Ernest Lapointe and Quebec’s Influence on Canadian Foreign Policy by John MacFarlane (review)

708 The Canadian Historical Review This collective work will interest the historian for the insight it provides into the place ofhistory in the construction ofnational identity among the young. But it is more a work of sociology than history, and the widely different methods that the contributors chose to analyse the surveys' responses make it difficult to draw comparisons across societies. As for the second volume, it consists of eleven reflexive musings on identity, citizenship, and postmodernity. Of the three pieces that deal explicitly with contemporary Quebec, the most intriguing is Gilles Paquet's, a foretaste ofhis provocative 1999 book, Oublier la Revolution tranquiUe. The rest are mostly devoid ofhistorical perspective, and thus of peripheral interest to the readers ofthis journal. JOS~ E. IGARTUA Universiti du Que'bec aMontre'al Ernest Lapointe and Quebec's Influence on Canadian Foreign Policy. JOHN MACFARLANE. Toronto: UniversityofToronto Press 1999· Pp. 270, $45.00 Students ofthe history ofCanadian foreign policy have long focused on the critically important role played by Mackenzie King in developing a· balanced, cautious policy in the interwar years that achieved autonomy, enabled Canada to play a modest role on the world stage through the League of Nations, yet maintained national unity during two highly unstable decades. Much analysis has been done of King's own role, of course, and the strong influence ofO.D. Skelton, his long-time undersecretary ofstate for external affairs. Curiously, little attention has hitherto been given to the role and influence ofErnest Lapointe, who emerged in the early 1920s as the dominant figure in the federal Liberal Party in Quebec and King's closest political ally. In this very interesting and highly readable book, John Macfarlane seeks to fill that gap, attempting to explain to what extent Lapointe changed the direction of Canadian policy from the course that King would have pursued in his absence, and in what ways Lapointe attempted to impose his views on King. To do this, he examines seventeen Canadian foreign-policy decisions taken in this period and concludes that Lapointe significantly influenced all ofthem. Thus, Lapointe strongly pressed King to take an autonomist line during the Chanak crisis, over signing the Halibut treaty, and with respect to defining dominion status at the 1926 Imperial Conference. He also influenced King's attitudes on Article X and the optional clause at the League of Nations, and insisted that Canada seek a seat on the League Council in the late 1920s. He played a critical role in modifying King's responses to the Ethiopian and Munich crises. Similarly, in 1939· it was Lapointe who insisted on the no-conscription pledge when Canada went to war. Book Reviews 709 In these and other instances, Lapointe was able to take advantage of King's dependence on the continued support of francophone Quebec and, increasingly from the mid-192os, Lapointe spoke for that constituency . When necessary, Lapointe was prepared to threaten resignation if necessary, and King always yielded. Thus, while King had the final say, he deferred to Lapointe when he recognized how far Lapointe was prepared to go. Although King and Lapointe eventually agreed on most policies, Macfarlane shows that Lapointe's influence was significant because King, although an autonomist, favoured a much closer connection to Britain than Lapointe, who hoped to cut the ties as quickly and as completely as possible. King would have acted very differently on a number ofissues ifhe had not been pressured by Lapointe, even though he was not above taking the credit for the compromise policies, which usually proved to· be as popular in English Canada as they were in French Canada. Macfarlane claims that a fundamental basis ofLapointe's approachto foreign policy issues was his primary concern, inherited from Laurier, to maintain national unity. He did so by seeking to ensure that francophone Quebec's views were heard and given full consideration in the foreign policy decision-making process. MacFarlane's detailed analysis of the exchanges of views among King, Skelton, and Lapointe makes for fascinating reading. MacFarlane's treatment of specific issues is superficial, however, relying on an apparently limited familiarity with the current literature. His discussion ofthe 1926 Imperial Conference, for example, is weak, including references to...