Scott W. See. The History of Canada. Second Edition

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

A view of Yonge Street, one of Toronto’s most important commercial thoroughfares, in the early 1890s.

Source: Library and Archives Canada / Andrew Audubon Merrilees Fonds / PA-166917

by 1900 was becoming one of the world’s great producers of wheat

and other agricultural products.

The United States, riven by Civil War and grappling with

Reconstruction, quickly filled its own interior, decimated its Amer-

indian population, and pressed for expansion beyond its continental

borders. All presented Canadians with formidable challenges for

survival in the swiftly changing world of the late Victorian era.

The Impulse for Confe deration

The political parties that developed in the British North American

colonies presented a range of positions from conservative supporters

of elite rule to reformers advocating more democratic self-governance

within the context of the British Empire. Others promoted closer ties

to the United States, but they failed to gather widespread support.

Out of this complex political framework, coalition governments

formed and fell. The most important political debate, one with roots

in the late eighteenth century, was over colonial unification.

Reformers, with the modest support of British-appointed gover-

nors such as Lord Elgin, succeeded in establishing the principle of

having colonial legislation originate from elected assemblies. In

Nova Scotia the reformers under newspaperman Joseph Howe and

politician James Boyle Uniacke created a ministry for responsible

government in 1848. During the same year, Robert Baldwin and

Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine forged a political partnership —the

“great ministry”—that reformed the political and judicial system of

the Canadas. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and New-

foundland soon followed. To many historians this expression of

domestically controlled politics signified one of the cherished

principles of Canadian development: the evolutionary emergence

of a nation without a violent revolution.

Contemporary political parties focused on raising funds to pay

civil servants, build roads, improve waterways, construct railroads,

and develop educational systems. While politicians advocated ideas

that reached across the political spectrum in all the colonies, the

political landscape of the Canadas was particularly instrumental in

providing a foundation for two of the country’s most important

The Impulse for Confederation 91

modern parties. Tories, conservatives with ties to the Loyalists and

the powerful Anglican church, continued to exert some influence

in the period. Yet with the introduction of a more democratized

principle of governance, the number of moderate reformers increased.

Under the guidance of George-Étienne Cartier, a former rebel and

railroad promoter, the bleus in Canada East brought together

moderate reformers and Tories. A rising lawyer from Canada West,

John A. Macdonald, organized a coalition with Cartier by the mid-

1850s under the party banner of the Liberal-Conservatives. This

party, the antecedent of the current Conservative Party of Canada,

became the champion of colonial unification.

The other key political party to emerge in the mid-nineteenth

century had closer ties to more radical reformers from the rebellions

and people who advocated a form of governance that was closer to the

American model. The Parti rouges, under the leadership of Antoine-

Aimé Dorion, wanted to undercut the influence of the Roman Catholic

church. The rouges formed a tenuous connection with reformers in

Canada West known as “Clear Grits.” George Brown, the Scots-born

editor of Toronto’s Globe, advocated the party’s p olicies. The Grits

supported universal male suffrage, the secret ballot, and elected

representation based on population—popularly referred to as “rep by

pop.” Despite the fact that many Grits, including Brown, regularly

criticized French Canadians, the 1850s saw attempts to join forces with

the rouges in order to gain enough support to combat the Liberal-

Conservative/bleu coalition. The Grits and rouges created the

foundation of the modern Liberal party. Canadians still refer to the

Liberals as the Grits, especially in print.

An impetus arose to seek a greater unification of the various

colonies in British North America out of this complex political

party development, an event called Confederation. Although British

North Americans had discussed this idea periodically since the late

eighteenth century, various factors account for the emergence of

Confederation in the 1860s. A “Great Coalition” of key political

figures, including Macdonald, Cartier, and Brown, sought an effective

means to move beyond party differences and complicated procedural

rules that had virtually crippled the passage of important legislation in

the Canadas. The union concept overlapped with similar discussions

taking place among politicians and newspaper editors in the Atlantic

colonies.

92 The Impulse for Confederation

Another feature that made union attractive was the desire on the

part of political leaders, financiers, and railroad developers to expand

into the West. Canadians had long known, and the Oregon controversy

reinforced this point, that the forty-ninth parallel was an imaginary line

that might not contain American Manifest Destiny indefinitely. The

Red River settlement, for example, was most easily reached overland

from St. Paul, Minnesota. The colony of British Columbia, a legacy of

the Hudson’s Bay Company formed in 1858, seemed an appropriate

Pacific outlet to many British North Americans. Scientific expeditions

in the late 1850s had determined that although a section of the prairies

was semi-arid, vast expanses were suitable for settlement because of

their potential for farming and raising livestock. Finally the Hudson’s

Bay Company, facing diminished markets in Europe and illegal trading

that cut into its profits, was pressured into considering the sale of

Rupert’s Land. The time seemed ripe for British North Americans to

obtain possession of the interior, but capital and leadership were

necessary to bring the West firmly under the control of easterners.

Economic developments underpinned the discussion for colonial

unification. Reciprocity with the United States, a fairly successful

trading arrangement, was endangered by Britain’s relationship with

the Confederacy during the American Civil War (1861–1865). With

Americans threatening to let reciprocity lapse, British North Americans

envisioned the creation of a trading zone—or customs union—among

the British colonies. Moreover, many of the individuals pushing for

Confederation invested both financially and emotionally in the great

vision of the day: railroads. After the development of short railroad

lines in the 1830s, two of the most notable lines constructed before

Confederation were the St. Lawrence and Atlantic and the Grand

Trunk Railway. The former opened in 1853 as the first international

railway; it connected Montreal with ice-free Portland, Maine. A bold

endeavor sponsored by the Canadas to open rail traffic to the

Great Lakes region, the latter ran into considerable difficulties. With

bankruptcy and political tensions plaguing railroad developers,

politicians such as George-Étienne Cartier desired a unified federal

system to facilitate the construction of railroads that would fully

interlink the eastern colonies and present an opportunity to open the

West for settlement and economic exploitation. Crafted in the age

of railroad development, Canada’s constitution in 1867 included

passages that addressed the completion of an intercolonial railroad.

The Impulse for Confederation 93

Events in Britain provided yet another important motivation to

develop a federal scheme in Canada. Endowed with the world’s

strongest industrial complex and largest commercial fleet, the British

moved aggressively away from mercantilism and toward free trade in

the nineteenth century. Canadian discussions about Confederation

coincided with a relatively brief period called “Little England,” during

which Britons considered colonies expensive to protect and not cost-

effective. British North America seemed to make the case for imperial

detachment. Staples produced in the colonies could be easily obtained

from other sources through international trade, and many British

thought the time had come for the colonists to defend themselves.

Troubled relations with the United States provided the remaining

essential impulse for Confederation. The debates for Confederation

transpired during the Civil War, a grisly conflict that tore the fabric

of the United States and strained Anglo-American relations. British

North Americans mostly sympathized with the northerners and

antislavery interests, and thousands volunteered to fight in the war.

British public opinion divided in its support of the Confederacy, but

for a time the desire to retain southern cotton to supply Britain’s

textile mills created tensions with the North. Actions on the high seas,

including the damage inflicted by Confederate raiders such as the

Alabama that had either been constructed in Britain or supplied in

British North American ports, further aggravated relations between

the British and the Union. Moreover, the integrity of the international

border was sorely tested during the war. American deserters and draft

evaders skipped across the border seeking refuge, and a dramatic raid

from Canada East by Confederate raiders in 1864 to rob banks in

St. Albans, Vermont, caused great anti-Canadian sentiment among

northerners. With depressing familiarity, some politicians called for

the seizure of British North America to remove a long-standing

irritant. Although the crises eventually passed, the souring of Anglo-

American relations suggested to British North Americans that a

stronger federal union was needed for defensive purposes.

The Confederation Debates

The various political ideals, economic issues, international tensions,

and nationalistic dreams combined to create the context for colonial

unification in the 1860s. A planned meeting among Maritime political

94 The Impulse for Confederation

leaders to discuss a regional union took place at Charlottetown, Prince

Edward Island, in September 1864. A contingent from the Canadas,

spearheaded by Macdonald, Cartier, and Brown, seized the opportu-

nity to forward their case that an even wider federal alliance of the

colonies would be beneficial. Charlottetown’s brief conference, which

included eloquent arguments to meet again for a more comprehen-

sive discussion, nevertheless continues to receive recognition as the

birthplace of Confederation.

Delegates from each of the six British colonies east of Canada West

hammered out the terms for Confederation a month later at Quebec

City. With great dispatch, the representatives came up with seventy-

two resolutions. One of the liveliest debates centered on the nature of

the proposed union and the balance of power between the provincial

and federal governments. The participants used the term Confedera-

tion to characterize their union plans. Their resolutions became the

core principles embedded in the British North America Act of 1867.

Heartened by their accomplishment, the delegates took the Confed-

eration blueprint to their respective provinces for discussion and, with

any hope, legislative approval. The provincial battles over the terms of

the Quebec Conference resolutions absorbed the attention of British

North Americans for the next two years (see “The Argument in Favor

of Confederation” in the Documents section).

Opposition to Confederation

Champions of Confederation met staunch opposition in every colony.

New Brunswick’s political leader and key supporter, Samuel Leonard

Tilley, met defeat in 1865 at the hands of an opponent who employed

an anti-Confederation plank. Albert James Smith and his supporters

articulated a classic Maritime viewpoint that persisted long after

the Confederation era. They ar gued that the smaller provinces

would suffer because of unequal representation. In addition, western

development, a dynamic that would benefit the central Canadian

provinces because of their geographical location, would do little to

enrich the economies of the Maritimes. Tilley’s government returned

the following year, thanks to Smith’s ineffective leadership and

growing support for Confederation due to British pressures and a

fortuitously timed series of Fenian raids. A brotherhood that included

Irish Americans, the Fenians planned to wrest Irish independence from

The Impulse for Confederation 95

Britain by attacking its British North American colonies. One attack on

Campobello Island, just across the Maine border, was quickly repelled

in 1866. Further raids occurred in the Canadas. Given their expressed

objectives, the Fenians’ attacks effected the opposite result. They

inadvertently helped to drive the colonies, especially New Brunswick,

closer to a political union for defensive purposes.

Opponents to Confederation in Nova Scotia used similar argu-

ments to harass Charles Tupper, the province’s strongest proponent.

Influential newspaperman and politician Joseph Howe echoed the

reservations of his New Brunswick counterparts by flippantly dubbing

the proposals a “Botheration Scheme.” Nonetheless, proponents of

Confederation prevailed by promising to explore and incorporate

changes that would be more favorable to the colony. Like their

neighbors in New Brunswick, Nova Scotian assemblymen did not

specifically accept the terms for Confederation.

The colony that most formally approved of Confederation was

the one that stood to benefit the most from greater union: the

Canadas. The most vehement opposition was expressed by Antione-

Aimé Dorion and other rouges. Fearful that a greater union would

subsume French Canadians politically and culturally, and unenthu-

siastic about being saddled with Maritime Provinces whose interests

lay elsewhere, Dorion argued that a change of this magnitude

deserved a popular endorsement. He preferred a plebiscite or an

election directly targeting the Confederation issue. Proponents,

especially Cartier, maintained that French-Canadian survival was

best ensured in a broader union with protected language and civil

rights. Dorion’s plebiscite was not to be. The Canadian assembly

voted overwhelmingly to approve the resolutions and move ahead

with Confederation. Although French-Canadian representatives

split on the issue, a majority approved the plans. Dorion and Cartier

framed a contentious question that has been repeatedly asked

throughout post-Confederation Canadian history: What is the most

secure way to ensure language, cultural, and civil rights of French

Canadians? To the defeated Dorion, as well as to modern separatists,

the best means would not be through Confederation (see “The

Argument Against Confederation” in the Documents section).

Prince Edward Islanders and Newfoundlanders rejected Confed-

eration. With long-standing resentments over the control of absentee

landlords who retained their positions with support from British

96 The Impulse for Confederation

administrators, anti-confederate Prince Edward Islanders found the

proposal a thinly veiled attempt to replace London with a Canadian

capital. Confederation still represented control from abroad. Addi-

tionally, and in support of the arguments heard in New Brunswick

and Nova Scotia, they saw little political or economic advantage for

the tiny island colony in Confederation. Newfoundland, with

historic trading ties to Britain, demonstrated a modest support for

Confederation among political elites, but the island colony’sgeneral

population remained overwhelmingly apathetic. Prince Edward

Island and Newfoundland turned their backs on the idea in the

1860s. They would join Canada later, when compelling circum-

stances made Confederation a more attractive proposition.

Thus, a change of governments in several provinces, coupled with

formidable popular and political opposition, meant that Confedera-

tion garnered a clear vote of approval only in the Canadas. New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia moved to the next series of meetings

without a definitive vote on the idea and with hopes of improving the

terms of Confederation. Late in 1866 delegates from the Canadas,

New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia met in London to complete their

discussions for union. With few changes, the British approved of the

plans and agreed to submit them to Parliament for approval. Instead of

calling the new entity the Kingdom of Canada, one of Macdonald’s

favorite ideas, the British persuaded the Canadians not to antagonize

the United States by creating a “kingdom” on its northern border. One

of the delegates offered a more neutral alternative, a biblical term from

Psalm 72: dominion. From the same psalm Canadians borrowed one

of the country’s mottoes, A Mari Usque Ad Mare, translated as “from

sea to sea.” In March 1867, with precious little fanfare, the British

Parliament passed the British North America Act (BNA Act). On July

1, 1867, the Dominion of Canada came into being.

The British North America Act:

A Constitution for a Dominion

The BNA Act served as the constitution for Canada until 1982 and is

thus a central document for understanding Canadian history. The

Fathers of Confederation, as the conference participants are known,

The British North America Act: A Constitution for a Dominion 97

consciously designed a hybrid governing plan that combined the

strengths of the British parliamentary system with the American

constitutional idea of a clear division of powers. The BNA Act

assumed that governance and traditions would be “similar in

Principle to that of the United Kingdom” and that Canada would

“promote the Interests of the British Empire.” While the Fathers of

Confederation liked the idea of a well-defined division of responsi-

bilities between the federal and provincial governments, they also

considered the U.S. Constitution deeply flawed. In the light of the

Civil War, they believed it gave too much power to the states and the

people. The BNA Act thus sought to tilt the balance of power in favor

of the federal government.

The BNA Act was both pragmatic and conservative; it was

emblematic of Canada’s birth in a period of industrialization, techno-

logical developments, expanding markets, and a lively migration of

population groups across boundaries. Whereas the U.S. Declaration of

Independence trumpeted “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”

the Canadians nearly ninety years later promoted the ideal of “peace,

order, and good government.” Devoid of lofty language, the BNA

Act got right down to the business of providing the new dominion a

template for national development.

Much of the BNA Act was devoted to the distribution of powers

and responsibilities. Executive powers resided in the crown, and

Britain continued to appoint governors-general to Canada well into

the twentieth century. The act provided for an appointed Senate

based on regional representation, with the populous provinces of

Ontario and Quebec most heavily favored. The name was borrowed

from the U.S. upper house, but it more closely resembled Britain’s

House of Lords. The heart of the BNA Act was located in sections 91

and 92. The former articulated the powers apportioned to the federal

government, including a House of Commons with powers of

legislation and taxation, responsibilities for Native peoples, and the

prerogative to disallow provincial statutes. Residual powers, meaning

those not enumerated in the BNA Act, would be held by the federal

government. Section 92 defined the powers granted to the provinces,

which initially were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and

Ontario. The provinces also received the unambiguous right to

govern education, which would become one of the post-Confedera-

tion era’s most explosive issues. Importantly, some of the BNA Act’s

98 The British North America Act: A Constitution for a Dominion

language would prove to be problematic. Provinces retained control

of property and civil rights, for example, the definitions of which

changed dramatically over time. As a recognition of Canada’s two

charter groups, French and English were deemed the official languages

of Parliament and the federal legal system (see “The British North

America Act” in the Documents section).

Importantly, the BNA Act left powerful connections intact

between Canada and Britain. First, Canada’s governing document

was a British statute. Its legislation could be reviewed, held up, or

disallowed by the British. Moreover, the BNA Act included no

language for amendments. Changing the document, which was

certainly envisioned and indeed accomplished many times over the

years, was effected through requests submitted by the Canadians to

British parliamentarians, who would then amend the BNA Act.

Finally, the act included no machinery for developing an independent

foreign policy, an essential characteristic of sovereign nations. Few

Canadians in 1867 wished to sever the ties to the old colonial master.

Although British troops were rapidly withdrawn from Canadian

bases in the wake of Confederation, Canadians were comforted in the

belief that Britain would protect their interests if their expansionist

neighbor stepped out of line. Canada ’ s foreign policy, as well as its

sovereignty, would result from incremental changes. Therefore, the

dominion was a unique creation in world history. Neither a sovereign

nation nor a series of colonies, the new entity was a design for relative

autonomy within the fold of a greater empire. New Zealand,

Australia, and other former British colonies swiftly adopted the

Canadian dominion model.

The spirit of the BNA Act and its impact on Canadian history

have been the subjects of heated political and social debates since

1867. Federalists tend to view the act as a British statute, composed

by Canadians, to create a strong federal government and subordinate

the provinces in order to build a viable nation. Others, particularly

provincial supporters and separatists, argue that the BNA Act was an

agreement, or pact, between the provinces that left them in charge of

important provisions. Some historians and politicians assert that it

was a treaty between two European-based charter groups in Canada:

the peoples of British and French heritage. Much more than an

irrelevant discussion of dusty themes, the debate is often at the center

of current political struggles. If the BNA Act was a pact between

The British North America Act: A Constitution for a Dominion 99