Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

A quick check shows there were actually 2 seigneuries which were included in province of Upper Canada at the time the border was drawn in 1791: the seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal (Moose Point, literally), and the seigneurie of Cataracoui (Cataraqui in English).

The seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal was around the settlement of L'Orignal in Ontario, on the south bank of the Ottawa River, west of Hawkesbury. The seigneurie of Cataracoui was in today's Kingston.

It's not clear that the seigneurie of Cataracoui was continued all the way to 1791. The seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal, on the other hand, still existed in the 1780s, it was the property of Joseph Le Moyne de Longueuil, who also owned some seigneuries in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges area now part of Québec.

From what I understand, it seems they drew the border in 1791 based on the continuous front of French seigneuries. The two most westerly seigneuries were Rigaud on the south bank of the Ottawa River, and Nouvelle-Longueuil on the north bank of the St Lawrence River (which was also owned by Joseph Le Moyne de Longueuil). The seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal was west of the seigneurie of Rigaud, but apparently separated from it by non-conceded, unsettled territory. They could have included it in the province of Québec, but they chose not to.

Joseph Le Moyne de Longueuil sold his seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal after it was included in Upper Canada. He sold it to a US citizen from New York state.

According to a research paper I've just briefly read, they blame the lack of French colonization in what's today Ontario on the fact that the seigneurs established there were merely interested in the fur trade, and never bothered to settle farmers on their seigneuries.

It's a bit short as an explanation though, because the governor in Québec City (or the Church in Montréal) could have conducted some settlement programs in the "Pays d'En Haut" (today's Ontario). They never did, I don't know why. Maybe they didn't want to anger the Indians with whom they traded?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A quick check shows there were actually 2 seigneuries which were included in province of Upper Canada at the time the border was drawn in 1791: the seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal (Moose Point, literally), and the seigneurie of Cataracoui (Cataraqui in English).

The seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal was around the settlement of L'Orignal in Ontario, on the south bank of the Ottawa River, west of Hawkesbury. The seigneurie of Cataracoui was in today's Kingston.

It's not clear that the seigneurie of Cataracoui was continued all the way to 1791. The seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal, on the other hand, still existed in the 1780s, it was the property of Joseph Le Moyne de Longueuil, who also owned some seigneuries in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges area now part of Québec.

From what I understand, it seems they drew the border in 1791 based on the continuous front of French seigneuries. The two most westerly seigneuries were Rigaud on the south bank of the Ottawa River, and Nouvelle-Longueuil on the north bank of the St Lawrence River (which was also owned by Joseph Le Moyne de Longueuil). The seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal was west of the seigneurie of Rigaud, but apparently separated from it by non-conceded, unsettled territory. They could have included it in the province of Québec, but they chose not to.

Joseph Le Moyne de Longueuil sold his seigneurie of Pointe-à-l'Orignal after it was included in Upper Canada. He sold it to a US citizen from New York state.

According to a research paper I've just briefly read, they blame the lack of French colonization in what's today Ontario on the fact that the seigneurs established there were merely interested in the fur trade, and never bothered to settle farmers on their seigneuries.

It's a bit short as an explanation though, because the governor in Québec City (or the Church in Montréal) could have conducted some settlement programs in the "Pays d'En Haut" (today's Ontario). They never did, I don't know why. Maybe they didn't want to anger the Indians with whom they traded?

I guess we almost never hear about the Seigneurie de Cataracoui because it was never really populated or settled permanently. (The Kingston area does have some French history that is not often discussed, probably because the francophone community there is so tiny.)

Regarding the settlement of lands, it's also noteworthy that most areas of Quebec itself to the east of Montreal (just north of the US border) were not initially settled by the French either. And it's a really nice area with pretty good soil for farming and even some micro-climates.

It was originally settled by British Loyalists fleeing the American Revolution and British immigrants, but francophones started moving there en masse in the late 1800s, and today they are 90-95% of the population.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Interesting explanation. I'd be curious to see how far south the seigneurie system extended. I mean, which seigneurie was the most southerly one?

Originally Posted by Acajack

I believe the only seigneurie outside of present-day Quebec (Lower Canada at the time) was at L'Orignal which is on the south side of the Ottawa River west of Hawkesbury, Ontario.

There were some in the Upper Richelieu area (up to near the current U.S. border), which would be more southerly than Hawkesbury.

I'd venture a guess that since navigation on the River stopped at Montreal/Lachine, even if farmland is slightly better over on the landlocked side, it's still not worth the trade-off.

Canada in the New France era was very River-traffic oriented. All cities were ports. The interior (away from "civilization" at the River) was Indian-infested and isolated. Southern Ontario was REALLY remote, even if it had a longer growing season.

But yeah, I suppose that if New France had had a lot more colonists, eventually a critical mass would have been reached to expand the Colony further upriver into the Great Lakes area - like what happened in the land-hungry, way-more-populated American colonies.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

But yeah, I suppose that if New France had had a lot more colonists, eventually a critical mass would have been reached to expand the Colony further upriver into the Great Lakes area - like what happened in the land-hungry, way-more-populated American colonies.

That would have required either more initial French settlers, or 50-100 more years of French sovereignty over Canada. It would be a very different Canada though. Probably it wouldn't have more than 15 million inhabitants today, and most likely BC, and perhaps even the Prairies, would not be Canadian, swallowed by the US.

[New Brisavoine]

Holiday for federal government employees on the day of Queen Elizabeth's funerals, but no such holiday for Québec's government employees said Legault. C'est la vie.

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/c...d-elisabeth-ii

De passage à Montréal mardi, le premier ministre du Québec a rapidement fermé la porte à un jour de congé pour les fonctionnaires québécois ou les autres travailleurs dans la province. « C’est une journée de commémoration, mais il n’y aura pas de journée fériée », a rapidement déclaré François Legault.

Il compte d’ailleurs continuer de faire campagne.

[lio45]

Actually, since the province is Parliament-less at the moment (ongoing election), I don’t think Legault could even make it happen - he’s got no power right now, he’s just a guy running for office.

[New Brisavoine]

There's no gouvernement d'affaires courantes ? There must surely be one, and Legault must surely be its prime minister.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

There's no gouvernement d'affaires courantes ? There must surely be one, and Legault must surely be its prime minister.

Yes, all of our Ministers (including Legault as Premier Ministre) are still legally in their positions right now. They will retain their positions for a few days or weeks after Oct. 3, until the new Conseil des Ministres is sworn in.

[lio45]

Lol, goes to show how much I pay attention to these things. I've always assumed (from the fact that nothing ever gets implemented during electoral campaigns) that the administration of the land (for everything beyond bureaucratic routine) was more formally "on pause" than that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Lol, goes to show how much I pay attention to these things. I've always assumed (from the fact that nothing ever gets implemented during electoral campaigns) that the administration of the land (for everything beyond bureaucratic routine) was more formally "on pause" than that.

It mostly is.

Their powers are maintained primarily in case of emergency: natural catastrophe, foreign invasion, etc. When someone needs to be in charge and make decisions.

[New Brisavoine]

Albertans are the most loyal subjects of the crown it seems. I wonder why that is. Do they know Charles III is opposed to oil drilling?

[MonctonRad]

Quelle surprise!!

At least Parizeau (by Jove) was a monarchist and an anglophile (as long as they stayed in the UK where they belonged).

[lio45]

I’m a monarchist for that reason. If Quebec has to have a foreign, ceremonial Head of State, I’d much rather have Joe Biden than Mary Simon in that role; at least the former won’t ever decide to meddle (as he’s clearly aware of being foreign).

[thurmas]

Quebec polling today CAQ 41% PCQ 19% PLQ 17% QS 10 % PQ 7 %.

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Albertans are the most loyal subjects of the crown it seems. I wonder why that is. Do they know Charles III is opposed to oil drilling?

My people here in Manitoba hate the monarchy too. Vive Steinbach Libre

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Quebec polling today CAQ 41% PCQ 19% PLQ 17% QS 10 % PQ 7 %.

Still looking like a pretty big victory for the Legault CAQ and they will likely pick up seats. The PLQ normally doesn't do as well in polling as in actual votes but I am quite sure that they will still be official opposition but they will lose seats. No other party will get to official party status. The CAQ won 74 out of 125 seats in 2018 and many are predicting the party to win around 100 seats this time.

It's quite a thing to see that the PQ may only win a seat or two. And QS is no longer making small gains like in the last few elections and will likely lose a few seats. While the PCQ definitely has gained supporters, the support doesn't appear to be concentrated in any particular region so the party will be lucky to win even 1-3 seats. They are the up and coming party so it will be interesting to see if they get any type of surge in support after the debates and final campaigning.

[thurmas]

Legault is a modern day Robert Bourassa he hits the sweet spot of where Quebecers are not in love with Canada but not wanting out either. He will likely win 90 to 100 seats.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Albertans are the most loyal subjects of the crown it seems. I wonder why that is. Do they know Charles III is opposed to oil drilling?

The specifics of how the poll was done wouldn't seem to matter, as the results align perfectly with what you would expect from the different regions.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Quebec polling today CAQ 41% PCQ 19% PLQ 17% QS 10 % PQ 7 %.

The numbers still put the Liberals in Opposition, or is it becoming less clear?

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The numbers still put the Liberals in Opposition, or is it becoming less clear?

Would likely still be libs as opposition due to their strength in Montreal. Conservatives are polling around 25% in Quebec City but CAQ is around 43% in Quebec city so they are not strong enough yet to win seats.