3 ms·

Hello fellow anglophone in Montreal! I too assumed thought that was the reason, but turns out it's not: the party that created this conflict one year in the 197

Hello fellow anglophone in Montreal! I too assumed thought that was the reason, but turns out it's not: the party that created this conflict one year in the 1970s by adding two months to all leases which ended on April 30 is the Quebec Liberal Party, who are federalists. Apparently back then Canada Day, which was then called Dominion Day, was simply less of a big deal than it is now.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
That's a really great point, but I there's no reason that this legislation would 'create' such an outcome, rather it's an influencer. 'Canada Day' has never been a huge deal, which is just fine, but it's definitely 'something'.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  It wouldn't necessarily, but in Quebec's history it did create that schedule conflict - before that there was already a mandatory Moving Day here on May 1 (i.e. ending leases then was required by law), first legislated all the way back in New France colonial times so that landlords didn't force people to move during our harsh winters. The Liberals removed the requirement for specific lease dates in 1974, but they coupled that with a one-time extension to June 30, 1975 of leases that were scheduled to end on April 30 or May 1 of that year, as most were due to the former requirement. Apparently the reasons for the shift were to let schoolchildren finish their school years first, to avoid a time of year with sometimes rough weather, and to let workers move on what was already a holiday (less major then than now) instead of needing to take a day off from work. And I guess they dropped the mandatory aspect since nobody in living memory would have wanted to create such a mandate. If you simply mean that their legislation influenced rather than created the local attitude toward Canada Day, I agree there, although federalists like them wouldn't have acted with hostility toward the Canadian Confederation as a motivation. Quebec was already less gung-ho for that than, say, Ontario. But the disproportionate tendency for Quebec to move on or around July 1 specifically was what the Liberals created with their chosen one-time shift.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Touché

sonnyblarney 8y ago

That's a really great point, but I there's no reason that this legislation would 'create' such an outcome, rather it's an influencer. 'Canada Day' has never been a huge deal, which is just fine, but it's definitely 'something'.

jkaplowitz 8y ago
It wouldn't necessarily, but in Quebec's history it did create that schedule conflict - before that there was already a mandatory Moving Day here on May 1 (i.e. ending leases then was required by law), first legislated all the way back in New France colonial times so that landlords didn't force people to move during our harsh winters. The Liberals removed the requirement for specific lease dates in 1974, but they coupled that with a one-time extension to June 30, 1975 of leases that were scheduled to end on April 30 or May 1 of that year, as most were due to the former requirement. Apparently the reasons for the shift were to let schoolchildren finish their school years first, to avoid a time of year with sometimes rough weather, and to let workers move on what was already a holiday (less major then than now) instead of needing to take a day off from work. And I guess they dropped the mandatory aspect since nobody in living memory would have wanted to create such a mandate. If you simply mean that their legislation influenced rather than created the local attitude toward Canada Day, I agree there, although federalists like them wouldn't have acted with hostility toward the Canadian Confederation as a motivation. Quebec was already less gung-ho for that than, say, Ontario. But the disproportionate tendency for Quebec to move on or around July 1 specifically was what the Liberals created with their chosen one-time shift.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Touché