No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
By The Time of the federal election in April, 1963, most thinking Canadians were probably aware that the unity of their nation was in peril. The main issues before the electorate were the instability of the Progressive Conservative government, Canada's persistent economic problems, and her role in the defense of North America. But many commentators thought that the major question which the new government would face was the failure of Canada's two race to reach a satisfactory modus vivendi.
1 Dion, Léon, “Quebec: A Key Piece in the Canadian Puzzle,” Globe Magazine, 04 6, 1963, 9, 16–17Google Scholar. This article is taken from Professor Dion's Duncan and John Gray Memorial Lectures at the University of Toronto.
2 English is used here as a short form of English-speaking Canadians, the only satisfactory term. Professor Dion's Anglo-Canadians is tendentious; French Canadians tend to neglect the variations in outlook and racial extraction to be found among their fellow countrymen. One wonders what action John A. Macdonald or Thomas D'Arcy McGee (two of the Fathers of Confederation) would have taken if someone had dared to call either of them an Anglo-Saxon.
3 O'Brien, Denis, “Mr. Pearson Gets His Chance,” Tablet, 04 27, 1963, p. 451Google Scholar.
4 MacLennan, Hugh, “One Canada: The Real Promise of Quebec's Revolution,” Maclean's, LXXIV (08. 26, 1961), 14Google Scholar.
5 Toronto, Globe and Mail, 05 10, 1963, 6Google Scholar.
6 Leacock, Stephen, Canada: The Foundations of its Future (Montreal, 1941), p. 102Google Scholar.
7 Gagnon, Jean-Louis, “L'Illusion du Séparatisme,” LondonTimes Supplement on Canada, 02. 26, 1962, vGoogle Scholar.
8 Dion, Léon, “Party Politics in Quebec,” in Party Politics in Canada, ed. Thorburn, Hugh G. (Toronto, 1963), pp. 118–25Google Scholar.
9 Fulford, Robert, “On National Unity,” Maclean's, LXXVI (12. 2, 1963), 79Google Scholar.
10 Forsey, Eugene, “A Centralized Confederation,” TorontoGlobe and Mail, 05 17, 1963, 7Google Scholar.
11 Lee, Betty, “The New Quebec Nationalists,” Globe Magazine, 09. 7, 1963, 6Google Scholar.
12 Since this article was written, the Queen's visit to Quebec City has dramatically emphasized the seriousness of the French-Canadian situation. Outraged British newspapers, which had previously questioned the wisdom of the Queen's venturing into an atmosphere of violence, spoke of a “weekend of shame”: Her Majesty was greeted with boos and with placards telling her to go home, she was snubbed by most of the citizens, and she had to endure the humiliation of being guarded by masses of policemen and soldiers everywhere she went. Yet her stay in Quebec was not entirely unfortunate. When she left the city, it was through cheering crowds; she had made a very favorable impression, especially through her speech to the Quebec Legislature. That speech, revised by the Queen herself but undoubtedly drafted in Ottawa, gave a very good indication of how far the Pearson government was willing to go in conciliating Quebec; it seemed very far indeed, for the Queen said that a dynamic state should not be afraid of rethinking its political philosophy and that it was not surprising that an agreement worked out a hundred years ago should not meet the needs of the present day.
While the Queen was in Canada, a Federal-Provincial conference met to discuss the cutting of the last major constitutional link between Canada and Britain: the British Parliament is to be asked to pass a final amendment to the British North America Act, giving all future power of amendment to the Canadian Parliament. The discussions concerning the procedure for future amendments proceeded very smoothly, chiefly because in contentious areas the federal government yielded to the provinces; it was willing to surrender even its previously established right to pass amendments dealing with purely federal matters. Some constitutional experts declare that this was the best agreement possible in the circumstances, since the powers and responsibilities of the provinces (not only Quebec) have grown enormously in recent years; others maintain that Pearson has imposed a straightjacket of provincial rights upon the constitution. The Progressive Conservatives maintain that Pearson's “cooperative federalism” has now become a meaningless cliché, that he has no point of view, that his goal is that of the uncommitted diplomat who will sacrifice any principle so long as agreement is achieved. Canada may yet have an election on the issue of whether the Prime Minister is “Balkanizing” his country or saving it from fragmentation.