QUÉBEC: By area, Quebec is the largest province and the second-largest administrative division in Canada. Their official language is French, and Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly French Canadian, and where English is not an official language at the provincial level. The name “Québec” (variations in spelling include Quebecq, Kébec), which comes from an Algonquin word meaning “strait” or “narrowing”, originally meant the narrowing of the St. Lawrence River off what is currently Quebec City. The first French explorer to reach Quebec was Jacques Cartier, who planted a cross either in Gaspé in 1534 or at Old Fort Bay on the Lower North Shore. He sailed into the St. Lawrence River in 1535 and established an ill-fated colony near present-day Quebec City at the site of Stadacona, a St. Lawrence Iroquoian village. Samuel de Champlain was part of a 1603 expedition from France that traveled into the St. Lawrence River. In 1608, he returned as head of an exploration party and founded Quebec City with the intention of making the area part of the French colonial empire. Champlain's “Habitation de Quebec”, built as a permanent fur trading outpost, was where he would forge a trading, and ultimately a military alliance, with the Algonquin and Huron nations. Natives traded their furs for many French goods such as metal objects, guns, alcohol, and clothing.
New France became a Royal Province in 1663 under King Louis XIV of France. This portion of North America was soon a focal point of the French and Indian War, and by 1756 France and Britain were battling the Seven Years' War worldwide. After the fall of Nouvelle-France, the French surrendered their North American possessions to Great Britain through the Treaty of Paris (1763). The British Royal Proclamation of 1763, which was the first constitution granted to the colony by the British Government, defined the new territory — essentially the St. Lawrence Valley — and renamed it the Province of Quebec. Thus began the first British policy of assimilation, which was deemed a failure. In 1774, fearful that the French-speaking population of Quebec would side with the rebels of the Thirteen Colonies to the south, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act giving recognition to French civil law, Catholic religion and French language in the colony. By the Quebec Act, the Quebec people obtained their first Charter of rights. The English were actually somewhat magnanimous in their treatment of the Québécois (in stark contrast with the brutal deportation of the Acadians from Nova Scotia that had taken place in 1755). Though they were allowed to keep their religion and language, they could not hold public office unless they converted to Protestantism, which for the Catholic Québécois was out of the question. It is important to note that with the Treaty of Paris (1783), which settled the issue of the American Revolutionary War, the Province of Quebec diminished in size because England ceded all of its lands south of the Great Lakes (the Ohio Valley) to the new United States of America. The Constitutional Act of 1791 (London's answer to the American Revolution with regard to the administration of its North American colonies) divided the former Province of Quebec into two parts: Upper Canada (the precursor of modern-day Ontario) and Lower Canada. Toward the end of 1837, part of the population was highly critical of how the political elite governed these colonies. The growing resentment, which was the result of a number of factors, finally pushed Upper Canada and Lower Canada into an unsuccessful rebellion which remains controversial to this day. Seeking an end to British-appointed colonial rule, the rebels turned increasingly toward violent revolt. A series of clashes between armed resistance groups and the loyalist militia lasted until 1838. After the insurrection was quelled, a commission headed by Lord Durham was convened to investigate the factional strife in the Canadas. His report, which made a number of controversial recommendations, was greeted with enthusiasm by reformers, especially since it called for the assimilation of the French-speaking population. Another outcome took place in 1840, when the two provinces were merged by the English regime in order to form a united Province of Canada; the 2 sections were then referred to as Canada West (Upper Canada, or Ontario) and Canada East (Lower Canada, or Quebec). The union, however, proved contentious. The formation of the Confederation of Canada came about in 1867, when the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the British North America Act. The Fathers of Confederation elected to call the new country the Dominion of Canada, after rejecting “kingdom” and “confederation”, among other options. French was given status as official language in the federal government and in the provincial government in Quebec.
Until about 1890, French Canadians had lived by agriculture and seasonal work in the timber trade. By 1921, Quebec was the most urbanized and industrialized of all Canadian provinces (though Ontario remained the most populous and the wealthiest). At the beginning of the 1950s, two-thirds of the Quebec population already lived in urban centers, while the agricultural population made up only one-fifth of the population, decreasing to 11 percent at the beginning of the 1960s. As more English-Canadians (anglophones) began to move into Quebec with the onset of industrialization, Quebec found itself with an anglophone minority largely controlling a linguistically, culturally, and religiously distinct majority. Because the French Canadians had always resented the English conquest of Quebec, this situation was bound to cause ongoing friction between the two groups. Fearful of assimilation carried out by the traditional elite, the Québécois have always felt that their culture — the very separateness of their society — had to be defended because it was in danger of disappearing. Thus, over time, Quebec — a community manifesting a historical, linguistic, religious, and economic unity — has witnessed the phenomenal growth of its separatist movement, or of the independence movement as the nationalists like to call it (those in favor of independence vacillate between terming it “sovereignty” and “independence,” but the two terms are considered to be synonymous; the term separatist is often used by non-sovereigntists). In fact, the nationalist current has continually influenced Quebec. Nationalism is a constant of Quebec history. It has been sustained by the will to preserve and affirm the membership of a collectivity (a people and a nation) and its ties to its given territory. The forms adopted by these movements have, of course, varied significantly over time. Nevertheless, it has affected every social, economic, and political current that touches Quebec society. At various stages, Quebeckers became seekers of workable methods with which to express their unassailable, non-negotiable sentiment of membership. The widespread debate about Québécois separatism is the culmination of centuries of constant tension between English-Canada and French-Canada. In a sense, French Canadians inside Quebec are a nation within Canada; they speak a different language and, as a result, they perceive the world differently from English Canadians. Therefore, many Québécois have maintained a perennial desire to have their own nation-state, which in a sense they had possessed from 1791 to 1841 (prior to the formation of the Province of Canada).
Professor Claude Bélanger (http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/events/natpart4.htm) has traced, in a superbly succinct manner, the history of Quebec nationalism: “it is apparent that nationalism has been a major force in Quebec history. First, the British colonial links, and later the issue of the survival and development of the nation, have fuelled nationalism in Quebec. It is also clear that, properly speaking, there is no such thing as Quebec nationalism. In fact, there have been various forms of nationalism, each corresponding to a different definition of the nation. In this respect, we have distinguished three main forms.” The first was the “Canadien” nationalism of the Patriotes, dominant before 1840. “This form of nationalism was especially progressive, tolerant and inclusive. It was also very popular. The changes that occurred at the time of the Rebellions of 1837-1838, and of the Union Act, rapidly led to the rise of ultramontane nationalism (clerico-nationalisme). The nature of the nation changed significantly, it became the French Canadian nation. This nation was a minority nation, and in the nationalist universe, it was confronted with considerable threats. It centred on the defence of the three pillars of survival”. The three all-important pillars (which characterized the nation and had to be preserved if the nation was to last) are that of faith, that of language, and that of the institutions — the latter consisting of legal (French civil law), familial (large family, traditional role of the mother) or societal (seigneurial system, classical colleges, co-operative movement) elements. These 3 mainstays — Notre foi, notre langue, nos institutions — had originated from the motto/slogan found underneath the title of Le Canadien, a Quebec City newspaper that had started appearing in 1806. Combined, the triple pilasters were what ensured the survival of the people and served to distinguish them from others. “They defined the distinctiveness of Quebec in the North American context and served as rallying points for the community. As long as French Canadians would stay faithful to these three pillars, they would continue to exist as a separate entity, as a people.” The neo-nationalists were now rejecting much of those “sacred” traditions which had been considered indispensable to the maintenance of French-Canadian culture. They were defining the nation in secular terms, and the focus on religion (the parish and the Church) was downplayed and replaced by socio-economic interpretations instead. “The nation was in a miserable state and the nationalists offered various solutions for curing the many ills that afflicted it. These nationalists were not very successful, frequently preached in the desert, and often had to repeat the same thing; they were confronted with the existential question as to how best to assure the survival of the nation. To a large extent they were prepared to stay in Canada.” But as Quebec evolved, opposition grew towards the solutions proposed by the “French Canadian” nationalism of the ultramontane period. In his analytical essay, the historian goes into great detail in regards to the complex historical antecedents which guided the steady evolution in the nationalistic mentality of Quebeckers (or Quebecers). “The Great Depression of the 1930's, and the war that followed it, set into motion a slow but profound re-evaluation of nationalism in general, and of ultramontane nationalism in particular…The devastating effects of the depression on the well-being of the people of Quebec seem to have demonstrated the accuracy of the many criticisms made by the nationalists of industrialisation, urbanisation and the type of economic world which dominated the province. The effect of these problems was to radicalise a good portion of the youths, to bring the long-standing liberal regime governing the province into discredit and, eventually, political defeat, to make the nationalists pay closer attention to social problems, to question the anti-statism that had characterised the past, as many would turn to the governments to alleviate the problems, turn to political action to achieve social and national goals.” Between 1945 and 1960, the nationalists discovered the state. The emancipation of the French-Canadian nation would be made possible through the appropriation of the only instrument that could act on behalf of the collectivity, namely, the state. This statism was in sharp contrast with the prerogatives of the earlier period. Therefore, a new type of nationalism emerged in the 1960s: the Québécois nationalism. There would be numerous statist initiatives, with few areas excluded. The newcomers, who incorporated socio-economic issues as part of their system of thought (unlike the ultramontane nationalists, who also paid attention to these issues, they were not limited by Catholic social doctrines in their search for possible solutions), gained popularity as “social-democratic” nationalists. Theirs would rapidly become the dominant form of nationalism in Quebec. “Many of the ideas of the past were discarded.” In shedding the strongly ethnic components (and racist features) that defined the earlier nationalism, the new cement which united the nationalists became primarily the territorial element, focused on Quebec. Previously, the territorial element had not been so important; the nation had been defined — in religious and linguistic terms — as French Canadian, and since French Canadians had been scattered all across the continent, then it could not have a precise territorial element. This had been a major problem for the separatists of that period, as separatism can hardly be achieved if it is not tied to a precise territorial context. The separatists had resolved this by either calling the proposed independent French Canadian state something like Laurentie (a sort of borderless and therefore impossible state) or else, as in the case of Abbé Groulx (considered by a small minority to be “the spiritual father” of modern Quebec), their independent state was only really a “state of mind”. Now, with the new nationalism, all the denizens of Quebec (francophones, anglophones, allophones, as well as various native groups) became part of the nation. The embracing of multiculturalism posed problems of its own. Because no one was excluded, the nation was thus extremely diverse and in dire need of unifying components (to this end, the French language — eventually understood by about 94% of the population of the province — indeed qualified as a unifying characteristic). “An inevitable corollary of territorial nationalism, of focusing the nation on Quebec, was that the nationalists ceased to see the nation as a minority nation. If the nation was the Quebec nation, then the Québécois were a majority nation. If it was a majority nation, it was likely to act as if the social, economical and political institutions of Quebec were an extension of its will, and would be the instruments for its advancement and security.” Inevitably, the emergence of Quebec neo-nationalism drastically affected the provincial government’s relations with the central government. This shift in the credo of Québécois would greatly “alter the relationship that existed between the Quebec nation and the rest of the people of Canada,” who were relegated to also form a nation of their own (outside of Quebec), based on the cosmology of the social-democratic nationalists. “The new nationalism was secular, more tolerant and open, on the left, with considerable social preoccupations. It challenged Canada in ways more serious than anything done previously. It was primarily separatist and received growing support among francophones, although it made very little inroads among anglophones and allophones and was strenuously opposed by both groups. Thus, at any one time, there was a dominant form of nationalism in Quebec. This nationalism was frequently in reaction to the earlier nationalism” and each of these seemingly subtle changes of nomenclature reflects, in fact, a huge alteration in the nature of the nation. “However, it should not be deduced that earlier forms of nationalism and attitudes did not survive to compete with the dominant form.” Despite its evolution over the past decades, the new forms of the nationalist ideology continue to borrow from previous expressions. The complex nature of the autonomist discourse has thus been gradually transformed not necessarily resulting in a radical rupture with the past.
There is little doubt that the postwar era witnessed a remarkable awakening of a Québécois sense-of-self. It was becoming more and more apparent that two nations did incontestably exist in Canada. Quebec society was gradually undergoing considerable changes in the 20th century, moving away from its agrarian, Catholic, and conservative past and becoming increasingly urban and middle class. The Second World War had accelerated the rural exodus in Quebec and firmly planted the economy of the province in the industrial and resource sectors. The emigration of French Canadians to the United States ended after the war. The war seemingly finished the vast socio-economic transformations that the process of industrialization had begun in Quebec early in the century, and it would’ve been laughable to make speeches about agriculture being the way of life of the French Canadians. By degrees, the rural community had given way to a confident, cosmopolitan society that has many of the attributes of a modern nation. Regardless of their political leanings, Quebeckers have come to see themselves as a unique people with a culture worth preserving.
The dominant ideology in Quebec is nationalism, and partisan activism has been the means for promoting knowledge of Quebec’s uniqueness within Canada. The creation of sovereignist parties in Quebec was enough to channel dissatisfaction of French-Canadians with federal policy proposals. Partisan political activity was therefore the primary means used by the sovereignist forces to promote their cause. With this in mind, the first contemporary organization dedicated to the political independence of Quebec seems to have been the Alliance Laurentienne, which founded by Raymond Barbeau on January 25, 1957. In spite of the fact that the roots of Quebec's desire for self-determination can be traced back as far as Lower Canada’s Patriotes Rebellion, the sovereignty movement of Quebec is generally considered to have started in the 1960s with the Quiet Revolution (some observers also point to July 24, 1967 as the precise moment when the modern separatist movement began in earnest. At the time, Montreal was hosting the mammoth World’s Fair, and visiting French President Charles de Gaulle created an international controversy when he shouted “Vive le Québec libre!” — “Long Live Free Quebec”, a slogan that was well known as the rallying cry of the Quebec independentists — from the balcony of Montreal city hall, drawing anger from the Canadian government and the adoration of separatists). This is the name given to a period of Quebec history extending from June 1960 to June 1966 and corresponding to the tenure of office of the Parti libéral du Québec (PLQ) of Jean Lesage, who took power in Quebec after the 1960 provincial election. He defeated the conservative government of Premier Maurice Duplessis, whose Union Nationale had dominated Quebec politics since 1944; they had tried to keep Quebec agrarian and conservative, but the pressures to reform were too strong. During this period, French Canadians were both underrepresented and relegated to inferior echelons of the bureaucratic hierarchy. Provincial autonomy was presented by Lesage not as a means of limiting the pernicious influence of Ottawa, but rather as a means of political, economic, and social restoration of the French-Canadian “people”. He even indicated that Quebec should play the role of “mother country” for francophones outside the province. The Quiet Revolution was a period of extensive liberal activism which brought sweeping changes to the region (its progressive achievements — all designed to modernize Quebec society — include the decline of Anglo supremacy in the Quebec economy, the transformation and improvement of the social and educational infrastructure, reform of the labor code, controls on corruption, limiting the influence of Catholicism in most political and secular activities, the nationalization of the province’s hydro-electric power companies and consolidating them into a government-owned Hydro-Québec). The period of the Quiet Revolution permitted the realization of a juncture between the growth of statist activity and the consolidation of collective identity. This state nationalism not only spearheaded the reforms put into place throughout the 1960s, but also left an indelible image on nationalism of the 1970s and 1980s. There were other important groups which came about during this fertile period. On September 10, 1960 the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale (RIN) was established (it became a provincial political party in 1964). On August 9 of the same year, the Action socialiste pour l'indépendance du Québec (ASIQ) was formed by Raoul Roy. The “independence + socialism” project of the ASIQ was a source of political ideas for the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), which was founded in February of 1963 by three RIN members who had met each other as part of the Réseau de résistance (which was set up in November of 1962). Other groups include: the Comité de libération nationale (October 31, 1962), the short-lived Parti républicain du Québec (founded shortly after the November 14, 1962 Quebec general election, by RIN member Marcel Chaput), and the more conservative Ralliement national (RN) became a party (1965).
With the Union Nationale's return to power in 1966, the extremes in opinion widened in Quebec and began to crystallize. Certain cleavages in Quebec's politics could be seen between the federalist Liberals (who thought that any reforms could be obtained within the current federal system) and the fundamentally federalist Union Nationale (which firmly stressed the importance of remaining Québécois and of obtaining greater provincial power). From the left fringes of this rift, a movement — based on the tenet that Quebec would never be able to realize its goals within the federalist system, or within Canada — began to emerge. They commenced pushing for independence from Canada. This was evidenced by a series of events which would have far-reaching ramifications for all Quebeckers. The first one took place in October 1967, when former PLQ cabinet minister René Lévesque left that party after it refused to discuss sovereignty at a party convention. That year, the outlook adopted by the influential Lévesque — that French/English equality was not possible — led him to form the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association, which later became the Parti Québécois. The aims of the MSA combined two concepts: the achievement of sovereignty for the Quebec state, and the creation of a political and economic association between this new independent state and Canada. The hyphen between the words “sovereignty” and “association” was often stressed by Lévesque and other PQ members, to make it clear that both were inseparable. The very use of the word “sovereignty” and many of the ideas of this movement originated with the MSA. Lévesque then set about uniting pro-sovereignty forces. He achieved that goal in October 1968 when the MSA held its first (and last) national congress in Quebec City. That year, the RN and MSA agreed to merge, giving birth to the Parti Québécois (PQ), with a platform of secession from confederation; later that month Pierre Bourgault, leader of the RIN, dissolved his party and invited its members to join the PQ.
During this period, the social ideas of the FLQ became progressively radicalized, shifting into socialism or Marxist ideology. Their adherents linked the fight against oppression caused by Anglo-Saxon economic and political institutions to the struggle for national liberation. Some of these revolutionaries, inspired by the Cuban Revolution and by refugees from Algeria, started to instigate numerous acts of terrorism. In 1963, they began a campaign of sporadically planting bombs across the province, including at the Montreal Stock Exchange. They also used Molotov cocktails to damage symbols of political power (military installations, mailboxes, government offices). Most French and English Canadians felt this mode of action was “un-Canadian,” but it illustrated both the social ills of Quebec. In October of 1970, the actions of this terrorist movement culminated in the kidnapping of the British trade commissioner, James Cross (who was later released unharmed), and Quebec's Minister of Labour, Pierre Laporte (who was subsequently murdered). Though the destructiveness was the product of a marginal group, the government of Quebec still requested help from the federal government. This crisis led to a forceful response and prompted Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to declare martial law in Montreal and suspend some civil liberties. Even though it was later shown that the FLQ had but a handful of members (35 is often given as the number), the federal government still exploited the “October Crisis”. Citing a suspected insurrection, it used the War Measures Act to grant the police exceptional powers of detention and arrest. Some 500 people were taken into custody, and troops were moved into Quebec. The Canadian public (both francophones and anglophones) generally approved of Trudeau's actions and viewed the self-proclaimed FLQ as a rogue band of extremists, which they were. In all, nine people were killed (including Laporte) by this cell of terrorists. Despite this, few convictions followed, except of those accused of the murder of Laporte. We now know that the FLQ did not have a structured organization, that its actions were largely improvised, and that it never constituted a political threat. Nevertheless, its existence allowed those holding political power to mount a campaign of disinformation suggesting that a real threat existed, in order to delegitimize the nascent sovereignist movement. The positive outcomes of the Quiet Revolution surely played an important role in the creation of a social climate that did not lend itself to the explosion of conflict. Overall, tensions permeating Quebec-Canada relations have not produced violence over the past few decades, despite the political rhetoric that often stresses the divergent interests between the two. The francophone and anglophone communities have maintained a peaceful management of their well-known hostilities, and disagreements have not led to calls for violence over issues of power or injustice towards minorities. Moreover, numerous initiatives of the Quebec government over the past four decades improved significantly the socio-economic conditions of francophones (who historically were subject to economic, cultural and social discrimination; to be sure, prejudice has not totally disappeared from the landscape, but it is less of a factor for most francophones), which eased tensions considerably. The federal government noticed the growing dissatisfaction of many Québécois, responding with policies and programmes that in part addressed this displeasure (notably the Official Languages Act of 1969).
The Parti Québécois, the standard-bearer of integral nationalism, became the Official Opposition to Premier Robert Bourassa's Liberal Party government in 1973. On November 15, 1976, Lévesque (architect of the upcoming sovereignty vote) and the PQ won control of the provincial government for the first time. The Péquiste government instantly introduced measures to strengthen and protect the use of the French language in the province, making it the official language of government and the courts, as well as encouraging the francisation of public institutions and businesses (all shop signs in Quebec must have French twice as large and twice as prominent than English). Most infamous was the 1977 passage of the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101), which in addition to restricting English-language education, obliges the children of immigrants to attend French-language public schools. Not only did Bill 101 pursue the bold objectives of previous language legislation, but it clearly confirmed the determination of the Quebec government to make the Quebec territory the principal seat of North American francophony. Bill 101 took on a symbolic value of primary importance for the Québécois collectivity. It helped stabilize society and reassured Quebec francophones against the real or imaginary threats that perennially endangered their language and that represents the determining element of their collective identity. Bill 101 reduced one of the great francophone fears, one that has constantly sustained nationalism, namely, the fear of linguistic assimilation.
The question of sovereignty-association (rather than outright separation) was finally placed before the voters in the 1980 Quebec referendum. Sixty percent of the Quebec electorate voted against the proposition. The Parti Québécois had raised expectations that it could only partially satisfy, and their power declined. At the social level, the defeat of the Péquiste project translated into an important demobilization of the nationalists. The sovereignists were in retreat and became preoccupied by other concerns. The neo-liberal turn of the state throughout Quebec society indicated to many that Quebec nationalism was out of breath. Even though 40% of Quebeckers had voted oui, the result was a searing setback for the nationalist cause. This caused serious damage to nationalist ideology and to the intellectuals who were its principal spokespersons. The Quebec intelligentsia was thus silenced. But the failure of the referendum had other significant consequences. At the symbolic level, nationalist rhetoric lost its credibility. At the political level, the federal government exploited the referendum result and at the same time discredited the Quebec claims issued over the preceding twenty years in order to carry out its centralization plan. At a 1985 Péquiste policy convention in Montreal, a majority of delegates voted not to fight the next election on the question of sovereignty. This led to many enraged hard-line delegates walking out of the conference. Soon after, Rene Lévesque resigned as Premier and leader of the PQ. Nevertheless, the failure of two major constitutional negotiations (in 1990 and 1992) gave new life to the independence movement. When the Parti Québécois (now headed by Jacques Parizeau) returned to power in the 1994 election, the stage was set for a second referendum on sovereignty to take place. The sovereignty law began to be drafted almost immediately. Three political parties — Parizeau's PQ, the Bloc Québécois (formed on July 25, 1990) led by Lucien Bouchard, and the Action Démocratique du Québec (formed on January 6, 1994) led by Mario Dumont — agreed on a final law and to hold referendum on the question, which differed from the 1980 question in that the negotiation of an association with Canada was now optional. The referendum was finally held on October 30, 1995. The vote was even closer than the 1980 referendum. This time, though a clear majority of French-speaking Quebeckers voted in favor of sovereignty, it was rejected by a slim majority (50.6% NO to 49.4% YES). Parizeau resigned as leader of the PQ and Quebec Premier one year later and was replaced by Lucien Bouchard, who in turn resigned as Premier and leader of the Parti Québécois in 2001.
In one of UNESCO’s International Journal on Multicultural Societies (Vol. 4, No. 1, 2002), François Rocher presents an extremely insightful case study, entitled The Evolving Parameters of Quebec Nationalism, about the Québécois conflict. Part of his article discusses the thesis that Quebec nationalism, which flourished in the 1960s, “was in decline during the 1980s.” The author points out that this phenomenon could be explained by the new role of the Quebec state that was beginning to emerge, one which favored the growth of the private sector and a “reconfiguration of nationalist ideology”. The relative “retreat” of state nationalism could therefore be “explained by its own success. By improving the position of francophone Quebeckers within the economy and the raising of their social status, the Quiet Revolution and what followed had in part fulfilled the wishes expressed by the new middle class. These aspirations found their ideological foundation in a new nationalism”, which has been described as “market nationalism”. Moreover, the transformation of Quebec nationalism has redefined the Quebec state’s role in the Canadian economy. He points out that “Few societies can claim that, in the space of one generation, they eliminated such a wide and entrenched gap between incomes earned by anglophones and francophones.” In the 1990s, all sorts of Québécois businesses controlled by francophones enjoyed financial success. Accordingly, there was a dramatic rise in the symbolic status of the economic elite, who therefore “became the tenors of the collective identity.” The “business class and its overseeing organisations have become the new spokespersons for the interests of the Québécois collectivity.” On the whole, they’ve “preferred political stability to important changes which are inevitable carriers of economic instability.” Many Quebeckers did not hide their support of the continentalisation of the economy. “At the political level, they favoured accommodations within the framework of Canadian federalism rather than its profound transformation.”
In light of this unprecedented mercantile prosperity, who will be entrusted with keeping the sovereignist project alive? According to GlobalSecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/quebec.htm), “Recent events have led some to question the future of the sovereignty question. One would be that the coming generation of young Quebecois does not remember the time when the Quebecois were almost treated as second-class citizens virtually unable to use French in public places. Since the language laws passed in the 1970s protected the use of French in Quebec, Quebecois have achieved, at the very least, equal status in Quebec. The sense of anger that fueled the first two referendums has accordingly dropped. Another issue is that of Montreal, which is increasingly bilingual and multiethnic and not the separatist hotbed that it was…The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois both say that the sovereignty question is not off the table and will wait until the time is right before holding another referendum.”
In terms of Québécois coinage, we are indebted to Mr. André Faivre. Though his numismatic activities began in 1992, he didn’t launch his Montreal-based enterprise — Les Monnaies du Québec (MQ) — until a couple of years later. It was then, at the end of 1994, that the original “1 Lys” die was engraved. It features the phrase “Fiertés et Traditions d’un Pays” (Pride and Tradition of a Country) and one-half (“to represent the unachieved struggle of a nation toward its autonomy and its national sovereignty”) of a fleur-de-lys, the national emblem of Quebec. At the outset, Mr. Faivre and his firm originally intended to work in collaboration with two distinct groups in Quebec. “The first Issue project supposed to be mint using the ‘1 Lys Fiertés et Traditions d’un Pays’ was proposed in 1995 to the ‘Le Parti Québécois’. My goal was to help the fund raising for the referendum. Then later, in 1997-98, a second project was discussed with ‘La Société Saint Jean-Baptiste de Montréal’ (member of ‘Le Mouvement national des Québécois’) to celebrate the Quebec Flag 50th anniversary. Neither reached a positive decision.” Even though — for reasons beyond his control — those plans did not work out, Mr. Faivre decided to continue with his important project anyhow. As a result, the first official medallion made with the Lys die was the “Pax” piece. Though the coin is dated 1994, it was struck in 1995. The word “peace” is presented in 5 different languages: English and Celtic (to commemorate the peace agreement between the U.K. and Northern Ireland), Hebrew and Arab (to mark the peace accord between Israel and Palestine), and German (to memorialize the reunification of Germany). A special nickel-silver version (12 pieces) was minted and offered to: Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom; Mr. John Gerard Bruton, Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland; Mr. Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor; Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Prime Minister; Mr. Yasser Arafat, Palestinian President; Mr. Shimon Peres, Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs; Mr. Ahmed Ali Muhammed Qurei (or Qureia/Q'raia; also known by the honorific Abu Ala/Abu Ala’a) Palestinian Minister of Economy and Trade; Mr. Jacques Parizeau, Prime Minister of Quebec. Mr. Serge Huard and Mr. Faivre’s father also received one apiece; the remaining two are in the possession of MQ.
The Lys series, as it was originally conceived, would’ve also included larger denominations as well, such as 5 Lys and 10 Lys. To date, however, only the 1 Lys pieces have been produced. I was told by Mr. Faivre (in November/December 2006) that in all, these consists of 12 different varieties (as of October 2008, there are 6 additional issues). All of them share the same “1 Lys” obverse, but each reverse is unique: 5 of them were designed by MQ, and the remaining 7 were graciously lent to Mr. Faivre by either of their respective designers, Mr. Serge Huard or Mr. Jérôme Remmick (depending on the die). Another major piece in the Lys series is the “Je Me Souviens” (I Remember, Quebec’s national motto) medallion, which was produced in December of 1997. It depicts a geographical map of Quebec with an incuse fleur-de-lys at its center (the image is based on a coin that’d been struck from a die designed by M. Robert Ayotte in 1987). I had learned about the “Je Me Souviens” piece years ago, at the Unrecognised States Numismatic Society newsgroup (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnrecognisedStatesNumismaticSociety/), where several articles from Atalaya (a philatelic publication hailing from Sweden) had been uploaded by a fellow Charter Member. In that magazine, Mr. Serge Huard (the legendarily peerless numismatist who has been connected with the creation of some of the most prized and sought-after coins of the type favored by USNSers) penned the Cinderella Coins and Currency and Numismatic Section segments. Thus, from about 1991-99, this renowned gentilhomme-numismate (about whom further information can be found in my Araucania-Patagonia, Vinland-Midhgardhr, and Wikingland listings) introduced many of us to all sorts of rare “coins-of-tradition” and “coins-of-pleasure”. In issue #47 (1998), Mr. Huard tells us that in the aftermath of the second referendum on the independence of Quebec, “the interest in the ‘patriotic’ or independantist numismatic issues issued during the last decade…has been growing tremendously…One of these ‘patriotic’ memorabilia recently appeared…in the Montreal area. This new numismatic issue is a superb…1 Lys (one of the projected denominations for an independant Quebec) coin-of-tradition.” He proceeds to provide a nice description of this piece, accompanied by a large image of it as well. The piece is undated: “The year of issue is not inscribed on the piece, but we believe it was struck around the months of September or October of 1997.” The denomination, 1 Lys, “is theoretically equal to one Canadian dollar”. So even though I was now aware of the “Je Me Souviens” piece (and I’d begun searching for it everywhere), I did not know that it actually belonged to a larger grouping until a couple of years afterwards, as a result of my eventual correspondence with Mr. Huard himself. Even so, many more months passed until I finally stumbled upon Mr. Faivre’s newly-created Web-site (http://lesmonnaiesduquebec.com/) and was able to add the “Je Me Souviens” piece to my collection. It turns out that Mr. Faivre had never marketed or sold this piece to the general public, which absolutely explains why I never saw a single specimen for sale anywhere. I purchased two additional Lys medallions directly from Mr. Faivre as well: the “L’Édifice de l’Assemblée Nationale à Québec” (designed by Mr. Huard to commemorate the 1992 bicentennial anniversary of their Parliamentary Institutions) piece and the “Saguenay” piece (designed by MQ to commemorate the catastrophic 1996 flooding of that river). The “Saguenay” die was made (and a die-sample struck) in 1999; the “L’Édifice de l’Assemblée Nationale à Québec” die was probably also made that year. Referring to each of these pieces, Mr. Faivre informed me that “your coin will be the first one ever mint of that issue.” To my surprise, apart from pre-production samples — “To strike a first sample from one die is not the same thing than to strike the first coin of an issue using that die (and another one)” — 4 of the Lys pieces had heretofore never been minted (which further clarifies why I hadn’t been able to locate a sole example of any of them). As a gift, I was then given a bronze “Paul Chomedey, Sieur de Maisonneuve” (designed by MQ to commemorate this founder and first governor of Ville-Marie, which was destined to become the most important trading post in New France and the future city of Montréal) piece. This version of the “Paul Chomedey” die was made in 2004 (there was a slightly different version made in 1997), and it became a Lys medallion that same year. Lastly, I purchased a couple of non-Lys pieces: a Sûreté du Québec “1 Chêne” (“First police Coin of Tradition issue in the World”; a couple dozen of these pieces were used as presentation pieces by its Director), and a 10e Groupement Aérien Tactique (undated) “1 Dollar” (“First military Coin of Tradition mintage in Canada”). Dies for the Sûreté du Québec piece were cut in 1996, but the undated coin was actually minted in 1998; dies for the 10e Groupement Aérien Tactique piece were cut in 1997, and the coin (dated thusly) was also minted that same year.Return to the Main Index