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: 07 November 2014
The purpose of this paper is to sketch briefly some aspects of Bourassa's political and social thought and to indicate in particular a few of the influences shaping his complex mentality. With the historical detail of his public career, and of the Nationalist movement which he led in the first two decades of this century, the paper is not directly concerned. Nor is any attempt made to reach a final estimate of his influence or significance in Canadian politics.
The difficulties in examining Bourassa's ideas are many and arise not only from his radical temperament and tendency to over-statement. They spring also from his great sensitivity to the intellectual and emotional currents of his day which found expression in innumerable pamphlets, speeches, and editorials in his newspaper of ideas and combat, Le Devoir, founded in 1910. Difficulties are implicit in the complicated nature of the task he sought to perform. For he set out, at the turn of the century, and with a sense of the opening of a new era in the historic development of the French-Canadian people, to re-examine every aspect of his people's situation; political, social, economic, moral, religious, and intellectual. He proposed to expound principles basic to their social thought and action in a new set of circumstances.
Three main elements in the new era were of special concern. First was the impact upon Canada of the new imperialism, opening up prospects of direct involvement in imperial wars in an age of mounting imperial rivalries, and threatening, moreover, so he believed, to undermine toleration of cultural and ethnic difference in Canada. A second major change in circumstance was the rapid development after 1900 of the Canadian West on the basis of a large immigrant population of diverse peoples, posing grave difficulties to the achievement of the ideal of a dual nationality throughout Canada. Finally, he became much concerned with the deeper significance to French-Canadian nationality of the whole complex of adaptations—ideological, moral, economic, and social—being made in response to the coming of North American urban industrialism to the province of Quebec.
This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in London, June 4, 1953.
1 Among the founders of the League were Olivar Asselin, Omer Héroux, and Armand Lavergne.
2 See for example, Le Devoir, Sept. 3, 1910, “French-Canadians have experienced such profound changes through the force of arms and accidents of history in their national situation, their political constitution and social state, that they have, so to speak, clung fast to the Papacy as the most stable of institutions governing men.”
3 See the article by Bourassa on the tenth anniversary of Tardivel's death in Le Devoir, April 26, 1915, “If I seek the origins of some of my ideas I have no difficulty in finding them in the articles of Tardivel, and even more perhaps in our too infrequent conversations.”
4 La Vérité, April 2, 1904. See also ibid., April 15, 1905, “… perhaps we may be permitted to suggest a solution to the problem, that is, to repartition the Dominion on a new basis, subdividing it into two or more confederations.” See also Tardivel's, Pour la Patrie (Montreal, 1895).Google Scholar
5 Le Nationaliste, April 3, 1904. Both citations may be read in Maheux, Abbé Arthur, “Le Nationalisme canadien-francais au l'aurore du XXe siècle,” Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report, 1945, 68–9.Google Scholar See also Asselin, Olivar, A Quebec View of Canadian Nationalism: An Essay by a Dyed in the Wool French Canadian, on the Best Means of Assuring the Greatness of the Canadian Fatherland (Montreal, 1909)Google Scholar, a pamphlet of 61 pages dedicated to “The Great English Race.”
6 Le Devoir, ses origines, sa naissance, son esprit (Montreal, 1930), 3.Google Scholar See also some comments on Bourassa's early politics by his father in Bourassa, Napoléon, Lettres d'un artiste canadien, col. Bourassa, Mlle Adine (Bruges, 1929).Google Scholar “Imagine the multiple horrors of your aunt! She thought she had raised a chicken but finds an eagle under her wings. … He is everywhere in action, neither sleeping nor staying at home, running from one assembly to another, speaking tariff, free trade, reciprocity, misery of the people, etc., etc.” (p. 368). See pages 456–7 for the advice to conduct his politics “without ill-will to Laurier, and inspiring and holding the confidence of moderate English opinion in the manner of Lafontaine.”
7 Le Devoir, Oct. 14, 1943, in the first of ten souvenir addresses.
8 Some details are in Le Devoir, Oct. 14, 1943, and in Chamberland, Abbé Michel, Histoire de Montebello (Montreal, 1929), passim.Google Scholar
9 L'Interprète, Oct. 12, 1893. The newspaper was sold in 1894 and reappeared on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River at Clarence Creek as Le Ralliement. Bourassa continued to contribute articles, particularly in support of the Laurier-Greenway school settlement in Aianitoba. See the issue of February 20, 1896. “We have always said, and say again, that Mr. Laurier could achieve a better and more effective result by his conciliatory attitude than the Government could ever achieve by its sterile blusterings.” See also the issues of May 23, 1895, January 23, 1896. The author wishes to express his thanks to Mr. Rosario Gauthier of Papineauville for the opportunity of reading a collection of these two newspapers.
10 See Le Devoir, Oct. 14, 1943; House of Commons Debates, 03 13, 1900, p. 1830.Google Scholar
11 See Chamberland, , Histoire de Montebello, 258 Google Scholar; Le Devoir, Oct. 8, 1910.
12 See La Paix romaine (Montreal, 1929)Google Scholar; Le Devoir, Oct. 14, 1943.
13 Though the restraining influence of religion was always present it was more apparent after his audiences with the Pope in 1922 and 1926. He was always prepared to submit to ecclesiastical discipline. See Le Ralliement, Jan. 28, Feb. 6, 1897; Religion, langue, nationalsté (1910); La Presse catholique et nationale (1921). He condemned such extremist nationalism as that of Maurras and the Action française. See Le Devoir, Nov. 24, 26, 1923. See Le Devoir, ses origines …: “Since then [1926] I became persuaded that light comes from Rome, not only in the order of truths of faith and morals … but even in the solution of political and social problems … and in logical consequences. … I took the resolution to obey the Pope and follow his counsels, even when his directions or advice might run counter to my ideas or those of my friends, political associates, or of my compatriots.”
14 La Langue, gardienne de la foi (Montreal, 1918), 8.Google Scholar
15 See L'Infaillibilité doctrinale du pape, fondement de son autorité sociale (Montreal, 1920)Google Scholar; Le Pape, arbitre de la paix (Montreal, 1918)Google Scholar; Le Devoir, Nov. 24, 26, 1923, “Patriotisme, nationalisme, imperialisme.”
16 See Bonenfant, Jean-C. and Falardeau, Jean-C., “Cultural and Political Implications of French-Canadian Nationalism,” Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report, 1946, 62.Google Scholar
17 See La Langue …, 42, 49; Le Canada apostolique, 17, 164, and passim; Hier, aujourd'hui, demain (1916), 122 Google Scholar; Le Devoir, May 13, 1919.
18 House of Commons Debates, 01 12, 1926, pp. 78, 79.Google Scholar “I would far rather secede from Great Britain and remain British in spirit, than remain and go on as we are, British in name, but Yankeefied in spirit, morals, and habits, and becoming more so from day to day.”
19 Le Devoir, Aug. 11, 1910; Great Britain and Canada: Topics of the Day (Montreal, 1902), 44.Google Scholar
20 House of Commons Debates, 03 13, 1900, p. 1828.Google Scholar
21 Great Britain and Canada, 19.
22 Ibid., 5: “The only point of real dispute between both parties is which of the two will eat the biggest piece of jingo pie.” See also Le Devoir, April 23, 1917: “The leaders of the two parties have for a long time been the instruments of British imperialism and of English high finance. Their differences of attitude for almost twenty-five years have been superficial.” Also Le Canada, nation libre? (Montreal, 1926), 9 Google Scholar: “Since his death, the old nationalist spirit which guided Sir John and all those who surrounded him has disappeared.”
23 See Le Devoir, Oct. 20, 1921; Dec. 4, 1919; April 25, 1917; Aug. 15, 1917. La Langue …, 9.
24 See House of Commons Debates, 03 14, 1928, p. 1334 Google Scholar; Le Nationaliste, March 27, 1904; Le 5e Anniversaire du Devoir (Montreal, 1915), 70.Google Scholar It was a “profound error” to believe political parties essential to the parliamentary régime.
25 Conscription (1917), 38.Google Scholar
26 Le Devoir, Dec. 10, 1919: “It has brought us to deify men…. At the same time there operated among us a confusion between authority and the men who exercised it. … The Protestant environment has atrophied the Catholic social sense. … We acquired the habit of neutrality and laicism.”
27 See Impressions d'Europe (Montreal, 1938), 26 Google Scholar; La Propriété, ses bornes, ses abus (Montreal, 1925), 27.Google Scholar
28 L'Infaillibilité doctrinale du pape, 73.
29 Le Pape, arbitre de la pair, 20. See also, Femmes-hommes ou hommes et femmes? (Montreal, 1925), 42 Google Scholar: “From the moment that the ideal state of society is found in the electoral and parliamentary system, and that the pivot and end of social order is found in the human individual … then one ends logically in the Protestant, rationalist, and individualist conception.”
30 House of Commons Debates, 01 12, 1926, p. 83 Google Scholar; Feb. 2, 1926, pp. 646–7; March 14, 1926, pp. 13–35; Feb. 14, 1927, p. 289; June 15, 1926, p. 4506; Jan. 22, 1935, pp. 104–6.
31 See House of Commons Debates, 03, 1898, p. 2704 Google Scholar; Feb. 19, 1935, p. 987; Femmes-hommes ou hommes et femmes?, 24–5; Le Devoir, Feb. 23, Nov. 9, 1923.
32 Conscription, 41; See also Le Devoir, Nov. 11, 1911; ibid., Jan. 2, 1918: “I do not say that the plebiscite or the referendum is an ideal mode of government or even of popular consultation. I limit myself to saying it is better, and above all more sincere, than the kind of consultation that can be had on a concrete question, by a parliamentary election.”
33 See Le Devoir, Jan. 13, 1910; Oct. 23, 1911: “Parliament has not received from the people the moral right to engage us in a new policy whose ultimate consequences will necessarily affect the autonomy of Canada, its world-wide relations, the security of its commerce and industry, the resources of its people, and the lives of its sons.”
34 See House of Commons Debates, 03 13, 1900, p. 1821 Google Scholar; July 28, 1899, p. 8891; Le Devoir, Feb. 18, 1910; June 1, 8, 9, 1911; Conscription, 29.
35 See Le Nationaliste, Oct. 11, 1908.
36 See La Propriété, ses bornes, ses abus, 8–10, 20.
37 See La Patrie, Aug. 14, Sept. 3, 1907; Le Nationaliste, May 31, 1908.
38 House of Commons Debates, 1906–1907, vol. I, pp. 1177–81.Google Scholar
39 See Le Devoir, Aug. 1, 8, 12, 14, 15, 1914, “Les Syndicate chrétiens de Belgique,” written while in Europe, and pointing to the chaotic social scene in England in contrast to the general stability of the relatively egalitarian socio-economic structure in Belgium. See also Religion, langue, nationalité, for an appeal to follow the path laid out by Pope Leo XIII, the “Pope of the Workers.” See also Syndicate, nationaux ou internationaux (Montreal, 1919), passim.Google Scholar
40 See Syndicats, nationaux ou internationaux, 25.
41 See House of Commons Debates, 03 26, 1926, p. 952 Google Scholar; also Feb. 14, 1935, pp. 850–7, for remarks on the dangers inherent in the Unemployment Insurance Bill of that year. See also Une Mauvaise Loi, l'assistance publique (Montreal, 1921), 1–2, 22 Google Scholar, in which an Act of the Quebec legislature providing for assistance and regulation of certain charitable works was held to “accelerate family and social disorganization” and to be a certain step toward “detestable state socialism.”
42 House of Commons Debates, 01 30, 1934, pp. 108–9Google Scholar; March 20, 1934, pp. 1645–61; Feb. 2, 1938, p. 1724; April 15, 1931, p. 626.
43 See La Tresse catholique et nationale, 35–8, 52–5; Le Devoir, Nov. 16, 1918.
44 See Les Ecoles du Nord-Ouest (Montreal, 1905), 2 Google Scholar; La Langue française et l'avenir de notre race (Montreal, 1913)Google Scholar; Le Devoir, July 28, 1913.
45 See La Langue française au Canada: ses droits, sa nécessité, ses avantages (Montreal, 1915), 45 Google Scholar; Le Devoir, July 6, 7, 1915; also French and English: Frictions and Misunderstandings (Montreal, 1914).Google Scholar
46 See Hier, aujourd'hui, demain, 131; House of Commons Debates, 03 9, 1927, p. 1048.Google Scholar
47 Le Devoir, Sept. 8, 1914.
48 House of Commons Debates, 02 7, 1928, p. 239 Google Scholar; June 4, 1929, p. 3237; April 1, 1935, p. 2289. See ibid., May 23, 1928, p. 3340: “The geographical position of Canada is such that there is less risk for Canada in standing squarely for a peace and disarmament policy than there is, not merely for any other British country, but for any other country on earth. … more practical results are to be derived, not by mere verbal assertion … but by proving in fact that what we say we mean; that we disarm, first because we do not believe in war, and second, because we do believe that the position which Canada occupies enables us to take that stand.” See also The Possible Role of Canada in International Arbitration (Montreal, 1913).Google Scholar
49 See Hier, aujourd'hui, demain, 165, 168.
50 House of Commons Debates, 04 1, 1935, p. 2286.Google Scholar
51 Hier, aujourd'hui, demain, 168–170; House of Commons Debates, 03 29, 1927, p. 1692 Google Scholar; Feb. 19, 1929, p. 274; April 1, 1935, p. 2289; Grear Britain and Canada, 47.
52 Le Devoir, Sept. 8, 1914.
53 The Duty of Canada at the Present Hour: An Address Meant to be Delivered at Ottawa in November and December, 1914, but Twice Suppressed in the Name of “Loyalty and Patriotism” (Montreal, 1915), 44.Google Scholar
54 See Great Britain and Canada, 4: “Military contributions from the colonies to Great Britain in men and treasure, but mainly in men, constitute British Imperialism.”
55 Le Devoir et la guerre: le conflit des races (Montreal, 1916), 15.Google Scholar
56 Le Devoir, Jan. 3, 1918. See also Le Devoir, April 23, 1917: “The Canadian Government and Parliament without violating any principle or tradition and while reserving all future eventualities could have decreed the participation of Canada as a nation for the defence of higher interests threatened by the Germanic coalition. Our governors did not see fit to do that. … They have persisted in stamping our intervention with the marks of British imperialism. … It is for the Empire we fight.”
57 Le Devoir et la guerre: le conflit des races, 12.
58 Le Devoir, June 17, 1916. See La Prochaine Guerre imperiale, en serons-nous? (Montreal, 1920), p. 21 Google Scholar: “The triumph of world-wide Anglo-Saxonism—English or American—would give the last and fatal blow to the religious, social, and political order established by the victory of Christianity over Paganism.”
59 L'Intervention americaine (1917), 45.Google Scholar See also Hier, aujourd'hui, demain, 105–7; and Conscription, 12, 17. Also Le Devoir, March 27, 1917 in which Bourassa noted that if Canada's fate were indeed bound up with that of Britain, then the government had the duty of raising the requisite number of soldiers by conscription should voluntary methods fail.
60 Conscription, 17. Le Devoir, June 28, 1917.