Thinking big, 150 years ago
Canada created itself to save itself, writes John Boyko
Anniversaries are invitations to reflect on the past and ponder the future. ... What of the old fear? ... What of the old vision? ... What of the old tradition? ... What would Sir John say? More importantly, on our collective anniversary, what do you say?
John Boyko
One hundred fifty years ago this week, John A. Macdonald arrived in Charlottetown to create a country. He led a delegation from Canada that was, in September 1864, a dysfunctional amalgam of what are now the southern bits of Ontario and Quebec. They were crashing a previously arranged meeting of delegates from New Brunswick, P.E.I, and Nova Scotia who were gathering to discuss a possible Maritime union. The Canadians wanted them to think bigger. We owe it to ourselves to consider what they created.
Confederation had been discussed and dismissed for years, but changes in the United States and Britain meant that to save itself, Canada had to create itself. America had fallen into Civil War. Canada and the Maritimes were officially neutral, but sympathized with and gave assistance to the Confederacy. As a result, American newspapers and even Lincoln hinted that when the war ended, the Northern army would turn north. Britain had dispatched 11,000 troops to the border, but a powerful group of British politicians were questioning the cost of that defence and of imperialism itself.
Canada resembled a teenager whose parents were kicking her out of the house. She wouldn’t move in with the neighbours because their house was on fire. She needed to build a new house. The architects met in Charlottetown. They pledged to surrender partisanship for the greater good.
The United States was the world’s first and most successful manifestation of John Locke’s 18th century Enlightenment ideas. But the men in Charlottetown believed that while the sentiments were noble, the Civil War was demonstrating that America’s attempt to create an enlightened republic was a blazing failure. They channelled Irish nationalist and British Member of Parliament Edmund Burke. He believed that governments should not be based upon temporary popularity, which he equated to shouts from a mob, but on tested and respected tradition. Facts and the circumstances of the day should dictate reasonable solutions; decisions should never be based on blind adherence to an ideology. With admiration for Burke
They saw provinces as municipal in nature and restricted their power
and Britain and with America as their negative example, they envisioned Canada.
Power, they said, should not rest with the executive — they derided the American president as a four-year dictator — but with Parliament. Through free elections, they argued, the people should not pick a prime minister or even a government. Rather, voters should create a House, and the House would choose the government according to which group could earn support. Members of Parliament must not be delegates merely echoing the views of their constituents, but thoughtful free thinkers.
The Senate must be appointed, to keep it illegitimate, so that real power remained where it belonged — in the House. The struggle for states’ rights had led to the Civil War, so they insisted that the federal government alone speak for Canada. They saw provinces as municipal in nature and restricted their power to areas on a short, proscriptive list. The British monarch should oversee it all as Head of State.
Anniversaries, and Monday’s 150th was one of significance, are invitations to reflect on the past and ponder the future. Canada was born of fear, vision and tradition. What of the old fear? The Americans may not be ready to bomb us anymore, but have they bought us? What of the old vision? A democratic state locates power to best serve the nation, but are we happy with where power has been relocated? What of the old tradition? Should we pursue our sovereignty by eschewing the sovereign? What would Sir John say? More importantly, on our collective anniversary, what do you say?