struggle of content with form and
conversely" and pointed out that with the "throwing off of the
form" comes "the transformation of the content." The nascent
Republic of Quebec was crushed by the British and using their
police powers -- the Royal Prerogative -- the British established
what are called Canada's democratic institutions and traditions.
It is not possible to conceive that these same institutions and
their ideological foundations will solve the problems we are
facing today.
Things and phenomena reveal themselves. What are the
things
and phenomena in the political scene revealing at this time? Are
they not pointing to the need to modernize political theory? This
modernizing cannot be done by diverting into things from the
past. The work begins from the present. We strongly suggest that the
discussion should concentrate on what the present situation is
revealing and go into the past with this aim in mind. By
starting from the present, that is by beginning from what is
being revealed at this time and what it is telling the people to
do, we go to the past merely to enrich the revelation of the
present and to make us more capable of dealing with the present
situation. The sum-total of all revelations will provide a
glimpse of what a thing or phenomena reveal at any particular
time conditioned by time. Human consciousness, as a result, is
only relative. Knowledge, if it is to be helpful to human beings,
has to include all that the things and phenomena on the world
scale are revealing. It has to base itself on the experience of
all that which exists at this time.
Our task to modernize Canadian and Quebec political
theory is
not a universal task but belongs to the people of Quebec and
Canada who are engaged in the struggle to create a modern society
without exploitation of persons by persons and unite with all
others engaged in doing the same. All over the world the peoples
are contributing as they develop their own philosophies and
political theories, according to the conditions of their own
countries. In the final analysis, there is one theory. It is the
theory of dialectical and historical materialism. If everyone
deals with their own situations on this basis they will be
utilizing the colossal energy which is inherent to this theory
towards the aim of modernizing their societies and themselves. We
will make our own contribution to this theory as well.
We wish to express our
confidence that we will be successful
because we have a rich history based, first of all, on the life
and death struggles of the Indigenous peoples to live in harmony
with nature and sort out problems of relations guided by the
Great Law of Peace, in the case of the Iroquois Confederacy, and
similar guides to action practised by other Indigenous nations
prior to Conquest. We have the struggles of the first voyageurs,
settlers and the Métis Nation when colonial rulers set the rules
and considerations on the basis of which they defined rights and
engaged in acts of genocide. And we have all the manifestations
of the strivings of the peoples for empowerment throughout these
500 years since European contact.
Added to this rich history, we ourselves are the
daughters and the sons and representatives of an educated, fighting
working class and a people who are deeply imbued with a sense of
justice, democracy, peace and freedom. With all this in our favour, we
are certain to succeed!
The Need for Modern Institutions Based
on Defending the
Rights of All
- Joseph Montferrand Collective -
Introduction
It is often mentioned that Karl Marx borrowed from
Hegel
that all events and historical figures are repeated twice. Marx
said: "the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a
farce."
 In Quebec, the farce of the division of the
people on a
linguistic and ethnocultural basis has lasted long enough! The
tragedy of the 1840 Act of Union based on the findings of
the Durham Report that divided the people between
"French-Canadian" and "English-Canadian" is repeated and takes
many forms.
Tragedy or farce, the existential crisis that Canada is
undergoing is insurmountable as long as the forms of the Anglo-Canadian
state are maintained, today brought under the control of oligopolies in
the service of U.S. imperialism as well. The cause of this crisis is
that the British rulers that founded Canada by Royal Proclamation in
1867 vested sovereignty in the Crown and since then the people have
never been able to vest sovereignty in themselves. Today sovereignty
remains in the hands of the Crown, at the disposal of oligopolies which
includes private security forces and intelligence services. The same
goes for the nation of Quebec, which the British suppressed by force as
a condition to impose their so-called democratic institutions. This
Anglo-Canadian state is today the expression of the old, rotten policy
of dividing the people to keep them from taking the sovereign power. It
blocks building a modern and sovereign state based on recognizing the
rights of all. We must put an end to the historiography that divides
the people and maintains the status quo that plunges us into ever
deeper crises, including the danger of world war.
Map of boundaries of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840.
Today, as we celebrate the 180th anniversary of the
rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, the renewal of the political
process and institutions is blocked regardless of which political party
is in power. From
"open federalism" to cooperative federalism, from the Liberals'
faith in the defence of multiculturalism to the House of Commons'
adoption of a motion professing an ethnocultural basis for the
nation of Quebec and the notions of "the other 150" that weeps
for "French-Canadian" values over "English-Canadian" values.
("The other 150" means taking a position that Canadians may be
right to celebrate Confederation -- i.e., there is not a problem
with the Canadian Constitution and the Crown -- but Quebec should
have its own such arrangement, perhaps like that of France, as if
there is not also a crisis there!)
From the Harper Conservatives' pretense to "end the old
constitutional quarrels," to the Trudeau Liberals' claim that
the problem does not exist and their broken promise to reform the
electoral system, the block to renewal persists. The Trudeau
government insists that Canada intervene in the case against
Quebec's Bill 99, passed by the National Assembly in 2000, which
declares that only Quebec can decide the question to be asked in
a referendum. It is clear that the Anglo-Canadian state and its
representatives do not want a constitution that recognizes
Quebec's right to self-determination and redefines the division
of powers and the rights of all on a modern basis.
This subversion and blocking also includes a policy of
integration of immigrants that violates the right to conscience by
imposing an oath of allegiance to "values," whether "Canadian" or
"Quebecois." This policy was not introduced in Quebec by a so-called
nationalist or xenophobic government but by the Jean Charest Liberal
government. His reply to the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor report on cultural
and religious accommodation was to take up "reasonable accommodation,"
the empire-builders' slogan at the time of the British conquest, during
the Rebellion and throughout the creation of the so-called democratic
institutions in Quebec. The content of this policy has always been the
accommodation of all the elements that oppose the people taking
power. This is the history of Quebec's democratic institutions,
which represents the block that refuses to respond to the real
needs of society on the basis of a modern definition of rights.
Such a policy cannot develop the fraternal unity of the people,
which is a necessary condition for society's progress.
This subversion is reflected in the political parties
in power and in opposition in Quebec that make language, "reasonable
accommodation," "ethnocultural diversity" and "Quebec values" the
subjects of perpetual and passionate debate, while the people lack the
means to address these problems and find a solution on a modern basis.
So the questions of language and values are all they have to offer. In
the name of an identity crisis, everything is proposed except for a
nation-building project in the image of the working class -- to whom
history has assigned the task of vesting sovereign power in the people
-- and with its aims. Other forces are also swept away by the current
because of their refusal to take a stand, their refusal to see that
political parties and the electoral system as a means for the people to
give others a so-called mandate to govern in their name are outdated.
They are deluded that ruling parties can or want to solve problems on a
modern basis.
In the course of fighting for the defence of the rights
of
all it is important to analyze the content and form of the
so-called democratic institutions that were imposed with the
crushing of the Rebellion and to look at the empire-builders'
definition of rights, which these institutions defend.
In the course of our inquiry, we realized that in
Canada everything is a matter of so-called reasonable accommodation,
and more specifically, it is all about accommodating the working class
to what the bourgeoisie considers reasonable and overcoming disputes
between factions of the ruling class and its agencies by accommodating
each other. Obviously, today, because of neo-liberalism and making the
most powerful monopolies competitive in world markets, the crisis of
reasonable accommodation is mainly to blame the people, to accuse them
of racism, xenophobia, wanting extreme right solutions, etc.
In studying the question, we realized that this crisis
was in
fact the old policy of divide and rule in a new package, but with
a new label, that of fighting for an identity of our own.
Identity politics was the policy used by colonialists
and
British empire-builders in the 18th century to divide the
people and sow hatred and tensions in order to break the fraternal
unity of the people and thus block them from achieving sovereign
power and resolving the problem of the subjugation of the Indigenous
peoples and the nation of Quebec. In Quebec and Canada since then, this
policy has taken different historical forms according to the
needs of the time. It is at the heart of Canadian history and ensues
from all constitutional Acts -- from the Quebec
Act of 1774, through the British North America
Act of 1867, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of 1982. In addition, it is precisely the reactionary
policy underlying the so-called bilingualism and multiculturalism
of Justin Trudeau's government with its slogan "Unity in
diversity."
 
Maps show (left) Territory of the province of Quebec after the Quebec
Act of 1774 and (right) Division of territory after the Constitution
Act 1791. (Click image to enlarge)
It is essential to approach this history as science
demands
and as historical materialism teaches -- according to the
development of class struggle and in light of the historical need
to harmonize the individual interests with the collective
interest, in the context of the general interests of society as
defined by the working class and the people themselves. A first
task is to recognize that it is only as members of the body
politic that all are equal. We must get rid of this practice of
so-called representative democracies in which citizens' only role
is to mark a ballot to hand over their decision-making power to
people who govern on their behalf but do not represent them.
The highlights of Canadian constitutional history
during
which the so-called democratic institutions were developed and
established are, in fact, periods of high treason on the part of
the elite.
Today we will present a brief overview of some
historical
facts that allow us to see the development of the forms of the
divide-and-rule policy of the British colonialists in Canada and
then the Catholic Church and all the elites representing the
Anglo-Canadian state or its counterpart in Quebec.
Definition of Rights Following Conquest
Right after their victory over France in 1763, the
British
realized that military victory alone was not enough. Note that
the American Revolution started in 1765, scarcely two years after
the adoption of the Treaty of Paris through which France
surrendered New France to England. Scarcely three months after
British conquest, His Majesty's soldiers faced the dangers that
followed in the United States -- an Indigenous uprising led by
Pontiac, Chief of the Outaouais. The British found themselves in
a situation where they had to rule a recently conquered territory
while revolt was also brewing in their more southern colonies.
They needed a submissive population to serve their interests in
Quebec and on the world scale in their rivalry with the European
colonial powers.
The British colonial oppressors adopted a series of
measures
which would later be characterized in their Empire in North
America as the policy of reasonable accommodation, which was
fundamentally the policy of divide et impera (divide and
rule).
James Murray, having played a predominant role in the
military conquest of New France, in particular under the command
of James Wolfe, became the first Governor of the Province of
Quebec following the end of the military administration in 1764.
Murray understood, better than the British Crown, the need to win
the support of certain French seigneurs and Catholic clergy to
help pacify the rest of the population. Considering that the
colony's conditions demanded suppression of the people, His
Majesty imposed the "test oath." The "test oath" had been
in effect in England since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The
basic aim of the oath was to exclude Roman Catholics from all
administrative and judiciary offices. In exchange for the
privilege of holding certain positions, a Catholic had to
renounce the Pope as well as certain Catholic dogmas such as the
Immaculate Conception and transubstantiation. It was only later,
faced with the instability of the colonial situation in North
America, with the adoption of the Quebec
Act in 1774, that the
"test oath" would be abolished.
Guy Carleton, the second governor of the new British
colony, also recognized the need to win the support of the seigneurial
and clerical elites. He ordered that several of them be appointed to
the council in service of the government, and that the sons of certain
seigneurs be appointed as army officers. Carleton considered it
necessary to take these measures and accommodate the French-speaking
elites, especially the clergy, notably putting these elites into
positions of power by accepting the Catholic religion, the French
language and certain customs. He assessed that "as long as the
Canadians are deprived of all positions of confidence and profitable
places, they will not be able to forget that they are no longer under
the domination of their natural sovereign."
The preservation of the French language, Catholic
religion
and French civil law and the rights of the feudal seigneurs was
also tied to the need of the British to restructure the economy.
Many French capitalists, merchants and entrepreneurs had returned
to France after the conquest. A large number of Catholic clergy,
as well as administrators, judges and others, had also left. The
British wanted the entrepreneurs and landowners who remained in the
country to become a new administration. The ruling class could use a
deeply-rooted Catholic clergy that preached acceptance of the status
quo and was closely tied to the feudal aristocracy. These higher strata
of the Quebec nation were more than happy to accept the offer of the
British colonialists. Thus, the great "accommodation" by the British
colonial elites of the French-speaking elites was born.
This policy took a concrete form with the Quebec Act of
1774,
under Carleton's administration. The Quebec
Act assured the
continuation of the Catholic clergy, the seigneurial system, old
French civil law and other customs and traditions that posed no
threat to the power of the conquerors. However, the Act did not
guarantee the establishment of a representative government nor
any real rights for the people. This issue would become the
rallying call of the Patriots during the 1837 Rebellion. In
exchange for the right to preserve their customs and religion,
the Quebec habitants would pledge an oath of allegiance to
the British Crown. While preparing this Act, two British
colonialists, York and Grey, wrote that "the wise conquerors,
after having assured themselves of the possession of their
conquest, act with gentleness and permit their conquered subjects
to conserve all their local customs that are by nature
inoffensive."
Quebec Patriots in the trenches at the Battle of St. Charles, November
25, 1837.
Article V of the Act of 1774 grants Catholics the right
to
practise their religion and declares full rights for the clergy.
Article VI does the same with respect to the Protestant religion
and its clergy. Article VII states that, in exchange, all Quebec
inhabitants must pledge the following oath:
"I, A.B., solemnly promise and affirm by this oath,
that I
will be faithful, and that I will bring true faith and fidelity
to His Majesty King George and that I will make every effort to
discover and inform His Majesty of all treason, perfidious
conspiracies, and all attempts, which I may learn about against
him."
The Constitution Act
of 1791 would keep the same oath for all people
wishing to become elected to the newly created Legislative
Assembly. Very accommodatingly, His Majesty authorized that the
oath "may be pledged in English or in French, as the case may
be." The Act also assured the protection of the title deeds of
the seigneurial properties in Lower Canada and created what
became known as the clergy reserves in Upper Canada. It was
effectively the Act of 1791 that divided Canada for the first
time between Upper and Lower Canada. The aim was to open the
territory to the Loyalists who had deserted the 13 colonies after
the American Revolution. But, above all, the Act aimed to
consolidate colonial power by restructuring the colony's
administration. It created an elected Legislative Assembly
without any real power. It strengthened the role and power of the
Governor and of the Legislative Council appointed by the governor
to the detriment of the elected Legislative Assembly, all of
whose laws had to be approved by the Governor and his
council.
Thus, the "Chateau Clique," a reference to the Chateau
Saint-Louis, residence of the Governor and seat of the
government, was born. It would bring together the English
merchant bourgeoisie of Lower Canada and dominate political,
judicial and commercial affairs until the 1830s, the start of the
Patriot movement.
It is important to note that the British did not feel
obligated to abolish French. The French language was in effect
one of the "inoffensive customs" that they permitted the
population to preserve. For example, the Legislative Council had
the right to hold its deliberations in French, while the minutes
had to be written in English. Proclamations and bylaws were
written in English and French. The British were perfectly
satisfied with exercising their power in either language, as long
as their ends were served. Despite everything, the language
question was not specifically debated during this period. It
remained unresolved. Under the tutelage of the British
colonialists, the new leading Quebec elite quickly became a part
of the royal family. The issue is that when it is a matter of
profits, language and religion no longer have the same
importance. The ruling classes in all the countries of the world
speak the language of money and the law of the jungle, and
believe in the status quo. These are their only true language
and religion.
Definition of Rights Given by the Patriots' Struggle
for
Their Nation-Building Project
A British officer reads the order of expulsion after the
defeat of the Patriots' rebellion, to
which
the Patriots clenched their fists and cried out, "Treachery!"
Today, once more, the Establishment and its historians
are
following in Lord Durham's footsteps, reducing the struggle
waged by the Patriots to an inter-ethnic conflict between French-
and English-speaking peoples. It is precisely the Crown
institutions, which did not live up to the people's aspirations nor
the demands of the times, that the Patriots defied.
A quotation from the famous Durham Report issued
after the bloody suppression of the Patriots' Rebellion of
1837-38 against the power of the British Crown in Upper and Lower
Canada, declared that this was a matter of "races:"
"I expected to find a contest between a government and
a
people: I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single
state: I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races; and I
perceived that it would be idle to attempt any amelioration of
laws or institutions, until we could first succeed in terminating
the deadly animosity that now separates the inhabitants of Lower
Canada into the hostile divisions of French and English."
Nonetheless, two things jump out when we study this
period of history. First, it is striking to see how the Patriots were
able to identify the social forms of the period as the block to
development and to develop a nation-building project that was based on
the most advanced ideals of the time and that responded to the problems
as they posed themselves at that time. Second, today we can see that
the social forms and the so-called democratic institutions that are
blocking society's advance are directly inherited from these
empire-builders who fought the Patriots and built Canada by negating
the Quebec nation -- and all the Indigenous peoples -- and by fomenting
racism and sowing divisions.
When we say the Patriots knew how to identify the block
to development posed by the social forms of the period, this means they
knew they had to defeat colonialism and abolish the seigneurial system
so that on its ruins they could build a nation-state that responded to
the aspirations of the period. The Patriots in Quebec, like others
throughout America at that time, were republicans against a colonial
regime. This can be seen in the 92 resolutions of 1834 that affirmed,
among other things, the aim to create arrangements that conformed to
the interests of each habitant "without distinction as to origin or
belief." It can also be seen in all the resolutions adopted during the
wave of people's assemblies in the summer of 1837 and the declaration
of independence that followed.
In the winter of 1838, at the centre of this great
expression
of the popular will, the Patriots proclaimed "by order of the
provisional government," an important manifesto called the Declaration
of
Independence
of
the
Republic
of
Lower
Canada that lists the principles and democratic rights that
belong to a republic. Article 3 called for the defence of the
rights of all: "Under the free government of Lower Canada, all
individuals will enjoy the same rights: the natives will no
longer be submitted to any civil disqualification and will enjoy
the same rights as all other citizens of Lower Canada." Article
15 proclaimed that it was the people who would write their
constitution: "At the earliest occasion the people must choose
delegates according to the present division of the country in
counties, cities and boroughs who will form a convention or
legislative body to draft a constitution according to the needs
of the country, in accordance with the provisions of this
Declaration, subject to modification according to the will of the
people."
 This struggle had nothing to do
with an inter-ethnic
struggle. The Patriots' symbols and the Patriot flag symbolizing
the unity of the people of Lower Canada show this. Different
battles waged by the Patriot Party also show this. For instance,
the Patriot Party defended the full recognition of civil rights
of the Jewish community in Lower Canada. In 1807, Ezekiel Hart, a
Jew elected in the French-speaking riding of Trois-Rivières, was
refused his seat in the Assembly. This situation was ended in
1832 through the adoption of a law -- tabled by John Neilson of
the Patriot Party -- which abolished all discrimination against
Jews regarding civil rights.
The hatred of the people of Lower Canada was not
directed
against English-speaking Canadians, nor against the British
people. On the contrary, the people of Lower Canada and the
English people shared the same hatred for the British
imperialists and exploiters. The exchanges between the working
class organizations of London, England and the Patriot committees
testify to this. After holding a protest meeting in support of
the demands of the Canadians, the London Workingmen's
Association, founded by Karl Marx, sent a message to the Central
Committee of the Patriots in which they wrote: "May you see the
sun of independence shine on your growing cities, on your happy
homes, your thick forests and frozen lakes!" The Central
Committee of the Patriots replied: "We have no quarrel with the
people of England. We are waging war solely against the
aggression of tyrannical oppressors that oppress you as well as
us."
It is even an anachronism to speak of a struggle
between
French-Canadians and English-Canadians, because during that
period, everyone was a Canadian, period! A spokesman for the
Patriots explained as much before a committee of the House of
Commons: "In written documents, everyone who is on the side of
Canada is called a Canadian, and everyone who is against the
Canadian people is called non-Canadian." Once again, the division
between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians is nothing
short of an invention of the colonial exploiters serving their
policy of divide and rule.
Despite this evidence, the British colonialists
continued to
spread the notion, through Lord Durham, that 1837-38 was a
struggle between French-speaking and English-speaking people.
These slanders perpetuated the 19th century empire-builders'
policy of divide-and-rule and served to obscure the essence of
the problem. Like today, the essence of the problem was the
outmoded so-called democratic institutions and the block to
development through social forms. Rather than respond to the
demands of the period and renew these institutions, the
colonialists defended the status quo by bloodily repressing the
1837-38 Rebellion. The Rebellion was crushed through the force of
arms, the suspension of civil liberties, mass arrests, burning of
homes, the hanging of 12 Patriots and the forced exile of 64 others.
More than 1,700 people were thrown into prison. In Montreal
alone, 816 people were arrested in 1838, out of a population of
30,000 -- as a proportion of Montreal's present-day population,
this is the equivalent of 40,000 people. Of these, 108 were
court-martialled. These figures do not account for the hundreds
who fled to the United States to avoid persecution, including 10
accused of "murder" who faced the death sentence if they returned
to the country, nor do they account for the villages in the
Richelieu Valley that were burned to the ground. These events
marked the suppression of the nascent Quebec nation whose
existence continues to be negated to this very day by depriving
Quebec of its right to self-determination as a legal independent
entity, free to create a union with the rest of Canada if it so
desires.
Definition of Rights in the Act of Union, 1840
The response to the democratic aspirations of the
peoples of
Upper and Lower Canada in 1837-38 -- after the military
suppression and the hanging of the Patriots who refused to
accommodate themselves to the British institutions -- was to send
Lord Durham to study the situation and make recommendations to
London. Durham has been made a symbol of the will to assimilate
French-speaking people. In effect, his whole report is filled
with hateful passages toward the French-speaking habitants
of Lower Canada. Moreover, the spirit of the report conveys
a profound chauvinism and upsetting contempt for everything that
is not British nor in the service of British landed and commercial
interests. Beyond this patent racism is a desire to make the
young nation a true colony of the British Empire, certainly an
English-language one, but especially one whose culture is
British, so as to ensure stability for the Empire's financial
interests.
The following passage sheds light on the true
motivations of
Durham's policy, which was not so much an issue of waging
an offensive against a language, as it was a matter of domination
and of maintaining the colonial power:
"In these circumstances, I should be indeed surprised
if the more reflecting part of the French Canadians entertained at
present any hope of continuing to preserve their nationality. Much as
they struggle against it, it is obvious that the process of
assimilation to English habits is already commencing. The English
language is gaining ground, as the language of the rich and of the
employers of labour naturally will.... A considerable time must, of
course, elapse before the change of a language can spread over a whole
people... But, I repeat that the alteration of the character of the
Province ought to be immediately entered on, and firmly, though
cautiously, followed up; that in any plan, which may be adopted for the
future management of Lower Canada, the first object ought to be that of
making it an English Province; and that, with this end in view, the
ascendancy should never again be placed in any hands but those of an
English population. [I]n the state of mind in which I have described
the French Canadian population, as not only now being, but as likely
for a long while to remain, the trusting them with an entire control
over this Province, would be, in fact, only facilitating a rebellion.
Lower Canada must be governed now, as it must be hereafter, by an
English population: and thus the policy which the necessities of the
moment force on us, is in accordance with that suggested by a
comprehensive view of the future and permanent improvement of the
Province."
It is crystal clear: to assure "the future and
permanent improvement of the Province," it is necessary to prevent
"trusting them with an entire control over this Province."
It was in this spirit and according to Durham's
recommendations that the Act of Union of 1840 was adopted,
which handed over part of Quebec's territory to Ontario and part
of Ontario's debt to Quebec! It is with Lord Durham and the Act of
Union that we find the seeds of the division
of the
people on an ethnocultural basis.
Evolution of Rights During the 1841-1867 Period
The period 1841-67 is very interesting: it is presented
as a
period of great victory for democracy in Canada and is indeed a
very important period of setting up the so-called democratic
institutions. But, at the same time, it is a period of high
treason and capitulation. Each lofty deed of establishing what is
currently called Canadian democracy is in fact a base deed of
national betrayal by the elites of Quebec. This is why we say
that the so-called democratic institutions are a form of
reasonable accommodation that was instituted on the basis of the
negation of Quebec, among other things.
During this period, the idea of the "good subject" was
put
forward by the accommodated elites. The good subject is one who
is on the margin of the conduct of political affairs, one who
relies on the monarchy to be guided and accommodated by the
so-called democratic institutions of the Empire.
This idea of the good subject was put forward by
Papineau
during the debate on the recall of the Union in 1849, who claimed
that French-Canadians are quiet and loyal to the Crown and
that on this basis the Union is a disavowal of the
freedoms
of francophones. This idea was later taken up by George-Étienne
Cartier who, on the one hand, defended the closed-door
discussions on the Confederation project and, on the other hand,
considered that being "good subjects"
meant deferring to the will of
parliamentarians. The "French-Canadians" were good subjects
according to Cartier since they allowed the British institutions
in America to develop.
Among the accommodated elites, the most illustrious
representative is undoubtedly Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine. Made a
nobleman in 1854 for his service to the Crown, he became one of
the greatest capitulators and main promoters of conciliation with
the Union. Lafontaine saw it as an opportunity, "a good risk" he
would later say.
In an address on August 25, 1840, the day after the
union of Upper and Lower Canada, he spoke of it in these terms to the
electors of his county:
"It [the Act of Union ] is an act of injustice
and
despotism, which has been imposed on us without our consent;
[...] Should it follow that the representatives of Lower Canada
should commit themselves in advance and without guarantee to
demand the recall of the Union? No, they should not do this."
In the same speech, Lafontaine supported the political
institutions of the empire-builders, taking care to emphasize the
correctness of Durham's solution. Lafontaine rejected "opposition
to excess." He said it was better to compromise and accept
playing the game in order to hold onto power; in short, to
conciliate and abandon nation-building in exchange for crumbs of
influence. Thus, in 1842, Lafontaine agreed to participate in the
government and administration of the colony. He declared proudly:
"Without our active cooperation, without our participation in
power, the government cannot function in such a way as to restore
the peace and confidence that are essential to the success of any
administration."
In 1849, when he opposed the abrogation of the Union of
1840,
he praised the merits of his policy of conciliation and his
participation in the colonial power: "But if you and I, Mr.
Speaker, had not accepted the part given to us in 1842, in the
administration of the affairs of the country, where would our
compatriots be today? Where would our language be, which a
governor had prohibited through a clause of the Act of
Union against the good faith of treaties? Would this
language, the language of our fathers, be rehabilitated, as it
has just been in the most solemn manner, in the enclosure and in
the acts of the Legislature?"
This policy of conciliation with the political
institutions, which aim to keep the people away from the sovereign
power, weighs heavily on Quebec still today.
Conclusion
The Battle of St. Charles, November 25, 1837 (from painting by Lord
Charles Beauclerk)
The 1837-1838 Rebellion is an important event in the
history
of Quebec and Canada. We must grasp its significance so that we
can understand today's situation and not allow ourselves to be
diverted by the Establishment forces' blackmail according to
which Quebec's sovereignty equals the "destruction of Canada." On
the contrary, establishing a modern state in Quebec on its own
basis remains a necessity, so that the constitutional crisis can
be resolved in favour of the people by breaking the hold on
society of the institutions that were established by repressing
the nation-building project of 1837-38. These are the
democratic institutions based on "reasonable accommodation" --
the arrangements that the British oligarchs considered
"reasonable" so as to strengthen the British colonial rule
established after France's defeat on the Plains of Abraham in
1759, after which Quebec went from being a French colony to an
English colony. British rule divided the people on an
ethnocultural basis and enshrined this division in the Act of
Union of 1840. Since then, the line of divide-and-rule has
served first the British state and now the Canadian state to
impose the dictate of the ruling elites on the people of Quebec
and the people of Canada. It is clear that after the 1837-38
Rebellion, all the Patriots who refused to conciliate with these
so-called reasonable accommodations were either hanged or exiled,
and that the current democratic institutions of the so-called
responsible government, which came out of the infamous Act of
Union, aim to keep the people out of any power-sharing
arrangement. The current situation shows that the cause for which
the Patriots fought in 1837-38 today expresses itself in the
necessity for the working class to constitute the nation and vest
sovereignty in the people so that they can take the decisions on
political, economic, social and cultural affairs, and the issues
of the nation. This is even more urgent at a time when the
governments of Quebec and Canada are intensifying the sellout of
the natural and human resources, looking for ways to establish
new arrangements that facilitate the political, economic and military
annexation of Canada and Quebec to the North America of the
Monopolies, and restructuring the state to serve the most
powerful monopolies within the context of the U.S.
empire-building project. The more they refuse to share power, the
more they speak of "reasonable accommodation."
The result of this nation-wrecking agenda is that the
ruling
elites have plunged Quebec and Canada into an unprecedented
political and constitutional crisis. The refusal of these elites
to open the path to progress for society can be seen in their
increasing attempts to impose the policy of sowing divisions over
language, national origin, culture, beliefs, skin colour, gender
and other considerations. Every day we witness quarrels among
factions who compete to find out who is the best representative
of "Quebec values," who reduce the identity of the Quebec people
to a matter of language, and who divide the polity along
ethnocultural lines so that they can impose a new "reasonable
accommodation" that continues to deny the people their right to
be and their right to decide on the arrangements that they need
to flourish.
In view of these attacks on conscience, the workers and
people of Quebec have choices. One choice is to continue down the path
which the British colonialists started 200 years ago with the conscious
and murderous policy of divide-and-rule, perpetuated by today's elites
in the name of "unity in diversity." The other choice is to look for
the ways to put an end to this situation and to build the fraternal
unity of the peoples on the basis of the recognition and defence of the
rights of all. Only the working class can successfully resolve this
question, by taking up the path of renewal and progress against the
subversion and the block to renewal of the institutions that the ruling
circles promote.
The inciting of passions on the question of language,
ethnocultural differences and values is not aimed at democratic
renewal, but is part of the old British strategy of
divide-and-rule, which is the basis of the so-called democratic
institutions that still deprive the people of their right to
govern. Thus, the task of the working class and people of Quebec
and Canada is to break all efforts of a so-called social
consensus to divide the people on a racist basis. Democratic
renewal is the solution to the 200-year-old problem of the
subjugation of the Quebec nation by the so-called democratic
institutions that deprive the people of their sovereignty.
About Joseph Montferrand
|
Carving of Joseph Montferrand in Mattawa.
|
The
Joseph
Montferrand
Collective,
based
in the Outaouais, is named for
Joseph Montferrand (1802-1864), a raftsman and logger who worked
throughout Lower Canada, particularly in the Ottawa Valley. Known also
as Joe Mufferaw, Montferrand is considered a hero by the working
people, both for his renowned strength and courage and, especially, for
opposing the brutal treatment meted out to the Quebec workers by their
British employers. Jos Montferrand's exploits took place for the most
part in the years preceding the Rebellions of 1837-1838. He first came
to fame in 1818 at 16 years of age, when he stood 6' 4" and weighed 240
lbs. At that time, the British military organized boxing tournaments
around the world on their gunboats, declaring the winner "World Boxing
Champion." In Canada, stationed in the Montreal Harbour, the British
marines would taunt and humiliate the crowds of Canadians, ridiculing
them that they were too inept to face their "World Champion." That
year, young Jos Montferrand took up the challenge, felling the "world
champion" with a single punch. He was declared "World Champion" and
given prize money, but Jos refused the title and gave the money "to
those poor folks who need it." He is immortalized in the songs "Johnny
Monfarleau" by La Bolduc, "Jos Montferrand" by Gilles Vigneault and
"Big Joe Mufferaw" by Stompin' Tom Connors, and many other cultural
works.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
