A national capital in progress
Russell Mills defends Ottawa against criticism directed its way by Andrew Cohen,
Carleton University professor Andrew Cohen says Canada’s National Capital Region is an ersatz capital city — that is, an artificial and inferior substitute, like flour made from potatoes.
This attitude has roots in Canadian history. When a location for a permanent capital was being debated in the 1850s, Ottawa was the smallest and least developed of the five cities on the short list of possible capitals. The others were Kingston, Montreal, Quebec and Toronto. Ottawa was a lumber town of fewer than 8,000 people with unpaved streets.
When Queen Victoria decided that Ottawa was to be the new capital in 1857, no doubt the word “ersatz!” flashed through the minds of many people in the other four cities, or would have, if the word had existed in English then. As it was, they just grumbled and wrote letters to the editors of their newspapers complaining about the poor choice of the Queen and her advisers.
Ottawa had the strengths of being on the boundary between Upper and Lower Canada, a safe distance from the U.S. border and accessible by rail and canal. It was also the second choice of many in the larger cities who would have even been unhappier if one of their major rivals had won.
Cohen sets the bar high and compares our National Capital Region unfavourably with London, Paris and Washington. Our capital has never had the advantage of being the business and cultural focus of its country, like London or Paris, so this may be a bit unfair. It was also not a purpose-built capital like Washington with broad avenues carved out of a swamp and large, new buildings to house the government of a fastgrowing nation.
Ottawa had just its muddy streets, saw mills, a few churches and countless drinking establishments for the lumbermen. There was no room for broad avenues, just a set of Parliament Buildings. It was a modest start for the capital of the country that was to become the second-largest on Earth.
If Ottawa was “ersatz” in those days, it was not unlike Canada, which developed as a chain of former colonies linked by a railroad in defiance of natural north-south trade routes. Many Americans thought Canada was not a real country. They were confident that the U.S. would eventually take over the land to the north as part of its manifest destiny. During the War of 1812 former president Thomas Jefferson famously predicted that the conquest of Canada would be “a mere matter of marching.”
Fortunately for us, our artificial country with its ersatz capital had some staying power.
Since the 19th century, the National Capital Commission and its predecessors have worked with municipal governments, the private sector and volunteers to build a National Capital that is worthy of Canada. Most agree that our old lumber town has become a very desirable place to live. We also want to build a national capital on both sides of the Ottawa River that all Canadians will want to visit. That is a work in progress.
Most Canadians are impressed by visits to the capital. If you want to hear their reactions, walk along the streets with visitors and listen to their comments after they have seen the Mosaika sound and light show on Parliament Hill. Most of them don’t even seem to notice that they are walking on durable pink concrete paving rather than more fragile and costly pink granite.
Cohen finds the extensive renovation of the Museum of Nature with its spectacular, light-filled “Queens’ Lantern” front to be “underwhelming.” I doubt that many would agree. And I would be surprised if many patrons of the National Arts Centre think they are in a “Stalinist detention centre” when attending a concert or theatre production.
Cohen makes some useful points, however, and we hope his critique will inspire us to do better. Some new museums, exciting architecture and improved infrastructure would encourage even more Canadians to visit their capital and renew their pride in being citizens of our great country.