Our Two Founding Lies

I recently came across my copy of an important Canadian book, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism. It was written in 1965 by George Grant, who is known reflexively to many Canadians as a distinguished historian. The theme of this book is the supposed loss of Canadian sovereignty resulting from the election of the evil Pearson in 1963.

I could summon up no memory of earlier readings of the book, but the many notes in my copy suggested I had been interested in it at the time. I therefore decided to give this distinguished historian a second chance. What I discovered on re-reading the book was a distinguished load of twaddle.

I found, to be exact, a spurious argument for the myth of the two founding peoples. Grant argues that Canada was founded when "the two original peoples, French and Catholic, British and Protestant, united precariously in their desire not to be part of the great Republic." His evidence for this assertion is – wait for it – the Constitutional Act of 1791! He writes:

The constitutional arrangements of 1791, and the wider arrangements of the next century, were only possible because of a widespread determination not to become part of the great Republic. Among both the French and the British, this negative intention sprang from widely divergent traditions. What both people had in common was the fact they both recognized that they could only be preserved outside the United States of America.

Well, let's review exactly what those constitutional arrangements of 1791 were. What happened was that Quebec lost its western half, which became Upper Canada. This was done so that the Loyalist settlers in Upper Canada could have English laws and institutions, especially the English system of land tenure (Quebec still had seigneurial tenure).

So what Grant represents as a union was in fact a division. What he represents as an accommodation was in fact a repudiation. The Loyalists rejected French law and institutions and the British government removed them from Quebec's rule.

Upper and Lower Canada shared the same Governor General that all the British North American colonies did, but were otherwise separate. They remained separate till the establishment of the United Province of Canada (one of those "wider arrangements of the next century") in 1841, when the British out them back together with the idea of creating unity by overwhelming the French and assimilating them to English culture.

So Grant represents the divisive act of a colonial power as the voluntary union of two peoples, and he represents a union imposed by a foreign power for the purpose of eradicating French culture as a voluntary partnership between French and English. The obvious nonsensicality of Grant's ideas of course did not keep the Progressive Conservatives from adopting them as policy almost immediately. The Tories' promotion of these ideas culminated in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown agreements, so Grant shares the blame for the collapse of the Progressive Conservative party following the referendum on the Charlottetown agreement.

The myth of the two founding peoples also undermined Canadian sovereignty, although Grant thought that preserving the supposed union of the two founding peoples was what Canadian sovereignty was for. However, once you believe that the essence of Canada is that it is a union of two founding peoples, you really don't need sovereignty.

The Tories, for example, could promote free trade as enthusiastically as they promoted Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Free trade, after all, wasn't going to imperil the union of the two founding peoples, especially when Quebec was keen for it. Free trade was going to cost the two founding peoples considerable freedom to act as they wanted, but those valuable British and French traditions were not going to be endangered.

Of course, the loss of Canadian sovereignty through free trade and the WTO was also facilitated by the other myth which competed with the myth of the two founding peoples. This competing myth was the idea of multicultural Canada, or of Canada as the community of communities. Canada's mission, according to this myth, is to furnish a place for ethnic groups to co-exist in harmony.

I call this a myth for the simple reason that, like the myth of the two founding peoples, it fails to describe reality. Most members of most ethnic groups consider that the interests of Canadians as a whole are superior to those of their own ethnic group. The one ethnic group where this is most likely not true has also firmly rejected the idea of a multicultural society, and many of its members long to separate from a country in which individual rights take priority over group rights.

As Grant notes, the idea of multicultural Canada was a favourite of the Cité libre crowd, and when they took over the Liberal Party, the Liberal party took over the idea of multicultural Canada. It became the party of multiculturalism.

Of course a multicultural Canada is not threatened by loss of sovereignty, either, and the Liberals have enthusiastically supported the WTO's depredations on Canadian sovereignty. The members of Canada's ethnic communities have lost sovereignty, but Canada still has a ministry of multiculturalism.

Interestingly, Canadians are increasingly coming to think that Canadianism is synonymous with anti-Americanism. We don't want to be like those vulgar Americans whose national myth is one of self-reliance and liberty. While the two myths of Canada fail to describe Canadian reality, they have at least succeeded in persuading Canadians that the autonomous life is not worth living.

No, we will stick with the Two Founding Lies of contemporary Canada. Although they have cost us sovereignty and the occasional problem like the country nearly falling apart, they both allow us to remain smug and self-righteous about the wonderful union of two peoples/community of communities that Canada supposedly is, and if being smug and self-righteous isn't Canadian, I don't know what is.

Our Two Founding Lies © John FitzGerald, 2000