Posts com a Tag ‘Confederação’
Canada’s Founding Debates – AJZENSTAT et al (CSS)
AJZENSTAT, Janet; ROMNEY, Paul; GENTLES, Ian; GAIRDNER, William D. Editors. Canada’s Founding Debates. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. 380p. Resenha de: LeVOS, Ernest. Canadian Social Studies, v.39, n.2, p., 2005.
Here is a book that will interest Canadianists, and those high school and university students interested in constitutional and political developments. Students wanting to do some reading and research on Confederation, and who may not have the luxury of time to read the original legislative records on Confederation, will find Canada’s Founding Debates a valuable source. There is an enormous amount of material packaged into this one volume. Do not skip reading the introduction, since it explains very succinctly that this book is about Confederation. But more specifically, it is a book of excerpts from official reports of the debates in the different colonies (p. 7), that is, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada, Red River and British Columbia, on whether they should join a more viable union. One will read the views of less familiar names such as Robert Carrall, Francis Barnard, and James Ross, along with those more familiar figures like George Brown, George Etienne Cartier, John A. Macdonald and Louis Riel.
The authors have neatly divided the book into five parts covering what was said by the politicians of the seven British North American colonies on liberty (constitutional liberty, responsible government, parliamentary government, the Upper House, equality of representation); individual as well as collective economic opportunity; American, British and Canadian identity; the new nationality(federal union, majority and minority rights), and how to make a constitution (consulting the people and the issue of direct democracy). The book is a convenient source for the views of Macdonald and Brown as well as other lesser known figures. The reader will detect not only individual perspectives and tones, but also the anxieties, enthusiasm and urgency these politicians shared in establishing a new union.
The conservative and liberal views held by the supporters and opponents of Confederation are included in this volume. They were very much like us today, concerned about the future of their country and the well being of future generations. Indeed, they were very concerned about the purpose and form of a new government that would work properly. One will observe that these politicians, at the crossroads of change, brought about by such events as the Civil War in the United States, did not hesitate to study other constitutional models and political systems seeking the best pragmatic insights from these models and systems. As a group of legislators, they were a reservoir of experience and knowledge, men who illustrated their arguments with references to European history through the centuries, the great poets and the Bible, and men who subscribed to the belief that good arguments lead to good resolutions (p. 2).
But the legislators from each colony had their respective concerns. Those from Prince Edward Island did not think they would gain anything from being in the new union. The delegates from Newfoundland worried about their fisheries and the starving population, and feared that they would lose control over their properties, liberties and lives (p. 61). In the Red River Colony, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, there was the concern that their respective colonies would be overwhelmed by Upper Canada and swamped by newcomers. Above all, they feared the lost of their individual identities.
A large book such as this one can be viewed as a book filled with a lot of details and speeches, but is can prove to be a valuable source. It can be a useful reference source to high school students interested in what the fathers of Confederation had to say on issues such as liberty and identity, and it can be a valuable source to college and university students who wish to compare and contrast the views of either Macdonald and Brown, or another set of politicians, on topics such as responsible government, representation by population, whether the vote should be given to householders, or on other related issues that were debated in their respective legislatures.
While some readers may not bother reading footnotes, it would be a disservice to themselves to ignore them since there are many valuable explanations. The footnotes provide the reader with an understanding of the historical context in which political developments such as responsible government, developed. One example is John A. Macdonald’s view on the debate, in the parliament of the province of Canada, on responsible government: I speak of representation by population, the house will of course understand that universal suffrage is not in any way sanctioned, or admitted by these resolutions, as the basis on which the constitution of the popular branch should rest and in the footnote, William D. Gairdiner, one of the authors, offers this explanation: Macdonald is giving his assurance that the house need not fear the spectre of mob rule, which is what many informed people at the time would have expected from universal suffrage in a democratic system (p. 70-71). These are more than footnotes, they are explanatory notes. Read and reflect on these notes for a fuller understanding of the developments on the road to Confederation.
The book offers much potential for assignments and research topics on the internal aspects of Confederation, as well as on the external influences. It is interesting to learn, as William Ross from Nova Scotia noted, that the Quebec scheme is largely copied from the Constitution of New Zealand (p. 268). Bear in mind, however, that the book is a compilation and, as such, critics of the book may accuse the authors of not portraying the complete views of certain politicians. In this case, one should read the entire speech of that politician in the legislative records. This book, however, is a very good reference source.
Ernest LeVos – Grant MacEwan College. Edmonton, Alberta.
[IF]Prime Ministers: Ranking Canada’s Leaders – HILMER (CSS)
HILLMER, J. L. Granatstein Norman. Prime Ministers: Ranking Canada’s Leaders. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1999. 234p. COUCILL, Irma. Canada’s Prime Ministers, Governors General and Fathers of Confederation. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers, 1999. 180p. Resenha de: GLASSFORD, Larry A. Canadian Social Studies, v.36, n.1, 2001.
What makes a great prime minister of Canada? What makes a poor one? What are the key factors that determine success or failure? For that matter, what do we assess, or measure: – length of time in office? – deeds accomplished? – disasters avoided? – popularity with the public? – accolades from political peers? – respect from subsequent historians?
The premise of the book by J.L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer, two eminent Canadian historians noted for their contributions in the fields of national political, military and diplomatic history, is that the collective judgment of academic scholars is a sound means of determining the success of our country’s prime ministers. In 1997, they conducted a survey of 26 Canadian scholars – political historians mostly, with a couple of narrative political scientists thrown in – to determine a comparative ranking of the 20 individuals who have served as Canada’s prime minister. The respondents were asked to rate the PMs on the familiar scale of 0 (for total failure) to 10 (for enduring greatness). The results of their survey were published as a leading article in the April 21, 1997 issue of Maclean’s magazine. Granatstein and Hillmer then expanded that article into this 200-plus-page book, with individual chapters for each prime minister except the four immediate successors to John A. Macdonald, whose combined service from 1891-1896 is disposed of in one chapter.
Although actual point totals are not produced in either the original Maclean’s piece or this followup book, the authors tell us that the consensus of their panel of experts (which included themselves) pointed to William Lyon Mackenzie King as the top-ranked Canadian prime minister. Apparently 14 respondents placed King either first, or tied for first. The other two leaders earning their Great rating (an A-plus surely) were John A. Macdonald (2nd) and Wilfrid Laurier (3rd). A fourth PM, Louis St. Laurent, was awarded a near-Great grade, perhaps the equivalent of an A-minus. The High-Average (B?) leaders were Pierre Trudeau (5th), Lester Pearson (6th) and Robert Borden (7th) respectively, followed by the average (C?) prime ministers: Brian Mulroney (8th), Jean Chretien (9th), John Thompson (10th), Alexander Mackenzie (11th), R.B. Bennett (12th) and John Diefenbaker (13th). Two prime ministers, Arthur Meighen (14th) and Joe Clark (15th) scraped through with a Low-Average (D?) Rating. Those PMs adjudged to be failures (F for sure) were Charles Tupper, John Abbott, John Turner, Mackenzie Bowell and Kim Campbell.
How did this panel of professorial pundits arrive at their collective judgment? According to the Maclean’s article, they were not given precise criteria, but were asked to consider electoral success, national unity, success in achieving domestic or foreign policy goals, and leadership in cabinet, party and country. (p.35). These ratings, the authors report at the beginning of their book, were then averaged to form a ranked list. In addition to the numerical scores, each scholar was asked to write a commentary, justifying his or her rating (both p. 9). The comments of the academics were utilized throughout the five-page Maclean’s spread to buttress the authors’ own remarks. The book, while adhering to the prime-ministerial ranking of the earlier article, is more clearly the authors’ own creation, although an occasional panelist’s quote finds its way into the chapter-length biographies.
How did the experts do? The absence of actual point-totals tells us that this is not meant to be a scientific survey meeting rigid statistical criteria. Furthermore, upon what basis was the so-called panel of experts chosen? The authors are silent on the point, other than to note that five are relatively younger scholars, and that together, the panelists represent the several geographic regions of the country. An actual list of 25 names was appended to the Maclean’s article, indicating the presence of five female scholars amongst such luminaries as Michael Bliss, Craig Brown, Desmond Morton, Blair Neatby and Peter Waite. Seeing these names, we might ask where are the Greg Kealeys and Veronica Strong-Boags? Were representatives of the new Canadian historical establishment not polled in significant numbers or did they refuse to answer? We are not told. The lesson is clear. This is not rigorous social science analysis. It has been written as much for enjoyment as for enlightenment – and why not? Who said history should be so stuffy anyways? The joy of the reading is augmented by the inclusion of 27 political cartoons – some famous, some not – distributed throughout the book.
Surprisingly, a number of the better chapters are devoted to lesser PMs. Joe Clark and John Turner, frequently savaged in the popular press, merit full-length chapters that are evenhanded, leaning to sympathetic. Pierre Trudeau, still alive at the time of publication, and Jean Chretien, not yet a three-time election winner when the book went to press, receive the back of the authors’ hands, by comparison. Lester Pearson is praised; John Diefenbaker is, if not defamed, certainly panned. The chapter on R.B. Bennett is remarkably positive, given the panel’s low rating, but Robert Borden is, at best, damned with faint praise. Clearly, too, the authors expect Brian Mulroney’s eventual rehabilitation. The panel was harsh on Kim Campbell, but the authors less so – pointing out that the novelty of her gender first helped, then hindered her national political career. The one really bizarre rating by the expert panel was to place John Thompson tenth. He served scarcely more than 2 years in office, and never won an election as leader. Even the co-authors seem dumbfounded. In the Maclean’s article, they attribute his surprising showing to the recent appearance of a fine, modern full-length biography. (P,35). That professional historians could be so easily swayed casts more than a little doubt on the validity of the whole exercise.
One prominent aspect of the ranking must be challenged. William Lyon Mackenzie King was not our greatest prime minister, contrary to the panelists and co-authors. That honour must be reserved for John A. Macdonald. Both had flawed personal characters – King with his seances, ouija boards and crystal balls, Macdonald with his weakness for the bottle. Neither might even have made it to the office of prime minister in the current era of fishbowl journalism. Both built a great political party; Macdonald, however, also built a country – one which King admittedly helped to preserve. It is quite possible, though, to picture Macdonald managing the political crises faced by King. One cannot imagine King managing to pull off Confederation. He lacked the vision, and the personal charisma. King is deservedly among the top three leaders, on a par with his idol, Wilfrid Laurier. But one has only to consider the remarkable accomplishments of King’s successor, Louis St. Laurent, during his first half dozen years in office, to grasp the what- might-have-beens of Mackenzie King’s lengthy time in office. In describing St. Laurent, the authors note his one deficiency – an absence of deviousness. This quality King held in spades. King’s other specialty, as he mentioned once to an apprenticing Lester Pearson, was to focus on avoiding bad actions – no small achievement, but not the full measure of a truly great prime minister. The existence of the Canadian federation itself is John A. Macdonald’s legacy to us. He is still Number One.
The other book under review here, authored by Irma Coucill, is not in the same league as that by Granatstein and Hillmer, judged on the basis of the written content. The author presents one-page thumbnail sketches of Canada’s 20 prime ministers, 25 governors-general since 1867 (excluding Adrienne Clarkson, who had not yet been appointed), and 36 Fathers of Confederation, defined as those colonial politicians from British North America who attended at least one of the formative conferences in Charlottetown, Quebec or London. The first edition of this work appeared in the lead-up to Centennial year, which explains something about the boosterish tone of the mini-biographies. Unfortunately, the pages added for subsequent editions are sometimes marred by inaccuracies. Nunavut is mis-spelled on page 46, for example. However, the great strength of this book is not its print, but its visuals – that is to say, the marvellous full-page, black and white portraits of each leader, all drawn by the author, herself.
Read the first book for the challenge of critiquing Granatstein, Hillmer and friends’ assessments of our prime ministers. Browse the second one for the pleasure of Irma Coucill’s portraits.
Larry A. Glassford – Faculty of Education. University of Windsor. Windsor, Ontario.
[IF]