Manifest Destiny James W.J. Bowden

he Globe and Mail prides itself on being the Grand Coalition that also included Sir John A. Tnewspaper of record, much as does The Macdonald and Sir George-Etienne Cartier. He Times. It is not an undeserved appellation. The outlined a grand vision for what a federal union Globe and Mail’s archives, including those of of British North America could achieve, namely a its predecessor, The Globe, provide an excellent country that could rival the United States in at- historical resource for the daily goings on of the tracting European settlers. and Dominion of Canada Our scheme is to establish a government that from 1844 onward. Like almost all newspapers will seek to turn the tide of European emigra- of the 19th century, George Brown founded The tion into this northern half of the American Globe in order to advance ideas and principles continent — that will strive to develop its great — in this case, Whiggish, or classical liberal, natural resources — and that will endeavour to ideas like Responsible Government and Repre- maintain liberty, and justice, and Christianity sentation by Population. The paper supported throughout the land. the Clear Grits and, later, the Liberal Party, and Knowing what we do about parliamentary indeed, George Brown was himself a Liberal debates, we may interpret the interventions M.P. of T.C. Wallbridge and George-Etienne Cartier On the sesquicentennial of Confederation, as mockery of Brown’s grandiosity. After Wall- released for its subscribers bridge sarcastically asks Brown, “When?,” as in, the edition of The Globe which appeared on 1 “when will the object of your grandiose ram- July 1867. George Brown had written a 9,000- blings be achieved?,” Brown replied thus: word essay on the history of British North Sir, the whole great ends of this Confedera- America from 1791 to 1867 and what Confed- tion may not be realized in the lifetime of many eration would achieve. Brown referred to 1 July who now hear me. We imagine now that such 1867 — but not 1 July in general — as “Confeder- a structure can be built in a month or in a year. ation Day.” Official recognition for our national What we propose now is but to lay the founda- day came later, in 1879, when Parliament first tions of the structure — to set in motion the enacted “Dominion Day” into statute, after it governmental machinery that will one day, we had already gained popularity informally and trust, extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. by convention. In The Globe, Brown reiterates on 1 July 1867, “Confederation Day,” his vision of Canada’s Brown’s Vision Manifest Destiny: Brown’s essay hearkens back to his contribu- The history of Old Canada, with its contracted tions to the Confederation Debates, particularly bounds and limited divisions of Upper and in how he articulated an Upper Canadian equiv- Lower, West and East, has been completed, and alent to American “Manifest Destiny” and saw this day a new volume is opened, New Bruns- the Dominion of Canada as a vehicle for turning wick and Nova Scotia uniting with and British North America into a trans-continental Quebec, to make the history of a greater Cana- three-ocean country — though perhaps Canada’s da, already extending from the [Atlantic] ocean destiny was slightly less obvious (i.e., manifest) to the headwaters of the Great Lakes, and des- than America’s. Brown gave his most prominent tined ere long to embrace the larger half of this and famous speech of the Confederation Debates North American Continent from the Atlantic to on 8 February 1865, as one part of the tripartite the Pacific.

44 The Dorchester Review Spring/Summer 2018 Manifest Destiny

But Brown did not content himself with importation of alcohol against each other. And lofty pronouncements. He advocated specific, nor would the Government of Canada abdicate realistic, achievable policies through which its authority over inter-provincial commerce and the future federal government could turn the allow British Columbia to veto the infrastructur- Dominion of Canada into a trans-continental al projects and investments of Alberta. country, namely through building infrastruc- ture, attracting mass immigration, and settling those immigrants in homesteads. And this is precisely what the Macdonald and Laurier gov- Expansion and Hegemony ernments did: Macdonald fulfilled British Co- The fourth clause of the preamble of the lumbia’s Terms of Union and shepherded con- British North America Act, 1867 says, “And struction of the Canadian Pacific Railway (even whereas it is expedient that Provision be made after his false start in 1873 and the Pacific Scan- for the eventual Admission into the Union of dal which brought down his penultimate min- other Parts of British North America.” Section istry that November), which, in turn, paved the 146 then provides for the eventual admission of way for the Dominion Lands Act of 1872, a direct Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Rupert’s Canadian equivalent of, and counter-weight to, Land, the North-western Territory, and Brit- the American Homestead Act of 1862; Laurier ish Columbia into the Union. Imperial Orders- continued and perfected these policies, com- in-Council transferred British Columbia and missioning the construction of two additional Prince Edward Island to the Dominion of Can- trans-continental railways, and, along with his ada in 1871 and 1873, respectively. An Imperial able Minister, Sir Clifford Sifton, attracted hun- Order-in-Council in 1870 transferred both Ru- dreds of thousands more immigrants to settle pert’s Land and the North-western Territory to the Prairie Provinces, two of which Parliament the Dominion of Canada, and another Imperial created under his watch in 1905. Order-in-Council from 1880 then completed the annexation of all other “British possessions and George Brown himself had clearly set out Territories in North America and islands adja- these policies in this speech in 1865. He pointed cent thereto” (i.e., the Arctic Archipelago) to the out that Canada already boasted public works Dominion of Canada. These territories gave rise (what we would today call infrastructure) far su- to the northern parts of Quebec and Ontario, as perior to that of the United States at its Union, well as all of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, partially, of course, because of technological Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. advances but also because of deliberate policy. The Parliament of Canada legislated Manitoba Sadly, one of Brown’s predictions did not into existence in 1870, and it also carved Sas- come to fruition as it should have: katchewan and Alberta out of the Northwest between the provinces. “I go heartily for the Territories in 1905. Newfoundland and Labra- union,” he said, “because it will throw down the dor then joined the Union in 1949 in accordance barriers of trade and give us control of a market with an amendment to the British North Amer- of four millions of people.” ica Act passed by the Westminster Parliament. If only that were so! Then we would not need All of the aforesaid Imperial Orders-in- the Agreement on Internal Trade of 1995, the Council and statutes and Canadian statutes Canada New West Partnership (originally the ultimately flowed from the authority of section TILMA of 2003), or the Canadian Free Trade 146; they now form part of the Constitution of Agreement of 2017. Nor would the Supreme Canada and are enumerated in the schedule to Court contrive a ruling in R. v Comeau against the Constitution Acts. the plain meaning of section 121 of the Consti- This Canadian Manifest Destiny meant not tution Act, 1867 that, “All Articles of the Growth, only that the Dominion of Canada would be- Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Prov- come a trans-continental, three-ocean coun- inces shall, from and after the Union, be admit- try; it also involved an ideological principle ted free into each of the other Provinces” and de- and promoting a common form of government clare instead that provinces can impose bans on across British North America, analogous to the

Spring/Summer 2018 The Dorchester Review 45 Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution by Whiggish principles of good government by in- which “The United States shall guarantee to extricably linking taxation, representation, and every State in this Union a Republican Form expenditure together. of Government.” Section 90 of the British North By entrenching the elected lower house’s America Act extended the principle that all control of the purse and the executive’s control money bills must be introduced in the elective over Royal Recommendation, section 90 of the lower house and the Royal Recommendation British North America Act, 1867 guarantees that (codified in sections 53 and 54 for the Parlia- all prospective provinces of the Dominion will ment of Canada) to the provincial legislatures. operate under Responsible Government. In fact, The principles contained in sections 53 and 54 Sir John A. Macdonald himself left no doubt are necessary conditions for Responsible Gov- that this is precisely what section 90 means; on ernment itself: money bills must be introduced 6 February 1865, he explained: by the people’s elected representatives in the We have introduced all those provisions which House of Commons and that the Ministry must are necessary in order to [allow] the full work- take responsibility for, and therefore give sanc- ing out of the British Constitution in these prov- tion to, all money bills through Royal Recom- inces. We provide that there shall be no money mendation. votes, unless those votes are introduced in the The Royal Recommendation ensures that popular branch of the legislature on the author- Ministers of the Crown (the executive) take re- ity of the responsible advisors to the Crown […]. sponsibility for all proposed spending and that Parliament (the legislature), which must ulti- Section 90 of the British North America Act, mately approve any proposed spending, con- 1867 says: trols the purse. In other words, only the people’s elected representatives can introduce bills that 90. The following Provisions of this Act respect- would levy tax or grant expenditures, and that ing the Parliament of Canada, namely, — the bill can only proceed if the executive wishes to Provisions relating to Appropriation and Tax take responsibility for it. Bills, the Recommendation of Money Votes, the Assent to Bills, the Disallowance of Acts, and the Signification of Pleasure on Bills reserved, n his famous (or infamous) Report, Durham — shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of Irecommended adopting the Royal Recom- the several Provinces […]. mendation as the antidote to what he called “tacking,” the practice through which individual Section 90 guarantees all provinces the bless- MPs proposed capital expenditures which ben- ings of Responsible Government, without which efited mostly or solely their own constituencies. no province could exercise its jurisdiction and If that sounds like a standard critique of pork- heads of legislative power contained in section barrelling or log-rolling in the United States 92 of the British North America Act; instead, they Congress, that is no coincidence. Lord Durham would be reduced to a territory administered referred to the Origination Principle and Royal by a Commissioner appointed by the federal Recommendation as “the real protection of the government. While the federal executive and people” because this tandem ensures that Par- the Parliament of Canada can and have granted liament only approves appropriations which the three modern territories heads of legislative have the support of a majority of elected MPs, power and Responsible Government or Consen- and thus those who represent the majority of sus Government, these are devolved authorities the people. The Royal Recommendation also akin to the devolved assemblies in Scotland ties neatly into George Brown’s crusade for Rep- and Wales and are neither constitutionally en- resentation by Population within the House of trenched nor guaranteed like the authority and Commons: the most populous provinces which heads of power of the provinces. This principle, contribute the most tax revenue would exert whereby the British North America Act spread an the most influence over expenditure. Finally, ideological guarantee to all British North Amer- the Royal Recommendation also enshrines the ica, is most readily demonstrated in the Terms

46 The Dorchester Review Spring/Summer 2018 Manifest Destiny of Union of British Columbia and Newfound- a broader evangelical Protestant revivalism land and Labrador. Since British Columbia had throughout the English-speaking world during not been granted Responsible Government by the Victorian Era. America was and is no dif- the Colonial Office before Confederation, its ferent. This mid-19th century trend was spurred Terms of Union specified that it should achieve by the Industrial Revolution and Stephenson’s Responsible Government soon after Confedera- steam-locomotive and railway in particular, tion in 1871. The Macdonald government then which provided a means of opening up and reiterated and operationalized this pledge in the settling North America and Australia at rates letters and instructions issued to the first Lieu- unthinkable in the pre-industrial 18th century. tenant-Governor of British Columbia. Similarly, Brown championed this trend and wanted to Newfoundland and Labrador’s Terms of Union secure Canada’s Dominion as against America’s. restored Responsible Government, which had Sadly, Canada’s destiny was not so obvious as been in abeyance since 1934, as a condition of that of the United States; even in 2018, we still joining Confederation in 1949. have not achieved Brown’s vision of internal free trade and a proper economic union. •

ne could be forgiven for mistaking Brown’s Notes Ospeech for that of an American politician of the same era extolling the virtues of what 1. James W.J. Bowden, “‘Dominion’: A Lament,” The Americans call their “Manifest Destiny.” George Dorchester Review 5:2 (Autumn-Winter 2015): 58-64. Brown even sounded like John O’Sullivan, the 2 Ajzenstat, et al., Canada’s Founding Debates, 133. American newspaper editor who first coined 3. Ibid. the term in 1845. O’Sullivan promoted the an- 4. George Brown, “Confederation Day: The Dominion nexation of Texas and Oregon (territories of Canada — Historical Notes, How Confederation which corresponded not merely to the borders Has Been Brought About, Statistics of the United of those states by the same names, but rather Provinces,” The Globe, vol. 24, no. 156, 1 July 1867. to the western third of the Continental United 5. Ajzenstat et al. 2003,134-136. States) and argued: 6. Ibid., 134. And that claim is by the right of our manifest 7. Ibid. destiny to overspread and to possess the whole 8. Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2nd ed. of the continent which Providence has given us (: Carswell, 1985), 31. for the development of the great experiment of 9. Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982. liberty and federated self-government entrust- 10. United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. ed to us. And by “United States,” the section means the federal Like O’Sullivan, of whom he had likely heard, order of government in Washington, D.C. Brown was a newspaper editor and proprietor; 11. Ajzenstat, The Once and Future Canadian Democ- he followed American politics keenly. However, racy, 65-67; Dennis Baker, “‘The Real Protection of the it seems that neither O’Sullivan nor Brown orig- People’: The Royal Recommendation and Responsible inated the concept. Government,” Journal of Parliamentary and Political Americans tend to think of their history of Law 4 (2010). settlement as unique — dare I say, exceptional? 12. Durham Report (Ridgways 1839 edition), 211. — but it is not. American Manifest Destiny is 13. Ajzenstat et al., 71. more likely a sub-set of an over-arching Impe- 14. Ibid., 32-35, 32n., 35n. rial ethos — “the civilizing mission” as the Brit- 15. Maurice Ollivier, “British Columbia’s Terms of ish and French then called it, and the “muscular Union,” in British North America Acts and Selected Christianity,” as it was often called, of the era Statutes, 1867-1962 (Ottawa: Parliament of Canada, — shared by white settler populations in all 1962), 178. European empires throughout the 19th century. 16. Hogg, 33. The brand of manifest destiny that O’Sullivan 17. Hogg, 35; Ollivier, 247. and Brown expressed corresponds to the Sec- 18. Shane Mountjoy, Manifest Destiny: Westward ond Great Awakening in the United States and Expansion (New York: Chelsea House, 2009), 9-10.

Spring/Summer 2018 The Dorchester Review 47