September 14, 1968
Quebec City, QC
5:32 PM
Legislative Assembly, Premier’s Office
Daniel Johnson was exhausted after the morning’s caucus meeting, feeling older than his 53 years. The Premier had been heavily pressured to compromise on a burning policy question which threatened Quebec’s fragile political environment. His concern was not really a Liberal Party which had never regained its footing since he defeated them in 1966, but a nationalist flank whose enthusiasms were reaching a fever pitch. Language was not a file Johnson felt the time was right to tackle, but the public felt quite differently. For months he had followed 100 North Montreal students become a province-wide flashpoint, a situation he deplored. Nonetheless, the premier’s advisors almost to a man believed that without his intervention, the party would be in grave political peril. Johnson himself remembered how in 1947 Maurice Duplessis had felt obliged to retract a right-to-work law due to ecclesiastical objections. He had been a 32-year-old freshman MLA and had never forgotten how his mentor had been forced into one of his career’s very few public concessions. It was this episode which the premier had in mind while conferring with his inner Cabinet that fateful day.
Jean Lesage, René Lévesque and Daniel Johnson in conversation, 1968.
“At bottom, this is not a really grave problem because there are no more than 100 Italian students who must change from English to French schools.” Education Minister Jean-Guy Cardinal had been in Cabinet since his 1967 appointment to the Legislative Council, a body which was set to pass into history at year’s end. The 43-year-old academic was a newcomer to politics, a staunch nationalist who fervently believed in cultural integration. To him a compromise was not only good politics but good policy. The premier’s planned immigration reform was something Cardinal strongly supported. “It is not a question of numbers, but of rights” Johnson snapped, irritated that Cardinal had not taken the hint at caucus. Deputy Premier Jean-Jacques Bertrand was even more annoyed: “Fundamental rights are not to be toyed with”, he snarled. The justice minister’s opinion was that all Quebecers had absolute freedom of educational choice; something he wished Johnson would legislate and thus end this noxious debate. Finance Minister Paul Dozois’ view was closer to Cardinal’s even if he sympathized with Bertrand, his fellow federalist. “We need to compromise on St-Leo, the public’s too far gone for keeping English as their language of instruction. French as the language of instruction, increased dose of English as a second language, we try this as a district experiment. Would this require more than a ministerial decree, Jean-Jacques?” “I’ll have to confirm that with my department, but I do not think more would be required. “ While the 3 ministers debated, Johnson slipped into his conference room for a quick huddle with Maurice Bellemare. The veteran House leader confirmed that while members outside Montreal were uninterested in language, they overwhelmingly desired a speedy resolution. Johnson’s final decision would be announced at the next Cabinet meeting.
Education Minister Jean-Guy Cardinal holds a press conference, October 6, 1968.
MARIO BEAULIEU, CHIEF OF STAFF TO DANIEL JOHNSON: That decision is one he never really forgave himself for making. Daniel had been as adamant in caucus or Cabinet as he had been with me, but ultimately he was persuaded when I said if we were doing this on immigration, it must be done on language. I never managed to persuade Daniel of the need for a comprehensive language law. One language debate was more than enough for him, and I don’t think his health – fragile as it always was in those days – would have held through such an intense debate. Ultimately the decision he made was correct, which even his antagonists on both sides will now admit.
PIERRE LAPORTE, CHIEF OPPOSITION WHIP: When we heard Johnson make that announcement, I believe it was October 5 [7], we were frankly astonished. Lesage was briefed extensively but refused to support the government. On other language matters like second language instruction we were in firm agreement. There were many Liberals, myself among them, who felt that the time of absolute choice was ending. Perhaps we were foolish to believe that this question could be dealt with in an environment of our choice – had St. Leonard not erupted there would have been another district. I have always felt sorry for the kids who became a political football through no fault of their own.
After Cardinal issued his decree October 6, St. Leonard’s crisis finally began to wane as the “100 Italians” reluctantly entered their high school, now a French-language institution. Tensions between Italian and French district parents would remain high for the rest of the 1968-9 school year as the language debate simmered at a lower level. Submerged by St. Leonard that fateful month was a political event which would have important repercussions for both the Union Nationale and Liberal parties, one which had been building for a year.
Language demonstration in St. Léonard, QC. (Sept. 26, 1968)
“My only problem with the government’s proposal is its lack of universality.” René Lévesque's opinion of Cardinal‘s Decree 11051 was one shared by many nationalists of all political stripes. The former Liberal minister was deeply committed to Anglophone educational rights, so much so that he had enshrined it as a founding principle of his newly founded Parti Québécois. Nor had he been surprised at Liberal hedging on this question – he knew how divided his former caucus mates were. Lesage had opposed the government’s decision but said he would welcome an upcoming royal commission on language. For his part, Levesque believed Lesage’s stance was politically helpful for his infant party. Leftist nationalists had gotten Lesage’s 1967 message loud and clear, and now the Liberal leader would reap the whirlwind.
November 26
Quebec City
110 Grande Allee
Union Nationale HQ
“Exactly what I want to see, great work by all of you.” Johnson was relieved to see how well the party had been faring financially ever since he had tasked them with reorganization back in September. “$9.2 million and change, maybe we hit 1-0 by New Year’s.” Andre Lagarde, the UN’s chief organizer, was immensely proud of that haul. For the first time since 1960’s trauma they were approaching Duplessis-era fundraising levels with all the doors such sums opened. While a small donor base was a work very much in progress, Lagarde was confident such a base would be available by election time. “How has recruitment been going since our last talk?” “As well as expected. Jean and I are working on a couple of candidates for Liberal ridings – I have not gotten them quite to the interview stage for you yet but it’ll be done in January.” “Excellent, excellent. When they’re ready, let me know immediately. In the meantime I want that constituency report as Christmas reading, understand?” “Yes sir.”
MARIO CARDINAL: The end of 1968 was when the Legislative Council passed into history and the Legislative Assembly became the National Assembly. Both parties had committed to abolition at the previous election, but we had to give them quite undeserved compensation for that. All these mostly elderly gentlemen left public life. Our dilemma was finding a seat for M. Cardinal, who would now need to be in the Assembly. In exchange for guaranteeing its incumbent a future seat, I managed to place M. Cardinal in St. Hyacinthe – the by-election would be held in early March. For the interim he left Cabinet until his election. At that time we were all focusing on the budget and ensuring the CEGEPs were functioning properly in this first phase. The fiscal objective was making deeper cuts so we could reduce the suffocating Liberal tax burden – Daniel told Paul that he wanted room for tax cuts by election year. That we accomplished without much of a problem, especially after higher than expected resource revenues.
PIERRE-MARC JOHNSON: At the end of 1968 my father was more relaxed than he had been that entire year, as relaxed as he could be given his physical condition. He decided not to resume sitting until early February, officially because Paul [Dozois] needed more time on the budget but unofficially because he needed more rest. It had been a banner year for us politically even if my father still regretted his decision on St. Leonard. He worried he would be seen as unprincipled. He planned to visit Paris in the spring once budgeting had been dealt with. Over Christmas he told me the next project was broad-based tax cuts rather than boutique ones as some people in Finance had wanted. At the time our main focus was Levesque, since we did not know who would lead the Liberals in 1970 but mostly because they were hardly in fighting shape. The left wing had simmered down over that year but it was clear they wanted someone more sympathetic as Lesage’s successor – an error which would haunt them later.
Shout out to Brainbin, CT, Dan and Plumber for their help and encouragement.