Why Learn Canadian History

Completing Canada's Constitution

History is written as a possession for all time.

An Uneasy Union

In his report Durham recommended the union of Upper and Lower Canada with a “decidedly English Legislature.”French Canadians saw this as a foreshadowing of their“coming annihilation,” for they believed it meant they would eventually be anglicized and absorbed.

The British government passed the Act of Union which came into effect on February 10th, 1841, creating the United Province of Canada composed of Canada East (Lower Canada) and Canada West (Upper Canada) with the capital in Kingston.

Durham recommended that representation in the House of Assembly be based on population alone. At the time Canada East had a greater population than Canada West, but Durham said that would quickly change. The British government was reluctant to place the English population in a minority position, so it chose to create a government that ignored population and simply assigned an equal number of elected representatives in the House of Assembly to both Canada East and Canada West - 42 members each.

The first parliament of the province opened on 14th of June, 1841. For some ten years, the system worked reasonably well, but once responsible government was achieved in 1849, the interests of the French- and English-speaking Canadians began to differ.

Until 1850, Canada West had the smaller population and was more than satisfied to have equal representation with the larger Canada East. However, as soon as the population of Canada West exceeded that of Canada East, some English-speaking members demanded representation in the legislature based on population. Not unnaturally French Canadians firmly opposed this idea, fearing an English-speaking majority would interfere with their language, religious and educational rights.

Although the Act of Union gave the United Province a single legislature, in reality the Act created a dual system based on racial groups. This meant that the government always had two leaders – one English and one French, and often two positions on any matter. This frequently resulted in sectional conflict which blocked the passage of much necessary legislation. This led eventually to political deadlock, which not even the skills of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier could break. In this stagnant state, the province staggered on for a few years, but it became obvious that a new political structure had to be created and soon. Something had to be done, but what?

The need for speed was answered by some incredibly good luck. Three of the Atlantic provinces had decided to hold a Maritime Conference on Maritime Union on September 1st, 1864 at Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island to consider a union of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Members of government of Canada requested permission to attend and were invited to do so“unofficially.”

A Canadian delegation of 8 cabinet ministers headed by John A. Macdonald duly arrived, and promptly monopolized the meeting. No accord was concluded on Maritime Union. After much talk and many toasts, agreement was reached on the holding of a Confederation Conference at Quebec on October 10th to discuss a wider union of all provinces. The confederation train was on the planning board.

Thirty-two delegates met in the parliament house of historic Quebec on October 10th, 1864.

After meeting behind closed doors for eighteen days, the Quebec Conference broke up, having passed a series of 72 Resolutions – the Quebec Resolutions – which laid out a carefully developed plan for a federal union of all British North America. While the concept still had to be approved by each of the five provinces and by the Imperial Parliament, the confederation train was constructed and about to start rolling. D'Arcy McGee, the most eloquent of our Fathers of Confederation, in a speech to an audience of Haligonians in 1864, praised the concept of unification of the colonies, and charged that the only objections to the proposed union of the provinces were

In His Own Words

"from those who have a vested interest in their own insignificance."

The British government warmly endorsed this initiative and enthusiastically approved the 72 Resolutions. Confederation was not just an internal matter, for events were occurring south of the border that had a major impact on our country’s constitutional considerations.

Across the border the American Civil War was raging, and at the same time the Canadian conference was taking place, soldiers of the Confederate States of America launched a raid from New Brunswick on St. Albans in Vermont. The United States regarded this as yet another hostile British act in support of the southern cause and reacted violently.

The American government subsequently ended a trading treaty with the British colonies, and demanded a passport – an unheard of requirement up until that time – for all Canadians travelling to the United States.

American enmity towards Britain and her colonies was reflected also in their attitude regarding confederation. The United States displayed no eagerness to acclaim the new nation, and instead of extending congratulations, the American Congress passed a resolution expressing outraged disapproval of the very concept of a Canadian federation.

Fear of American military and economic aggression was the ever-present prod that persuaded the provinces to consider union for defensive purposes. When the American Civil War ended, a million soldiers were demobilized, plunging the country into mass unemployment. Irish-Americans were hardest hit by the joblessness and many of them decided to put their military might to use by forming a secret society called Fenians.

This group of disgruntled Irishmen pledged to fight for the creation of an independent Irish Republic, something which Britain strongly opposed. Where better to battle Britain, the arch enemy of Irish independence, than in its closest colonies - British North America. As a result, a series of frontier raids were carried out at various places along the border as American authorities looked on.

These incursions served to persuade the provinces to consider union for purposes of defence. Fear of the Fenians helped eliminate opposition to confederation, for leaders in the colonies knew that if they ever hoped to protect themselves, they needed numbers. Britain strongly supported union of the colonies for defensive purposes, and pressed all provinces to participate.

New Brunswickers feared a Fenian attack, and while it fizzled out, the threat left them with a lasting alarm. In Upper Canada, meanwhile, a Fenian force crossed the Niagara River from Buffalo in May, 1866, and invaded the Niagara Peninsula at Fort Erie. They brought an extra supply of arms for any discontented Canadians who might wish to join in the liberation of their country.

To the amazed bewilderment of the Fenians, no Canadians cared to become a member of their bizarre assemblage. After eating a hearty meal of ham and eggs compliments of some Canadians, and taking a leisurely nap on the lawns of the townsfolk,

the Fenians struck out across country towards Hamilton to conquer the country.

They were met en route by a force of Canadian militamen, and at the Battle of Ridgeway, nine Canadians died defending their country from these foreign invaders. Deciding that discretion was the better part of valour, the Fenians had second thoughts about conquering Canada and promptly returned helter-skelter to the United States.

The plan for a federal union was ratified with no difficulty in Canada. The train was picking up speed. Reaction elsewhere was different. When Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland decided not to join and the train suffered a severe jolt. This was a real disappointment. However, when voters in New Brunswick unexpectedly defeated the party proposing union, the confederation train jumped the tracks. This defeat very nearly wrecked the whole concept of confederation, because New Brunswick was an essential connection between continental Canada and peninsular Nova Scotia. The federation movement was brought to a jarring halt.

Fortunately, a subsequent election in New Brunswick restored the pro-federation party to power, and that province opted to become the fourth province to enter confederation. The confederation train was back on the tracks and picking up speed.

Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick decided to act while there was still time to do so, and late in 1866, their delegates gathered in London, where they created a new country called the Kingdom of Canada. However, British officials believed the concept of a kingdom next door to the Americans might be more than they could tolerate, so the new nation became the Dominion of Canada, a kingdom in fact but not in name.

Early in 1867, the British Parliament ratified confederation with the British North America Act [now known as the Constitution Act 1867]. It united Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. At midnight on July 1st, 1867, church bells rang, the thunder of a hundred gun salute filled the air and four million people became Canadians.

Manitoba joined confederation in 1870, and the acquisition of Rupert’s Land and the North West Territories brought Canada to the Rocky Mountains. With British Columbia’s admission in 1871, Dominion from Sea to Sea became a reality. Prince Edward Island joined in 1873 and Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905. Newfoundland completed our coast to coast country in 1949.

Sir John A. Macdonald became Canada’s first prime minister.“At fifty-two he was in the prime of life and at the height of his powers. He was a tall, slight, jaunty figure with dark, curly hair, a big nose, an ugly charm to his face and a genially sardonic smile.”

Contention accompanied our constitutional development, and it was not confined solely to our own shores. Britain, the Mother Country, was intimately involved in the stresses and strains of our political growth, and at the official level, shared some of the exasperation if not the exhilaration along the road to our independence.

In 1931 the Statute of Westminster brought us to the brink of nationhood. Its approval was controversial and occurred in an atmosphere charged with emotion. The enactment of the statute was greeted by some in England with irritation, anger and outright opposition. The strong opinions and passionate arguments which accompanied the birth of this statute some seventy years ago make interesting reading in light of our ongoing preoccupation with the constitution.

The first reference to the bill that eventually became the Statute of Westminster was made by King George V in his Speech From the Throne given at the opening of the British Parliament at noon on Tuesday, November 10, 1931. It appeared insignificantly enough as the sixth of fourteen paragraphs in that Speech, which according to the newspaper The Times, occupied little time in its delivery.

According to The Times, the King read the Speech "in a voice that was clear and resonant which every one could hear.”

"In conformity with the undertaking given to the representatives of my Dominions in 1930, a measure will be laid before you to give statutory effect to certain of the Declarations and Resolutions of the Imperial conferences of 1926 and 1930. This measure is designed to make clear the powers of the Dominion Parliaments and to promote the spirit of free cooperation among members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

England like the rest of the world at that time, was preoccupied with serious economic problems, for those were the depression years. There were British parliamentarians who thought it unfortunate that this legislation should occupy Parliament's time and attention, when other "paramount matters are pressing on the public's mind." In spite of these more urgent demands, the innocuous sounding legislation did go forward, but it was not unnoticed.

It had all started at the Imperial conference of 1926, where James Arthur Balfour, the chairman of the conference,

had written on a half sheet of paper the objective of all those in attendance:

In His Own Words

"Equality of status as between the Dominions and ourselves [i.e. Great Britain] and as between each other."

Five years later, seven lawyers took the better part of three months to convert this simple statement of intent into legislation. Its detractors said it was "so saturated with law and so technical in its import that no one but a lawyer would be expected to grasp its full significance."

Predictably this legislation was greeted with outraged ridicule by those who wanted no changes in Britain’s status as the sole keeper of the keys of the kingdom.

The legislation was considered by some to be completely unnecessary, and what was even more menacing, it was thought to have the potential to create division among members of the Empire and possibly even eliminate "the long-lasting ties of blood and sentiment" existing between the Dominions and England. Lord

Lord Salisbury said he did not think

In His Own Words

"there ever was a measure proposed to Parliament, the country and the Empire which was received with so little enthusiasm. The Dominions were after all practically free," ‘free’ being the word he preferred to ‘independent.’

Speakers at a meeting of the Royal Empire Society were outraged at the proposed legislation, which they said threatened the very existence of the Empire. Lord Atkin stated that its effect would be to put the Imperial Constitution on the "chopping-block" and "cut off the limbs of the Constitution and leave no unity at all.”

He strongly believed that it was important on occasion for action to be taken in London that affected all the countries of Empire (that is Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.) and that enactment of this Statute of Westminster (he called it a preposterous proposal) would cut away the only means of ever taking such action.

Another speaker said he deplored the statute and was perfectly certain if it were passed that it would not work. A third speaker gravely expressed the view "that the Statute of Westminster and all that it implies marks the parting of the ways."

The only sane voice seemed to come from Lord Stonehaven who condemned all the fretting and fuming over the legislation. He declared that if nothing more happened to the Empire than the passage of the Statute of Westminster, then "they could all rest quietly in their beds."

In attendance that evening at the Royal Empire Club meeting was Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Mr. G. Howard Ferguson. His opinions on the Statute of Westminster and the highly reactionary rantings it raised were not recorded.

The Times in an editorial on November 11th headed, Inevitable Pedantry, noted imperiously: "It is not a measure which anyone but pedants of Dominion status will regard with any enthusiasm." The paper then quoted Lord Buckmaster of the House of Lords who said he could see no reason "for putting into the formality and obscurity of an Act of Parliament an agreement which worked well and which everybody accepted as it was." The editorial continued:

IIn Their Own Words

"The Dominions have grown to full manhood. By this Statute the last shadowy grievance of pedantic sticklers for formal political equality will be removed and the way will be cleared for building up a new unity on the basis of free and unfettered cooperation."

It was said that only two among the six Dominions had "persistently and perhaps rather combatively" agitated for the change the Bill was designed to bring about. One of these ‘combative’ dominions was Canada, which was foremost among the "pedantic sticklers" pressing for the legislation.

According to The Times, Canada had approved the Statute in its parliament "without a dissentient voice," while two other dominions had approved the bill "though not so boisterously." Australia had only approved it with considerable misgiving and New Zealand had "acquiesced but with an air of detachment if not to say a positive distaste."



Winston Churchill was one of a number of British politicians who had reservations about the legislation. He feared with its passage "the needless obliteration of old famous landmarks and signposts which though archaic had historic importance and value." Nevertheless, he conceded,

In His Own Words

"iflarge numbers of our fellow-subjects in the Dominions liked to think and liked to see in print that the bonds of Empire rested only upon tradition, good will and good sense, it was not our policy or in our interest to gainsay them. We have every respect for the wishes of the Dominions and are always ready to defer to their desires. Still the Mother Country must have wishes and points of view of its own, and I can not believe that they might not be accepted with equal good will in the family circle of the Empire or if the word "Empire" were objected to, in the family of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

According to Hansard, cheers greeted these comments. The Mother Country's ‘wishes’ to which Churchill referred, pertained to certain amendments to the Statute that he and some other English parliamentarians wanted to apply only to the Irish Free State.

Wiser heads prevailed, however, because the Members of Parliament began to realize the very serious effect which would result on the future of Imperial relations from any