Federal MPs have included in their farewell speeches to Queen Elizabeth II a veritable glorification of British colonization following the Conquest, offering interpretations of the past that have stunned historians consulted by The duty.
British Columbia Conservative MP Marc Dalton chose to wear black tie in tribute to the late Queen Elizabeth II during a special session in parliament last Thursday. He took advantage of his speaking time to affirm that Quebeckers had the opportunity to join the American Revolution, but gave it up. “French Canadians decided that it was much better to remain a colony under the King and the Parliament of England to safeguard their language, their religion and their freedoms,” he said, making the link with the fact that the late queen liked to speak French.
“That’s really pulling the rubber band. It is false, ”slices Martin Pâquet, professor of history at Laval University. According to him, “several French Canadians” helped the American troops during their incursion into Quebec in 1775.
“It’s brutally rewriting history,” adds his counterpart at UQAM Jean-Philippe Garneau. “When the Americans entered Montreal, it was a fiesta. It was also true elsewhere [au Québec]. If the elite and the lords were numerous to support the Crown, the majority of the population remained above all neutral so as not to risk suffering the vengeance of the British.
Selective memory
A keyword search shows that at least half a dozen federal elected officials made explicit reference to the Canadian history of the 18e and the 19the centuries in their discourse, whether it be about Quebecers, Acadians or Aboriginals. A compilation of these mentions shows that these presentations had in common to glorify the British colonial past, confirm three historians consulted by The duty.
The speeches were held last Thursday and Friday in the absence of the elected representatives of the Bloc Québécois, who chose to leave the ceremony after the minute of silence for the Queen.
This is brutally rewriting history. When the Americans entered Montreal, it was a fiesta. It was also true elsewhere [au Québec].
According to Nova Scotian Liberal MP Kody Blois, a founding element of Canada is “the relationship between the Acadians and the loyalists who arrived in Nova Scotia”, not to mention the deportation of which these first were victims. An oversight that was not corrected by any of his Atlantic colleagues on this occasion.
” It’s shocking. It’s scandalous to say it like that, ”comments historian Jean-Philippe Garneau. “As if everyone was happy to collaborate. Well no, that’s not how it happened. […] Once deported, they [les Acadiens] were not allowed to return to their land. [Et] the royalists came to reinforce the English domination. »
Forgotten betrayals
Of all the words in the dictionary, Ontario Conservative MP Shelby Kramp-Neuman chose “revolutionary cataclysm” to describe the conflict that gave birth to the American Republic.
“The king had made promises to the indigenous peoples around the Great Lakes, and he honored them,” she said, referring to the Mohawk and Iroquois nations, but thanking them with the word Anishinaabe. meegwetch.
The only detail: the British crown has just ended up betraying its territorial promises over the years. “Britain kind of abandoned them,” said Damien-Claude Bélanger, associate professor of Canadian history at the University of Ottawa. “What is true, however, is that the Aboriginal peoples were very important in the defense of Canada at that time. »
“The subtext in all this is that the Empire was correct with the Aboriginals,” said Professor Jean-Philippe Garneau, outraged. He noted that the member wisely used the example of nations allied with the British, ignoring the fact that the crown committed atrocities against other nations, which were enemies to it. Like, precisely, the Anishinabés. “Rendered there, it’s folklorization. We tell great stories. »
Glorifying the Quebec Act
“The Quebec Act for the first time gave religious freedom to Catholics, paving the way for religious tolerance throughout the British Empire,” praised Conservative MP Andrew Scheer, himself trained in history and a devout Catholic. .
Although partly true, this assertion deserves to be nuanced, according to the historians interviewed. “We present the situation as if it were done out of greatness of soul. But at the time, [en 1774]the Quebec Act is essentially a decision based on the interests [de l’occupation anglaise]. It’s to have a colony that works,” explains historian Martin Pâquet.
England was then at the head of a “Protestant empire” which was very inflexible on the religious question – for the Irish, for example -, recalls Damien-Claude Bélanger. “The concept of religious tolerance already existed. There was more tolerance in the Ottoman Empire in the 17the and in the XVIIIe centuries,” he notes.
Whether portraying Loyalists arriving in Canada “like today’s refugees” or citing the royal enthusiasm of former Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, other elected officials presented a mixture of historical facts and interpretations consistent with their ideology. “It shows the uses of the past that we make, to consolidate the present situation”, concludes Mr. Pâquet.
Some elected officials nevertheless delivered more critical speeches, including Cree New Democrat Blake Desjarlais, who called on the Crown to “renounce the colonial concepts that have been used to dispossess [ses] ancestors,” like the doctrine of discovery.