Lehrman American Studies Center

When my classes read Canada’s Founding Debates, our focus is on the meaning of responsible government and its structure, at least as articulated by Canada’s Founders. That was in the 1860s, but what does it look like now? I have my students read three articles that consider the current crisis of responsible government. Donald Savoie, a political scientist from New Brunswick, has documented the pathologies of our political executive. His article, “The Broken Chain of Answerability” (Globe and Mail, 16 May 2008; see also here), provides a synopsis of his view of how political power has become overly concentrated in the Prime Minister, leaving Members of Parliament and Members of Cabinet as little more than a focus group.

Students are asked to consider the causes of this concentration of power, and the degree to which our contemporary political situation provides incentives to remove independent power and judgment from Members of Parliament, which is the backbone of responsible government. C. E. S. Franks’s speech to the Churchill Society on the same topic raises many similar issues and suggests institutional reforms aimed at improving the situation. Finally, "Why Canada Needs Conservatives, Though it Tends to Imagine Otherwise," by Travis Smith, considers the problematic result of the political predominance of liberal ideas under many years of Liberal Party rule in the 1990s and early part of the 21st century. If liberal thinkers going back to J. S. Mill argued that responsible government requires a balance between liberal and conservative voices, then in a time when Canadians seem incapable of even conceiving of non-progressivist ideas, it’s time to reconsider conservative ideas. Smith’s provocative argument has less to do with the institutional basis of our contemporary political crisis than with its intellectual foundation. Is there a link between a powerful executive (Prime Minister) and narrow ideological spectrum?

The second week of readings from Canada’s Founding Debates center on questions of political culture and federalism. The former at least is linked to responsible government because many of Canada’s Founders argued that responsible government presupposes a political and economic culture capable of sustaining self-government. Can self-government be practiced when the population is sparse, the economy simple, and the population poorly educated? These concerns were raised by the representatives of British Columbia when they deliberated joining Canada. These are concerns, along with others, that get raised today when we discuss the possibility of non-Western cultures practicing democracy.

The first reading is an exchange of views on Alberta’s place in Canada between political scientists Leon Craig and Roger Gibbins (“Let's get while the gettin's good,” Calgary Herald, July 17, 2005, D6, and Roger Gibbins, “Alberta Better Off in Canada,” Toronto Star, August 4, 2005, A15). Craig asks whether joining Canada was good for Alberta, and answers it has not been. He concludes that it is in Alberta’s self-interest, and self-respect, to separate from Canada. It could form a country within North America with about the same population and economic clout as Norway. Not big, but better off than being in Canada. Gibbins counters by arguing that while it may not be in the economic self-interest of Alberta to remain in Canada, Albertans feel an emotional attachment to Canada. What binds a society together? Self-interest (a Lockean view)? Feelings of attachment and memories? Perhaps because politics appeals to the head (self-interest) and heart (feelings of attachment), the Canadian Founders argued that while it was in the interest of Canadians to have their own country, they, in the 1860s at least, would remain British. For instance, Canada would not have its own flag (at least one without a Union Jack on it) until 1965. It seems culture has something to do with self-government.

But when the British heritage is less relevant, what culture defines Canadians? I call this the “going to the dentist” question for students of Canadian politics. They have all, in high school or elsewhere, undergone the agonizing ordeal of having to debate “what is Canadian?” It is an ordeal because there really is no answer. Americans seem to have an easier time of it. As clichéd as the American answer tends to be, Canadian clichés tend to focus on hockey, beer, Tim Horton’s doughnuts, and not much else. The infamous “I am Canadian” advertisements for Molson’s beer only remind Canadians of how quickly this discussion becomes a way of asserting that Canadians are not Americans. Can Canadian culture express anything other than ressentiment?

Two additional readings deepen this problem. “The Canadian ‘Garrison Mentality’ and the CBC” by Barry Cooper and Lydia Miljan and “Surprise, Canadian Pluralism is Working” by pollster Michael Adams (Toronto Star, November 10, 2007: ID1) address different aspects of Canadian pluralism. Cooper and Miljan argue that sentiments and symbols of Canadian nationhood are in fact central Canadian (Ontarian) and have little relevance to other parts of the country. If there is no such thing as Canadian culture (but rather regional cultures—Maritime, Quebec, Prairie, British Columbia—then in what sense can we call Canada a country? For his part, Adams takes high levels of support for tolerance and multiculturalism as signs not only of the healthy state of pluralism in Canada, but for the very identity of Canada. Is pluralism an adequate way of uniting a country? Adams also notices that Canadians have different political opinions from Americans about various topics (e.g., health care). He takes this as a sign of Canadian identity. Does this mean that Canadians who hold the minority viewpoint are somehow less Canadian? Defining culture seems extremely difficult. Just as difficult is pinpointing why it seems important for self-government. Do we need to feel different from others even when our minds tell us we’re not?

Tags: No subjects