Canada’s Neglected Tradition of James Muir*

On Wednesday, 26 November 2008, I closed the proposed coalition took place in public, the second of two lectures on politics in the not in classrooms like mine. As the public dis- 1840s and 1850s for my second-year, pre-Con- course about the coalition evolved, three dis- federation Canadian history students by reiter- tinct threads of debate became apparent: legal- ating the de"nition of . ity, legitimacy, and precedent. I suggested that, at its core, was the principle that the parliamentary was respon- First, there was a great deal of discussion sible to the elected assembly as a whole, and that about whether or not it was legal to make the the governor general (or lieutenant governor) coalition the government without an election. was expected to follow the executive’s wishes. Related to this were two discussions of its legit- #is expectation included not calling elections imacy. One stream portrayed the Liberal-New every time a government fell in the assembly, Democratic Party coalition proposal as anti- but rather selecting another government that democratic because it was not part of either had the support of the already elected members party’s election platform, and so had not re- of the assembly. ceived popular sanction in the October 2008 general election. A second stream asserted that I continued by noting that the principles the inclusion of the Bloc Québécois in the coali- of responsible government remain the basis of tion agreement meant that the Liberal Party and Canadian , although these principles New Democratic Party (NDP) were trying to have little practical e$ect, except at moments bring separatists into the national government. of crisis like the King-Byng a$air. I suggested Finally, public discourse frequently drew from that the students would be unlikely to see the the example of previous coalition governments, principles in action. By my Friday class, the including: the NDP-Liberal coalitions in Sas- conclusions I had made two days earlier seemed katchewan, 1999-2003, and , 1985-7; the no longer valid. Indeed, on that morning of 28 Liberal-Progressive coalition in the 1920s; and November and on the following Monday, 1 De- the Union government during the First World cember, while I discussed with my classes the War. Lecturing about Confederation convinced lead-up to Confederation from before the Char- me that all three of these threads were faulty. lottetown conference of 1864 through to 1 July 1867, were confronted with their To demonstrate this, it is necessary to Prime Minister postponing a con"dence vote brie%y recount one of the germinal events of 1 in the House of Commons, even as opposition Confederation. #e famous photographs and parties were forging a coalition agreement. paintings of Confederation show the Char- lottetown conference in the summer in 1864, At "rst, the events of late November and and its immediate successor at Québec in the early December 2008 excited me as a teacher autumn. It was at these conferences that the because they provided me with a contemporary initial agreement among the colonial govern- example of responsible government in action: ments to confederate was reached, and the ele- here was a perfect opportunity to understand mental division between federal and provincial continuity in political theory and political his- jurisdictions was decided. #e Charlottetown tory. Of course, most of the discussion about conference was originally organized for the At-

Constitutional Forum constitutionnel !! lantic colonies alone, but upon request included to be replaced by George-Étienne Cartier. #e a delegation from Canada, which brought with Macdonald-Cartier government was brie%y it a proposal for the union of all of the central replaced in 1858 by George Brown and A.A. and eastern colonies of . Dorion, but this coaltion was quickly brought #e Canadian delegation represented Canada’s down and replaced by a new Macdonald-Car- new government of June 1864, formed in part tier government that survived the 1858 election, to bring about confederation (or some other and persisted until a'er the 1861 election when constitutional change). #at government is now it was replaced by J.S. Macdonald2 and Louis o'en called the “Great Coalition” or “Canadian Sicotte. A'er the 1863 election, Sicotte was Coalition,” and was a coalition formed under replaced by Dorion, and the J.S. Macdonald- the leadership of John A. Macdonald, Alexan- Dorion government lasted until March 1864. der Galt, George-Étienne Cartier, and George It was replaced by a new Taché-John A. Mac- Brown (although, nominally, the was donald government for two-and-a-half months, Étienne Taché). which was then replaced by the Great Coalition under Taché. A'er Taché’s death in 1865, a co- Coalition government had been routine alition led by John A. Macdonald and Narcisse since the union of Upper and Lower Canada in Belleau governed, without Brown, until 1867.3 1841. #e nascent political parties of the colony Clearly, shi'ing coalitions and changing gov- were o'en, although not always, divided along ernments were regular features of the history of the old colonial boundaries. In the twenty-three the united Canadas. Elections, more o'en than years leading up to late June 1864 there were not, did not mark signi"cant changes in rule. seventeen governments, most of which were A'er 1848, changes in government occurred coalitions of more-or-less like-minded parties when the government no longer had the sup- from the two halves; generally speaking, these port of the assembly; elections generally served governments shared leadership with one senior to perpetuate already established coalitions, or minister from each side together performing to change only one part of the leadership. #e most of the premier’s tasks. #ere were, how- history of the united Canadas from 1841 to 1867 ever, only seven elections during this period. shows that, for some time, coalition was not an It is worth quickly running through this his- aberration in Canadian history but rather a tory: following the 1841 election in Canada, regular part of government. Lord Sydenham appointed and William Draper as leaders of a coalition Despite all of the previous coalitions, the government. Baldwin resigned prior to the Great Coalition of 1864 was peculiar. #e make- "rst Parliament. Draper continued on his own up of this government should have given pause, until 1842, when he was replaced by Baldwin I think, to those who asserted that the proposals and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine. In 1843, they of November and December 2008 were illegit- were replaced by Dominic Daley. An election imate because they were not part of any party’s in 1844 resulted in a Draper-Denis Viger co- platform or because they involved, in a limited alition, which was replaced by a Draper-Louis way, Québec nationalists who may be seeking Papineau coalition in 1845. In 1847, Draper re- the constitutional reorganization of northern signed to be replaced by Henry Sherwood. A'er North America. #e Great Coalition of June the election that followed, Baldwin and Lafon- 1864 was special, even given the frequency of taine began a new government. #ey resigned coalition government at the time. Macdonald, in 1851 and were replaced by a government led Galt, and Cartier had all worked together in the by Francis Hincks and Augustin Morin, which past: a ministry connecting Tories from Can- was then con"rmed by an election. In 1854, an- ada West with Tories and Bleus from Canada other election year, Hincks resigned and was East was not exceptional. What was exceptional replaced by Alan McNab. #ree months later was the inclusion of George Brown in the coali- Morin resigned to be replaced by Étienne Taché. tion. Brown and Macdonald disliked each other McNab resigned in 1856 and was replaced by with some intensity. More importantly, their John A. Macdonald; Taché resigned in 1857 mutual personal feelings of animosity re%ected

!& Volume 18, Number 1, 2009 di$erences in opinion that were shared by their in any election on the basis of the suggestion respective electorates. Brown was a standard- that such a coalition was a possibility (the last bearer for in Canada West: "rst in election had been held many months before the championing responsible government, and then coalition was even formed). #e coalition part- in pushing for representation by population and ners included ethnic or regional nationalists in the separation of church and state.4 Macdonald the characters of Cartier and Brown. Moreover, was less clearly an ideologue (perhaps for no Brown, at least, was a separatist who saw the de- other reason than that Brown’s job outside of struction and reconstruction of the Canadian the assembly was publisher of !e Globe, while constitutional order, as it existed in 1864, as the Macdonald was a lawyer), and many of Mac- only possible future for British North America. donald’s electoral supporters might have ac- cepted some of Brown’s positions. Few people #ere was some opposition to the coalition who voted for Brown and his allies in the elec- in 1864, just as there was in 2008. #e strong- tion of 1863, however, would have expected a est opposition came from the minority within coalition with Macdonald. His political power the assembly le' out of the coalition: the Rouge relied on the electoral strength of the French in , and J.S. Macdonald and some Catholic Bleu in Canada East, and Macdonald of his supporters among the Grits of Canada was unprepared to signi"cantly alter consti- West. Peter Waite notes in his Life and Times of tutional arrangements to limit their electoral Confederation, for example, that Rouge papers power, or to turn their supporters away. All of called Cartier and his Bleu colleagues “trai- this would make him anathema to Brown sup- tors.” #e Conservative press in Canada West porters in Canada West. #e French-speaking was likewise perplexed, noting how a few days electorate in Canada East would also have won- before: dered about the wisdom of a coalition between almost every man, woman and child, knew the Bleu and Brown. Brown’s political goals pri- their political creed by heart, but are now, as or to the coalition were, at best, likely to under- it were, brought to a stand still, and all their mine French-Catholic power in the colony; at preconceived ideas of the "tness of things and his worst Brown sounded like a bigot. He was long settled opinions of men and measures likely as much anathema to Cartier’s supporters knocked into pi.5 as Macdonald was to Brown’s. Yet Waite records the overwhelming support #e Great Coalition was formed with the for the coalition from Reformers and Grits, intention of achieving signi"cant change in Conservatives and Bleus.6 For all of its strange- government. Macdonald favoured a confedera- ness, the coalition seems to have been legitimate tion of all of the British colonies. Brown was in the eyes of most Canadians of the time. amenable to this proposition, but failing it, wanted to change the constitution to separate Not only was coalition not on the table in Canada West from Canada East. Cartier would the election of 1863, neither it, nor its one big accept either result, so long as any change did political legacy, Confederation, were ever put not interfere with the political and social to a vote in Canada. #e next time the elector- of the French people in Canada East: essentially, ate had a vote, it was to elect the "rst federal Catholic control of education and other social government of the new Confederation, and the functions, civil law, and the French language. provincial governments of Ontario and Québec. Of the three, Macdonald was the most commit- #ere was little question in the Canadas about ted to confederation of all the colonial leaders, the legitimacy of the coalitions or its creation of as his continued political relevance relied on Confederation, then or now. some form of federal government extending be- Had the Liberal-NDP coalition of 2008 yond the Canadas alone. come to pass, I doubt that it would have led to #e Great Coalition of 1864 was made up the political revolution for Canada that resulted of political opponents who did not campaign from the Great Coalition of 1864. But, as a his- torian teaching about responsible government,

Constitutional Forum constitutionnel !( the Great Coalition, and Confederation, I was lin, Canadian Chronology (Metuchen New Jersey: disheartened by the absence of almost any at- #e Scarecrow Press, 1970) at 34-7. tempt to think about, or draw links between, 4 Under the union of Upper and Lower Canada 1864 and 2008.6 Failing to consider the Great each half of the colony had an equal number of Coalition of 1864 and the other coalitions be- seats in the assembly. By the 1860s the popula- tion di$erences between Canada East and West tween 1841 and 1867 helped to paint the 2008 were signi"cant enough that many in the West coalition as illegal, illegitimate, and unpreced- felt aggrieved by this situation. ented, rather than as a minor replica of the co- 5 Waite, Life and Times, supra note 1 at 47. alition that helped to create modern Canada in 6 Ibid. at 45-9. the "rst place. 7 John Turley-Ewart, associate editor of the Finan- cial Post and “a PhD in Canadian business and political history” made brief mention of the co- Notes alition in “What would Sir John A. do?” National * Department of History & Classics and the Fac-Fac- Post (4 December 2008) A22, where he comments ulty of Law, University of . that: “#e was politically 1 #e history of Confederation has been subject to dysfunctional by 1864. Francophones feared revisionist critiques in the last "'een years, and for their cultural identity; the more numerous some of what I will present here builds on that Anglophones pressed for more political clout recent history. Other elements draw from the through representation by population. #at im- older standard telling of the Confederation story. passe was overcome when deeply partisan leaders #e standard telling can be found in J.M.S. Care- such as John A. Macdonald, George Brown, less, Brown of the Globe: Statesman of Confedera- George-Etienne Cartier and A.A. Dorion had the tion, 1860-1880, vol. 2 (: Dundurn Press, sense to take a step back from their positions in a 1989); D.G. Creighton, John A. Macdonald: !e time of crisis and work with their opponents for Young Politician (Toronto: Macmillan, 1952); and a mutually acceptable outcome.” Alas, not only D.G. Creighton, !e Road to Confederation: !e does Dr. Turley-Ewart appear to include (against Emergence of Canada, 1863-1867 (Toronto: Mac- history and surely his will) Dorion in the coali- millan, 1963); W.L. Morton, !e Critical Years: tion, but he concludes his column by suggesting !e Union of British North America, 1857-1873 that the lesson of all of this is that the Governor (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964); and General “leave the choice of who will form the P.B. Waite, !e Life and Times of Confederation, government to Canadians themselves,” exactly 1864-1867: Politics, Newspapers, and the Union contrary the very history of the coalition. of British North America, 3d ed. (Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 2001) [Life and Times]. For the revisionist account, see especially Ged Martin, Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confedera- tion 1837-1867 (: UBC Press, 1995); Paul Romney, Getting it Wrong: How Canadians Forgot their Past and Imperilled Confederation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999); and Andrew Smith, British Businessmen and Can- adian Confederation: Constitution Making in an Era of Anglo-Globalization (: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 2008). Christopher Moore’s 1867: How the Fathers Made a Deal (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1997) falls somewhere between the two historiographies and is an excellent and engaging study of a handful of the main political actors. 2 To avoid confusion, when referring to John Sand- "eld Macdonald I will always identify him as J.S. Macdonald. When I use “Macdonald” alone I will be referring to John A. Macdonald. 3 #e basic chronology can be found in Glen Tap-

!) Volume 18, Number 1, 2009