=* A Distributed Proofreaders Canada eBook *= This eBook is made available at no cost and with very few restrictions. These restrictions apply only if (1) you make a change in the eBook (other than alteration for different display devices), or (2) you are making commercial use of the eBook. If either of these conditions applies, please contact a https://www.fadedpage.com administrator before proceeding. Thousands more FREE eBooks are available at https://www.fadedpage.com. This work is in the Canadian public domain, but may be under copyright in some countries. If you live outside Canada, check your country's copyright laws. IF THE BOOK IS UNDER COPYRIGHT IN YOUR COUNTRY, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS FILE. _Title:_ On Being Canadian _Date of first publication:_ 1948 _Author:_ Vincent Massey (1887-1967) _Date first posted:_ July 23, 2026 _Date last updated:_ July 23, 2026 Faded Page eBook #20260751 This eBook was produced by: John Routh & the online Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at https://www.pgdpcanada.net [Cover Illustration] The Right Hon. VINCENT MASSEY C.H., D.C.L., LL.D., Hon. F.R.S.C. _Other Books by Vincent Massey_ GOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD and Other Addresses, 1931 THE SWORD OF LIONHEART and Other Wartime Speeches, 1943 VINCENT MASSEY On Being CANADIAN 1948 J. M. DENT & SONS (CANADA) LIMITED Toronto : Vancouver Copyright, 1948 _by_ VINCENT MASSEY _Published by_ J. M. DENT & SONS (CANADA) LIMITED _First Printing, May, 1948_ _Printed and Bound in Canada by_ THE HUNTER-ROSE CO. LIMITED, TORONTO _TO_ those who served on the Staff of Canada House during the years 1935-1946, with the gratitude of their Chief. Acknowledgments Our thanks are due to _Maclean’s Magazine_ for the permission they have kindly given us to make use in Chapter IX of an article which appeared in the issue of August 15th, 1947. We also wish to thank McGill University for kind permission to use material from an address delivered by Mr. Massey in 1947 under the War Memorial Foundation of Macdonald College. Preface Canada of late has been the theme of many excellent books. This is something to be greatly welcomed, but it is also a warning to anyone rash enough to add to such a list. This study is therefore offered very humbly. It records the reflections of a Canadian who has come home after an absence of ten years. A subsequent tour of Canada from one coast to the other was a “refresher course” which taught him much. Its author is grateful to the friends whose counsel and criticism have been so helpful. He has very special gratitude to his wife and sons for their encouragement and the interest which they have shown in the effort, and which entirely outweigh any merits it may possess. He is also much indebted to the Department of External Affairs and to the Canadian Institute of International Affairs for their kind assistance in providing information for certain chapters. The justification of this volume, if there be one, can be only in the importance of the subject with which it ventures to deal. The views which the book expresses are simply those of one individual. Should they encourage others to ponder the problems of their country and to form opinions of their own, it will have achieved its main purpose. Its author ventures to hope also that the study may perhaps help readers in other countries to understand Canada and Canadian life. In any event, he submits the volume in the words of Montaigne: “Reader, loe here a well-meaning Booke.” V.M. Batterwood House, Nr. Port Hope, Ontario. January, 1948. CONTENTS 1. THE CANADIAN PATTERN 1 History versus Geography Nationality No Evil The “New Colonialism” Self-Respect and Self-Confidence 2. THE QUEST FOR UNITY 15 The Condition of Unity The Merits of Diversity We Can Agree Tolerance and Unity 3. THE INTERPRETERS 27 In Search of Canada The Mission of Writer and Artist The Role of the Other Arts A House with a “Southern Exposure” 4. THREADS IN THE FABRIC OF UNITY 45 Unity is more than Skin-deep Culture and the Constitution The Radio and the Film A National Library Unity’s Symbols and Instruments The Universities 5. STATUS AND STATURE 67 Trade as a Factor in Growth The Winning of Sovereignty Status and Function The Geneva Chapter 6. FOREIGN POLICY BEGINS AT HOME 81 United Nations—is or are? The Factor of Responsibility Parliament and Foreign Affairs The Task of Interpretation The Citizen’s Part 7. KINSMEN The British Commonwealth a Canadian Interest 97 The Commonwealth a Practical Matter Unities—Real and False The Changing Commonwealth The Senior Partner 8. NEIGHBOURS 113 Neighbourliness in Practice Inter-Governmental Contacts An Erosion of Canadianism? Our North American Outlook The American Background 9. NORTH AMERICAN OR PAN-AMERICAN? 137 The Hemispheric Myth The Pan-American Union: Its Origin Pan-Americanism and the War Our Part in the Defence of the Americas What Would the Union Mean to Us? Friendship and Detachment 10. THE PROJECTION OF CANADA 157 The Function of Publicity UNESCO Publicity a National Duty The British Council Canada’s Part 11. ON DOMINION DAY 173 The First of July A Time for Self-Appraisal A Glance at the Past The Teacher’s Task A Canadian Credo NOTES 187 INDEX 195 ON BEING CANADIAN “_Regarding the New Dominion as an incipient new nation, it seems to me that our mental self-reliance is an essential condition of our political independence; I do not mean a state of public mind puffed up on small things; an exaggerated opinion of ourselves and a barbarian depreciation of foreigners; a controversial state of mind; or a merely imitative apish civilization. I mean a mental condition, thoughtful and true; national in its preferences, but catholic in its sympathies; gravitating inward, not outward; ready to learn from every other people on one sole condition, that the lesson when learned has been worth acquiring. In short, I would desire to see, Gentlemen, our new national character distinguished by a manly modesty as much as by mental independence; by the conscientious exercise of the critical faculties, as well as by the zeal of the inquirer._” THOMAS D’ARCY MCGEE, From an address before the Montreal Literary Club, November 4, 1867, on _The Mental Outfit of the New Dominion_ CHAPTER 1 The Canadian Pattern “_I do not pretend to be an imperialist. Neither do I pretend to be an anti-imperialist. I am a Canadian first, last and all the time. I am a British subject by birth, by tradition, by conviction—by the conviction that under British institutions my native land has found a measure of security and freedom it could not have found under any other régime. I want to speak from that double standpoint, for our policy is an expression of that double opinion._” SIR WILFRID LAURIER, in the House of Commons of Canada, 1910 1 The Canadian Pattern History versus Geography In London during the war years were to be seen servicemen greater in numbers and diversity than had ever assembled there before. They came from many different countries and revealed the fact. Among them were thousands of uniformed men who would have puzzled an observer a generation or two ago. They resembled in many ways both Englishmen and Americans, but they could not have been mistaken for either. They were Canadians, and with a very small margin of error one could spot them in the streets as such long before their badges could be identified. They could not have come from anywhere but Canada. Something in their bearing told the story—a combination of qualities—on the one hand a naturalness and freedom of movement, a touch of breeziness and an alertness which suggested the new world. They also showed self-control, an air of discipline and good manners, and they had generally taken some trouble about their appearance. They were rarely found lounging; they seemed always to have some purpose in mind. Was this the Canadian type about which we had argued for so long? Its emergence had been prematurely hailed by some; its existence is still stiffly denied by others. We have asked ourselves whether a people so diversified as ours and geographically so scattered, had produced something recognizable as a Canadian, or indeed whether it ever could. In Great Britain, with hundreds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen alongside even greater numbers of Americans and men from the British Isles, we could put the matter to the test for the first time in our history, and the answer undoubtedly was, “Yes, there is such a thing as a Canadian”. For it was not the fact that these men had all received similar training in the Canadian fighting services that gave them the attributes which they had in common and which distinguished them; these lay deeper than that. Training cannot create such qualities—it can only reveal them. If this is our Canadian, how does he square with the theories? In reflecting both the new world and the old, he would seem to personify the Canada we describe on paper. The Canadian pattern is pretty well understood. It is a truism that like most countries we are the offspring of a union between history and geography; between tradition and environment. History of course plays a larger part with us than with many peoples. Unlike the twenty-one other nations of the Americas, we never severed our political ties with Europe, and the impact of the older world upon Canadian life has been the stronger for that reason. Heredity in Canada has greatly modified the effect of our physical setting. We have been fortunate in being able to carry on and adapt to new conditions the traditions inherited from England and France. Canada is therefore the meeting ground—to use a much-abused word in a respectable sense—of a geographical axis from the South and an historical axis from the East. But even with us it is hard for history to compete with geography, for there is one important difference between the two forces which have shaped our thinking. We may forget our history, but geography is immutable and nothing can change it or diminish its power. We shall always be a neighbour of the United States, and subject to the influences which belong to our neighbourhood. On the other hand, our heritage from Great Britain is ours only so long as we cherish it, and in this respect geography will always pull in the opposite direction. Our British traditions are naturally reflected in many institutions such as our parliamentary system and our judiciary. These concrete things will endure, but the subtler and more intangible legacy from Britain which shows itself in habits of thought and mental attitudes, such as our particular conception of personal liberty and justice, is something which would evaporate should we unhappily cease to be aware of what it has given us. This precious inheritance will remain with us only so long as we ourselves choose to keep it alive. We must not, however, think of our relations with Britain in terms of tradition and sentiment alone. They possess economic substance too. As recent events have taught us afresh, our trade with the United Kingdom is of vital importance to us. Indeed, such commerce is part of the geographical pattern of the North Atlantic area, as witness Newfoundland, which has been the extreme example of the close economic ties between British North America and Great Britain. It is therefore important to remember that we have historic economic ties which also run on an East-West line.[1] The St. Lawrence River and the Laurentian Shield have profoundly affected our economy since the beginning and will continue to do so. The boundary between Canada and the United States is for the most part no arbitrary line but responds to certain economic realities which would have asserted themselves even if North America had been a political unit. Hence the development of our trade with Europe to which, indeed, we are geographically closer than is the United States. But broadly speaking, the threads in our national fabric which run east and west are, of course, the intangible ones—those which have brought us traditions from the older world; and those which run north and south are, as we know, the physical lines which represent our economic ties in North America. A Canadian historian[2] has defined our position in these words: “. . . Canada has been the product of the balance between North-South and East-West pulls. Her policy has been determined by this inescapable fact. Let no one be deceived in this matter. Canada will not cease to be both a North American and a British Commonwealth nation.” We like to think that we have made a reasonably good job in harmonizing the two sets of threads in our national fabric—the intangible ones and those which are physical. We can say in the same breath “we British” or “we North Americans”. The Canadian soldier and sailor and airman, as we saw them in London, were true to their national background. They belonged at once to the old world and the new and reflected both. Nationality no Evil The Canadian serviceman not only symbolized his country, but today he is better equipped to understand it. He thought a good deal about Canada during the war years, and was wisely encouraged to do so. Although he may have been out of touch with day-to-day events, he was able to gain a better idea of his country’s significance and meaning. This is true of many Canadian soldiers and airmen who found themselves serving in parts of Canada they had never seen before and knew little about. It is true also of members of our forces during their service abroad. It may sound absurd to say that a man can learn more about his native land in a period of absence from it, but the paradox is true. During the war large numbers of our fellow-countrymen were able to see their own country for the first time in perspective. They could appraise its institutions with some measure of detachment and compare them with others they saw around them. They were not, during this time, concerned as so many of us are with only one part of Canada, but were led to consider it as a whole. These men and women—many of them—have a fuller and better conception of their country than when they embarked from its shores. Their experience has been like that of the Irishman in Bernard Shaw’s play[3] who, when he returned after his first journey away from home, was full of surprise and wonder at what he saw, and declared: “I did not know what my own house was like because I had never been outside it.” Our own house is very different from what we thought it was—indeed from what it really was before the late war. We need not think only of the growth of our financial power which surprised even ourselves, nor of the scale of our military and industrial effort in the six war years. These things are obvious. It is easier, after all, to make a quantitative appraisal than an estimate of quality. What lay behind these achievements—the moral factors which made them possible—is in the long run more important than the achievements themselves. An attempt to assess all these elements can only deepen our confidence in our country. Such confidence should be in the very stuff of our thinking. Bombast is detestable and false pride is an evil, but true pride in any community is essential to its corporate accomplishments. We have never suffered from being too sure of ourselves. Our faults indeed lie in the other direction. There are numerous forces within and without which make it hard to correct such faults, yet, we are one of the few countries in the world which can strengthen its nationality without threatening or offending any one else. A stronger national sense would only help us the better to perform our national task. It need never conflict with an international outlook. We have often been told that it does, but true internationalism comes only from the co-operation of responsible national units. It is far removed from the cloudy cosmopolitanism which denies that national feeling, even rightly conceived and directed, can possess virtue. It is not hard to see that in an ideal civilization, nationality as we know it would no longer exist. National sovereignty must ultimately give way to a new unity with its bounds as wide as humanity itself. Professor Toynbee takes the long view when he says[4] of the spirit of nationality, that it is a “sour ferment of the new wine of Democracy in the old bottles of Tribalism.” But the imperfect world in which we live is divided for good or ill into national units. It can survive only if the right-minded nations are willing and strong enough to rise to their responsibilities. We should accept and act on the view of Mazzini, a practical nation-builder, who declared, “Nationality is sacred to me because I see in it the instrument of labour for the good and progress of all men.”[5] The “New Colonialism” National feeling in Canada is of course no new thing.[6] It has existed and quietly grown ever since the word “nation” was first used to the surprise of listeners by men of imagination eighty-odd years ago. It grew despite the resistance of many who thought it “disloyal”. “Colonialism” died hard, but it has been long dead. National sentiment killed it; but our national sentiment has sometimes assumed a negative character. In the struggle for self-government we occasionally seemed more concerned with justifying our case in the argument than interested in employing the new powers and privileges we had gradually acquired. A nationality cannot be built on negatives. It was unfortunate that many years after the century-long debate was over and our right to run our own affairs assured, we still continued to look on ourselves as escaping from the apron-strings of a reluctant mother country. Our relations with Great Britain were now and then marked by moments of childish self-assertiveness, and co-operation with her even on the new footing of equality was often halting and reluctant. This attitude has not even yet entirely vanished. There is truth in what was said not long ago: “It is hardly too much to say that in some quarters there is a surviving colonialism which cannot forget that the British connection once involved colonial subordination, and would willingly demonstrate independence of Britain by avowing dependence upon the United States.”[7] Such “new colonialism” is as damaging to national growth as was the old. We are too grown-up to indulge in such antiquated prejudices and old-fashioned thinking. Until we finally purge our minds of them we shall be tempted still to nurse the absurd apprehension that a proposal from London may involve some hidden threat to our independence. Let us abandon for all time the unbecoming illusion that somehow we are still under the shadow of Downing Street. There is one vital fact which we should accept and keep as an essential element in our thinking, and it is this: there is no place in the world today where there is so correct and so understanding an attitude to the Canadian outlook and to Canadian policies as in London. I can say this after a period of over ten years during which I was in almost daily touch with Whitehall, and was brought into intimate contact with its Ministries. We know that our sovereign independence is real, final and complete. If there remain vestiges of subordinate status, we ourselves are responsible and no one else. If, for instance, today we can alter our constitution only by appealing to the British parliament, it is because we apparently still wish to have it so, embarrassing as the arrangement is to the legislators at Westminster, who naturally regard such a matter as no concern of theirs. We have another survival of the earlier relationship with Great Britain in the appeal to the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee itself has, however, agreed with our Supreme Court that its continuance is a matter for us alone to decide. Sometimes its retention is urged on the grounds that it provides a link between Canada and Britain. It may not be irrelevant to suggest in this connection that the appeal should be judged as a purely legal matter, and that it can be misleading to discuss it in terms of sentiment. It may indeed be argued that at times, far from strengthening our relations with Great Britain, it has been actually unhelpful. The Privy Council is a great court. There is none with a higher tradition, but even if it should be decided to abolish or limit the right of appeal from Canada—and there are strong arguments on both sides of the question—our links with the Throne will not be affected, for our judges at Ottawa are the King’s judges no less than are their Lordships of the Privy Council. Such matters are for us to settle ourselves. Despite lingering illusions in some minds, there is no conspiracy against our sovereign independence anywhere; no blue-print for the centralization of the affairs of the British Commonwealth. We should naturally resist firmly a disposition in any quarter “to turn the hands of the clock back”, but if the speeches of individuals may now and then seem, rightly or wrongly, to suggest views on these subjects with which we cannot agree, we should remember that they are personal opinions only and should be listened to as such. We are an adult country with no cause for apprehension and every reason for that self-respect which is always the passport to the respect of others. The Canadian serviceman in the war was found a good man to work with because he was self-respecting; was sure of himself. Touchiness, preoccupation with our national standing—such things are only a confession of weakness which the facts disprove. One would like to think that we had left such inhibitions behind. There is support for this view in our altered attitude to a word which we still hear now and then, the word “colonial”. Thirty years ago that term as applied to ourselves was a source of irritation. We were nationally adolescent and naturally a bit sensitive. Now when occasionally—very occasionally—an old-fashioned person abroad uses it, innocently enough, we are simply amused and probably engage in a little good-humoured instruction on the nature of the British Commonwealth. Self-Respect and Self-Confidence There should no longer be doubt about a man remaining a good Canadian when he goes abroad; a fear that his Canadianism will be impaired by outside influences. Such an attitude only reveals a disappointing lack of confidence in our country and, indeed, in ourselves. It is not a very grown-up point of view. If we believe in Canada, we will return home after a period of absence even better Canadians than when we left. As far as England is concerned, there is nothing less true than any illusion that a sojourner in that country is in danger of losing his natural ways and old allegiances under some strange spell which ensnares him—that is, if he is a good Canadian at heart. Britain, after all, is a land which hates affectations, respects loyalties and expects a visitor to be true to himself and the community whence he came. British people have little regard for a Canadian who is not proud of being one. Pride and self-confidence should go hand-in-hand and we shall need all the self-confidence we have for the tasks which lie ahead. It is an understatement to say that they are formidable. If “the man from Mars” (whose detached views are always so useful) could see us, what would he think of our future as a community? He would see fewer than thirteen millions of people widely scattered over half a continent, more than three-quarters of them living in a ribbon of settlements, broken here and there by wilderness, within two hundred miles of the border between ourselves and a country nearly twelve times our size with all the physical attraction and the powerful influences which a large body exerts on a small one. He would note that here and there our best roads lead to the south. He would observe that our two leading cities are more than 300 miles apart; that it is 500 miles from Halifax to Montreal—over 800 by rail; that 1,400 miles separate Montreal from Winnipeg; that Winnipeg is as far from Vancouver. He would note the diversity in our population.[8] About half our people are of British stock; nearly one-third are of French origin. The remainder, about one-fifth, represents a great variety of races—German, Scandinavian and Ukrainian forming the largest groups. There are forty-two Canadian periodicals carrying advertisements in foreign languages of which thirteen are represented. The Bible is distributed in Canada in over fifty languages. Such is the variety of our racial composition. (Although we look to the assimilation[9] of the foreign strains to one or other of the permanent cultures in our national life which came from the British Isles and France, in the process these new groups need not forget all traces of their heritage.) With all the difficulties that confront us, would our Martian have some doubts about our future as a nation? Our own confidence should be powerfully reinforced by our success up to the present. For our problem is not a new one. It was more difficult, indeed, in earlier years than now for our numbers were smaller and communications more meagre. On the other hand, the pressure on our national life from the south is greater than before, for science has exposed us to forces undreamed of in earlier days. But for all that, there should be no doubt of the future so long as one condition is fulfilled and that is that Canada is aware of herself and of the things which give her meaning. And we _have_ a meaning, however often we may forget it. We may be a mosaic composed of many pieces of different sizes and shapes and colours, and sometimes the cement between the bits has seemed to wear thin, but for all that the mosaic has a national pattern. Canada has always been more than a mere geographical expression. There is a continuity of principle which runs straight from the beginning down to the present. The best example of this is the individual contribution we have made to the cause of freedom. Our French-speaking fellow-countrymen won freedom for their faith and language in Canada. The United Empire Loyalists found freedom here to live as they pleased. Canada achieved freedom for herself and in finding it quite unconsciously played a vital part in the creation of what came to be known as the British Commonwealth. We often forget our relation to that monumental conception which has given the world so great a pattern of political liberty. Canada was the laboratory in which this discovery took place. We must, however, remember that although the initiative was ours, crucial decisions as to responsible government were made jointly by wise men on both sides of the Atlantic—by Canadians who had inherited a passion for freedom from Britain and Englishmen who understood and respected their aims. “The winning of responsible government a century ago was neither a Colonial victory nor a British defeat. It was the triumph of both British and Colonial reformers over conservatism, reaction and timidity on both sides of the Atlantic.”[10] CHAPTER 2 The Quest for Unity “_In our own Federation we should have Catholic and Protestant, English, French, Irish and Scotch, and each by his efforts and his success would increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy . . . we were of different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to compete and emulate for the general welfare . . . British- and French-Canadians alike could appreciate and understand their position relative to each other. They were placed like great families beside each other, and their contact produced a healthy spirit of emulation. It was a benefit rather than otherwise that we had a diversity of races._” SIR GEORGES ÉTIENNE CARTIER, in the Legislative Assembly of Canada, 1865 “_Father of Unity, make this people one!_” CHARLES G. D. ROBERTS, _A Collect for Dominion Day_, 1885 2 The Quest for Unity The Condition of Unity It has been said that Canada is a difficult country to govern. This is a point on which governments and oppositions would habitually differ. Perhaps “the ayes have it”, but a country which was simple and easy to govern might well be an uninteresting one to live in. We have plenty of colours and lights and shades in our make-up. Canada is no monochrome of uniformity and we are not wanting in problems, but these are surely a reasonable challenge to a high-spirited and competent people. Our problems lie in every sphere; political, economic, social, financial, constitutional. Certain profound questions which naturally spring to our minds when we talk about our future, come from the relation between the two great communities which have made Canada, and which must share her future. That is the vital issue. It is a basic element in our national faith that there is a common ground between all Canadians. The discovery of such common ground can come only from an interpretation of Canadian interests in the broadest and deepest meaning of the word, and that will require an adequate measure of agreement on all the great questions which confront us. Thus only can we acquire that sense of the whole which is greater than its parts. I remember one evening in England during the war when a number of young Canadian officers were discussing the affairs of their country—and how often this happened! They themselves represented a cross-section of Canada in residence and language. One of them said: “My battalion is brigaded with a battalion from the West and a French-speaking unit from Quebec. We get along splendidly because what we all want is to have a good brigade.” There is much to learn from that simple remark if we substitute the word “country” for the word “brigade”. Members of different communities always get on together best when they have a common task to perform. Such is our experience in Canada where we are fortunate in having numerous bodies whose permanent membership is drawn from both French- and English-speaking groups, but whose function is _Canadian_, with no hyphen to limit it. When our lawyers and doctors and scientists and architects and scholars and business men and journalists from both communities foregather to discuss their common problems, they are making an important contribution to national unity. Such occasions serve the cause better than attempts to discuss unity in the abstract. The language of “shop” is a cohesive force. Lord Acton, in his great essay on Nationality,[11] observed that “the co-existence of several nations under the same state is a test, as well as the best security of its freedom. It is also one of the chief instruments of civilization . . .” Canada, with her two national strains, gives point to this reflection. In English-speaking Canada we have abundant reason to value the contribution made by our fellow-citizens who speak French as their mother tongue. It is no mere _cliché_ to say that we should be a far poorer and weaker country without it. Canadians of French origin do not think less of us in English-speaking Canada because we too cherish our traditions—from England and Scotland and Ireland. But, although French- and English-speaking Canadians do not share a cultural tradition, they have in common the legacy of freedom which came from Great Britain. Sir Georges Cartier declared in 1865, speaking of his fellow-Canadians of French origin, that “with the disappearance of British power [from this continent] they too would have disappeared as French-Canadians.”[12] Although we have two living cultures in Canada—French and English—we have one great political heritage, whatever our racial origin. French is the language of the Legislature at Quebec, but the ancestry of its Council and Assembly lies in seventeenth century England where the battle for the supremacy of Parliament was won. The British tradition in Canada has fortified our sense of freedom. Today, our association with the other nations of the Commonwealth is an expression of political liberty. If it is sometimes said that the British connection is an evidence of “colonial subordination”, nothing could be further from the truth. The “colonial” point of view no longer exists as a factor in our national life and is held by no thinking Canadian. The Merits of Diversity Some questions exist, on which very different views have been held on the opposite sides of the Ottawa River. The great majority of Canadians are deeply concerned about such matters. We eagerly ask ourselves how will that real unity come without which we cannot prosper? It is our duty to find the answer and we must refuse to be discouraged by those defeatists in both groups who think there is no answer, as well as by the occasional fanatic who hopes there is none. Our first task, surely, is to understand the differences between us and to recognize them. And there are differences; Canada is the richer for them. In a recent history[13] there is an interesting analysis of the dissimilar philosophies revealed by the two societies which found themselves alongside each other in the early days of Canada: “These attitudes,” says its author, “crystallized in the contrasting figures of the business man and the settler but not confined to either, are writ large on every page of Canadian history . . .” But it is easy to over-simplify such contrasts; to exaggerate them; to think of one group as representing the agrarian point of view and the other the commercial. There are many facts in history and in contemporary life which modify this over-sharp distinction. There are, however, natural differences of outlook between Canadians of French and Anglo-Saxon origin, and we should understand them. Over the years there have been many efforts to this end. But have we, perhaps, been lacking in candour and frankness in our talks with each other? It is no good to gloss over the real things on which we may have different ideas. There are expressions of _bonne entente_ on both sides, but one cannot build national unity simply on an exchange of compliments. The real compliment between friends is an honest expression of views in the light of mutual understanding. It is not that we do not mean the compliments we exchange. The things which those of us who come from other parts of Canada admire in Quebec are not only external qualities—the charm of its countryside and the beauty of its villages. We have come to respect more and more the standard of values which we find among its people. In an age when so much is in a state of flux they remain true to the ideal of the family as the essential unit in our society. In a world which seems given more and more to materialism they hold to religion as the guiding force in life. As education appears to become increasingly mechanistic they still give culture and the humanities an honoured place in their schools and colleges. We can only respect and admire the loyalty of Quebec to her own background. She would wish us to be as faithful to ours as she is to hers, but surely there is much that each of us can learn from the other. Unfortunately, although this has been repeated until it has a platitudinous ring about it, there are too few of us who act in accordance with that truth. We should know more about each other than we do, and as a means to this end we should know more than we do about each other’s language. (We might well employ our national radio system for such a national purpose.) Quebec gives us a good example in this respect, for as we know, English is widely spoken in that Province. Happily, there now is a growing number of young people in English-speaking Canada who wish to learn the other Canadian tongue. They recognize that our dual culture in Canada is a national advantage. Our two languages are those which have, above all others, given the world its present civilization, and when a Canadian is familiar with both he not only contributes to the unity of his country, but he adds to his equipment as a civilized person. Certainly the more French-speaking Canadians who know English, and the more English-speaking Canadians who know French, the easier it will be for us to find real understanding as fellow-Canadians. “. . . If one knows his neighbour’s tongue, he possesses the key of his house.”[14] Familiarity with both the languages of Canada makes the citizen better able to limit the influence of the extremists on both sides of the communal issue. It is a familiar tragedy in all controversies that the fanatic in one camp, however unrepresentative he may really be, unhappily seems to personify his own community in the eyes of those on the other side. The less each group knows about the other, the greater is the extremist’s power to create misunderstanding and hatred. His voice is always loud and shrill. It is therefore the duty of the men of tolerance and moderation to let their views be heard. Otherwise we leave the field to the extremist with his prejudiced mind and distorted thinking. We Can Agree The Fathers of Confederation in their wisdom gave us a federal system, and, as every Canadian knows, those things which most closely concern the individual—which are most intimately connected with his being—are protected for all time by the rights of the provincial communities of which we are composed. But there are questions in the national sphere which present complicated problems. One of these relates to the defence of our country—a subject of more pressing importance in recent years than ever before. The Fathers did not overlook this question; indeed it was one of the reasons for Confederation itself. The statesmen of the day wished for a strong and united Canada to meet an external emergency which at that time seemed possible. They knew if there were an attempted invasion from the south, that the resistance from Canada—French-speaking and English-speaking—would be as strong and determined as it had been under de Salaberry and Brock. Those days are long since gone. Friendship with our American neighbours we take for granted. There are no dangers from close at hand, but we do not yet live in a peaceful world. Distant events have involved us in war twice in one generation, and may do so once again. Some persons apparently held the belief in the late war—at least in the early years—that we were involved in the conflict because we were a member of the British Commonwealth and that had we been a republic, we could have remained neutral like Chile or Peru. (Eire no doubt proved that a nation could remain in the Commonwealth and stay neutral if she wished, but Eire’s relation to the Commonwealth can be understood only by metaphysicians.) It is profoundly untrue, however, that Canada in any circumstances, whatever her international status, could have remained neutral in the late war. We understood the impossibility of neutrality in 1939. The United States was forced to accept the fact in 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The constructive course today, however, is surely to forget past controversies and turn our faces to the future. Our differences as to the issues of war and peace and as to the method of our participation in war, should it come again, will evaporate in the light of immutable facts. A third world war would be universal in a sense which would put every hamlet in North America into the front line. It would involve our total mobilization to a degree hitherto unknown, and all our resources, human and material, would have to be summoned to our defence. There would be no debates as to how our forces would be raised or where they would serve; a desperate immediate struggle for survival would settle these matters for us. Even in the late war, the idea of hemispheric defence—the notion that this continent could be defended by men lining its shores and ships patrolling its territorial waters—was shattered by events. The defence of our hemisphere lay then, and will always lie, wherever the enemy can be most usefully attacked. The Americas were defended in the years 1939-1945 by British soldiers in Libya, American airmen in the South Pacific and Canadian seamen off the North Cape, just as they were by the fighting men of all three countries and their allies who, wherever they were, harassed the enemy and thwarted him. Above all, they were shielded by the resistance of Great Britain, which to the Americas stood as an outlying fortress. Tolerance and Unity It is worth noting that Britain now serves the world—our world—in another capacity. She is the principal bulwark in Europe today against the threat of organized Communism. No Canadians should be more aware of the Communist menace than those who regard religion as an all-important factor in life. This threat which Christianity faces should have the effect of drawing together Roman Catholic and Protestant, whatever language they speak, confronted as they are by a common enemy. Christianity is now imperilled, as it has not been for many centuries, by an opposing philosophy—pagan, materialistic and ruthless. If ever there was a time when Christian charity and wisdom should prevail in the relation between the Churches, it is now. We have a tradition of tolerance in Canada. There are many incidents in our past which prove it, like that of the hospitality which the Recollet Fathers in eighteenth century Montreal offered a Presbyterian congregation which possessed no church, and which when it acquired one, sent the Fathers a gift in recognition of their kindness.[15] To no country in the world does tolerance mean more than to ours. Tolerance alone will not solve our problems for us, but it will enable us to approach them in the spirit that brings about solutions. When we give our thought to the greatest of these questions, let us consider it as no localized matter, but as nothing less than the question of Canadian unity itself, which is everybody’s problem. Mistakes have been made on both sides and we in English-speaking Canada have contributed our share. We have, for one thing, sometimes forgotten that the history of Canada did not commence in 1867 or 1763, but a century and a half before that. Canadian history as taught in both communities, indeed, needs restatement if we are to teach the citizens of tomorrow that they belong to one Canada which is as broad as our half-continent. Sometimes a piece of ceremonial dramatizes an historical truth. The Royal 22nd Regiment, whose gallant record in both world wars is known to all Canadians, had on one occasion in 1940 the honour of providing the King’s Guard in London. When those of us who were privileged to be guests in its Mess at St. James’s Palace and heard the King’s health proposed in the words, “Messieurs, Le Roi”, we not only heard the French language used in such circumstances probably for the first time since the Middle Ages when French ceased to be the language of the Court, but also we were moved to recall that chapter of heroism and achievement which we know as the French Régime in Canada. Nationality has been defined as “that principle compounded of past traditions, present interests, and future aspirations that gives to a people a sense of organic unity.” How far can we Canadians conform to this formula? We have such common factors if we choose to recognize them, but although the unity they have given us is still imperfect, we shall find it in full measure. Of this there can be no doubt and there are increasing reasons for confidence. The word “unity” can be employed as a watchword or a catchword. It can be a challenge to statecraft or an excuse for inaction. It can lead to bold and imaginative projects or serve as a cloak for inertia. We shall talk of unity until it is achieved, but however we use the word, the idea to us must be supreme, for in Canada the pursuit of unity is like the quest of the Holy Grail. CHAPTER 3 The Interpreters “_Who led the people to quit the beer which gives peace, to drink the heady wine of imagination? Who ransacked the past and revived the traditions of the nation? Who but you found in the fairy tales of its infancy the basis of a future civilization?_” A. E., _The Interpreters_ 3 The Interpreters In Search of Canada A discussion of Canadian unity invites an enquiry into what we are trying to unite: the essence of Canada itself. It is easier to say what Canada is not, than what it is. Governor Simcoe attempted to create on North American soil “the image and transcript”[16] of England. Generations later an American politician, in an unguarded moment said that Canada was “the northern extension of the United States”. They were both wrong. We derive mental attitudes from Great Britain along with certain institutions; our daily habits are very like those of our American neighbours, but in a strange, indefinable way we are unlike both. English travellers often tell us that when they cross the border from the United States they are aware of subtle differences. We as Canadians would not be very discerning if we were not also conscious of contrasts between the north and the south side of the line. But what are these differences? We can list some of them. Many things are simpler—on a smaller scale with us. Our tempo is more deliberate; there is an air of moderation in our habits of life. Why should this be so? Climate plays a great part in giving us our special character, different from that of our southern neighbours. Quite apart from the huge annual bill our winter imposes on us in terms of building construction and clothing and fuel, it influences our mentality, produces a sober temperament. Our racial composition—and this is partly because of our climate—is different, too. A small percentage of our people comes from central or southeastern Europe. The vast majority springs either from the British Isles or Northern France, a good many, too, from Scandinavia and Germany, and it is in northwestern Europe that one finds the elements of human stability highly developed. Nothing is more characteristic of Canadians than the inclination to be moderate. We are not given to extremes in Canada. We are influenced by our form of government. In Great Britain the parliamentary system, with its clearly-defined chain of responsibility running from the individual citizen up to the national executive, has helped to make the average man or woman a politically responsible person. We have the same system, and it has done much to shape our thinking. The difference between our constitution and that of the United States is greater than even we sometimes realize for all our knowledge of both. A witty American once said that he lived under “government by deadlock”. Under the United States Constitution, with its historic checks and balances, responsibility is deliberately divided. The relation of the individual to his government is far less definite than with us. North America is an exhibit of the truth that forms of government help to mould mental attitudes. The search for Canadian individuality—to isolate the germ of the Canadian character—is an alluring pursuit. Perhaps we may learn something from an analysis of the Canadian stock in the United States which comprised, in 1930, over 3,337,000 persons of Canadian birth or parentage, or about one-quarter of the Canadian stock living in North America. It is impossible to find out what occupations these people are pursuing, but we know those in which they excel. The great numbers of French-Canadians in industry in New England bring to their work skill, ingenuity and a stable temperament. Over the years, Canadians in the United States have achieved success in certain professions; in academic work, in medicine and nursing, in engineering, accountancy and banking, in the theatre and concert hall. There are certain qualities of mind which are common to most of these vocations. It might sound a little complacent to catalogue them. Incidentally, it is not without interest that so many of the occupations in which Canadians in the United States do well, are those which are characteristic of Scotland. This in itself is an important comment on our national character. It has been said that Canada is a patch-work of imported ideas—French, English, Scottish or American; that we possess little or nothing which cannot be found elsewhere. This is a depressing point of view and it shows little insight or discernment. There are Canadian customs, if we choose to find them; Canadian things which are very much our own, suggesting this country and no other. It is perhaps not too juvenile to try to make a list of some of these—a catalogue of “Canadiana” to form a composite picture. What might be included? A constable of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—and Canada has no better symbol; a sheaf of Marquis wheat; Canadian landscape painting; a beaver-pelt; a silvered church spire in French Canada; a bar of nickel; a bush-pilot; a pair of moccasins; the Wolfe-Montcalm monument[17] at Quebec; a tube of insulin; a totem pole; a calèche; a cake of maple sugar; a Hudson’s Bay blanket; the song “Alouette”; a hockey stick; the Canadian Boat Song; a pair of snow-shoes; a roll of birch-bark; a silver fox; a canoe; a Canada goose; a grain elevator; a lacrosse stick; a boom of logs; a buffalo; the Quebec Citadel; a maple tree; the opening of Parliament in winter. The reader will doubtless have additions to make to this list of Canadian symbols. Each of them has a significance. They all suggest either Canadian nature or our own history or our particular ways and achievements, our economy or cultural traditions—in other words, the intricate pattern which is Canada. It is significant that not many of these belong to everyday life in town or country. Our ordinary habits and equipment have now little to distinguish them from those of the Americans. This is no doubt inevitable, but we could have made a more successful effort to preserve a Canadian atmosphere. Mere nomenclature plays its part in this. The names of things are perhaps not of great importance, as Shakespeare’s Juliet observed, but they have a bearing on our thinking. It may not, for instance, seem entirely absurd to suggest that when the currency of Canada was changed from sterling to the decimal system, which of course was necessary, we might have had the imagination to give our Canadian dollar a name of its own, finding, if possible, something typically Canadian or perhaps borrowing some historic term like “crown”, and keeping the word “shilling” for the quarter dollar. This suggestion has more in it than sentiment, for the subject of economics is involved. Mr. Gilbert Jackson expressed an economist’s view when he said that the decision to give the Canadian unit of money the same name as the corresponding American unit, “did a great disservice to this Dominion”, and encourages persons to draw “very debatable conclusions”, because “ever since then the two neighbours, different in a thousand ways and each in its own right a sovereign state, have been calling their respective instruments of exchange by the same name—and generally talking about them as if they were the same thing. But, of course, calling them by the same name does not make them the same thing.”[18] The use of names not only influences our thinking; it reflects it. It revealed a lack of thought when the principal square in the capital city of Canada was given a name coming to us presumably from Spain via California, without the remotest connection with Canada or with anything Canadian. Fortunately “The Plaza” is now officially, “Confederation Square”, although the old name dies hard. The Mission of Writer and Artist If life in Canada has a pattern of its own, to whom can we look to explain the design? The artist and the writer have a special rôle of interpretation. In a recent study[19] of Canadian literature it is said that “one of the forces that can help a civilization to come of age is the presentation of its surfaces and depths in works of imagination in such a fashion that the reader says: ‘I now understand myself and my milieu with a fullness and a clearness greater than before’”. This reflection applies, of course, to the work of the artist as well as to that of the novelist or poet. We are not yet quite free from a disposition to regard painting and music or like pursuits as “frills”. The place which such subjects frequently occupy in our periodicals suggests that we may still look on them as something largely “of interest to the ladies”. What can we say about the relation of art to the ordinary man? That it quickens his perceptions, broadens his mental horizon, stimulates his imagination; that it can make him a better citizen. Matthew Arnold’s great essay[20] on this subject will bear rereading for it has lost none of its force. Thus runs a familiar passage: “It is in making endless additions to itself, in the endless expansion of its powers, in endless growth in wisdom and beauty, that the spirit of the human race finds its ideal. To reach this ideal, culture is an indispensable aid, and that is the true value of culture.” We were taught, during the war, that art is not merely the affair of the highbrow. Those years revealed an interest in fine things on the part of the community far deeper and wider than was realized earlier. This is particularly true of Great Britain where, because of war conditions, the public was denied so much in the world of pictures and music. Under-nourishment always induces an active appreciation of food. No one who witnessed the long queues waiting patiently to view the “picture of the month” in the National Gallery—the only great work brought to London at any one time—or could see an audience listening to chamber music during an air-raid could fail to realize that such things have a necessary place in life and are not merely the pursuit of the dilettante. The war, indeed, not only revealed but stimulated an interest in the arts in England which has remained far more widespread since its close than in the pre-war years. In Canada, too, there would seem to be a more general response to the work of our artists and writers than before the war. They appear now to mean more to the average man and woman than in former years. We look to them with increasing interest as interpreters of Canada. Our painters have served as “shock troops” in the effort of interpretation. They have already helped us greatly to understand our country. The swift development of Canadian painting is not only a story interesting to ourselves but it also has importance in its bearing on the larger question of the relation between art and nationality. We, of course, know the facts, how a group of gifted artists a generation or so ago turned their backs on Europe—quite deliberately—and surrendered themselves to their own environment, striving to uncover its secret. The inevitable happened. The Canadian landscape took possession of them. They abandoned the methods and technique which were alien to Canada, and recorded its beauty faithfully in the clear lights, bold lines and strong colours which belong to it. They had to struggle against strong opposition, these pioneers, among their colleagues and the general public as well, but opposition is better than indifference. It produces an argument, and the pioneers won their case and achieved recognition. In Canadian painting, the revolutionary of a generation ago has become the “old master” of today. Contemporary art in Canada, to a greater extent than the product of the previous generation, reveals international influences. It is also less concerned with Canadian material, such as the local landscape, which provided the subject matter for so much of the earlier work. But there is no reason why it should be any less “Canadian” for that, if it reflects the Canadian character. It is to the honour of our painters that they have made thousands of their fellow-countrymen conscious for the first time of the peculiar charm of their own land. This mission of interpretation was greatly broadened by the large-scale reproductions which, under the auspices of our National Gallery at Ottawa, were distributed widely among our fighting services during the war. Copies of the same prints given to the armed forces of Great Britain for their canteens and hospitals have made countless Englishmen and Scotsmen aware for the first time of the atmosphere of Canada. So much for the painter. The task of the man of letters is more difficult. It has been said that no writer can live by the sales of his books in Canada, and that unless he has other means of livelihood he must seek a wider market. This he is most likely to find in the United States, but if our authors have to consider the American field for their product, it is probable that its character will be altered by that fact. For this reason it has been said that “an alien audience has shaped the treatment of Canadian life”.[21] If this be so, has the Canadian literature concerned thus become “de-Canadianized”? If it has become less provincial, that is no bad thing. If, on the other hand, its real Canadianism has been impaired, that is to be regretted. In any event, Canadian books, whether they deal with Canadian life or not, must do so in such a way as to appeal to readers beyond our borders. It is encouraging that several novels lately written by Canadians and dealing with Canadian material, have achieved success both here and abroad. They were not self-consciously Canadian, but were an honest and convincing interpretation of things Canadian. The task of either artist or writer is, after all, not to talk about his country, but to interpret what he sees around him. Art with a mission ceases to be art. No artist can be asked to become the conscious bearer of a national message. Art can easily be degraded to the level of propaganda whereupon it ceases to be art. To turn to one extreme example, we were only too familiar with the prostitution of things of the spirit in wartime Germany. We see it today in Soviet Russia, where poets are disciplined when they stray from the “party line”, and where even symphonic music is purged of “ideological impurities”! There could be no such absurdity in a democratic state, but the literature of any country may be too nationally self-conscious. The last thing we wish to see in Canada is Canadian writing or works of art veneered with an artificial “Canadianism”. That belongs to guide-book literature. But the arts and letters can have a reasonable national flavour, if the works produced are those of men and women with a devotion to the legend and the ideal of the nation. We have been rich in such persons. Poetry played no unimportant part in the movement which first strove to awaken Canadians to a sense of national purpose. The poetry of the “Canada First” movement holds an honoured place in our literary history. Later, the New Brunswick poets, Roberts and Carman and their younger contemporary and friend, Francis Sherman, interpreted their own country as poets can. It may seem like a glib generalization to say that poetry can inspire a national effort, but we know it to be true. We are told, for instance, by a Canadian artist,[22] that a group of our painters in the ’80’s and ’90’s, struggling to form a native movement in the arts, looked to the poets for inspiration and found it. Today, it has been pointed out, many, if not most of our best-known Canadian poets hold university posts. This speaks well for our universities. One is glad to feel that Pegasus is not constrained by his academic harness. But it cannot be said that we yet give poetry very “high priority” in our national life. In a letter which Rudyard Kipling wrote to Francis Sherman, he said: “It must be a gorgeous thing to be one of the band of new singers. You don’t know how much Canada lies in your hands—and Canada doesn’t either”. It is true that poetry does not play the part in modern life it did in earlier years. People do not read poems as they once did. But if we use the word “poet” in the broadest sense, Kipling’s words have a challenge in them. When we are asked about such things, we have some standard answers to give—that we are still a young country; that we are a pioneering people whose task is to conquer the wilderness with little time left for reading. Such replies are no longer convincing. We cannot excuse ourselves on the ground of youth, for we are no longer as youthful as we think,[23] and if we still have pioneering tasks, these will be better done with the fire which the poet can give us. Material enterprise has often marched alongside achievements in the field of letters. The Elizabethans were very practical people, but theirs was an age of literature too. We build fine dams and bridges in Canada, and we have many more to construct, but we would do well to understand the deeper meaning of these undertakings and see them in the wider context of life. Today, our writers are helping us to gain such comprehension. Indeed, something very remarkable has happened of late in the field of Canadian literature, something which should give us great encouragement. We shall understand it better when we can see it in perspective. In the last few years books of high quality and in increasing numbers, have been written by Canadians about Canadian life—novels and histories and volumes of verse—revealing a new confidence in their country, an adult feeling, a sense of sureness. And what is very important, their authors are staying with us as in earlier years our writers so often did not. They are finding Canada a good place in which to live and work. The outside world has become increasingly interested in Canadian life, and there is a growing appreciation of the work of the artist and writer which interprets it. If Canadian books and pictures are recognized today as never before by the people of other countries, this is not an unreasonable challenge to us at home. But it is not suggested that we should acclaim everything Canadian with equal enthusiasm. Such complacency would do us no good. Our writers and artists, indeed, would not wish their works to be immune from constructive criticism. The critical faculty grows more slowly in a young community than literature and the creative arts which always require its corrective influence. Criticism is not incompatible with the encouragement and confidence which those who labour in these fields deserve. The Role of the Other Arts No country can call itself civilized without giving an appropriate place in its life to music. New York is the musical metropolis of North America. It is inevitable that we should draw heavily on that market for talent, and that we should be influenced by its standards. There should, however, be limits to our dependence on an American city in this field. It is natural that the _cachet_ of a great musical centre should be desirable for our artists, but it is quite another matter for Canadian musical organizations to give preference in their programmes to performers from abroad over those of equal or greater merit at home. Public opinion is the arbiter in such affairs and there are reasons for believing that music-lovers in Canada are increasingly willing to give our own artists the place in our programmes which they deserve. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is playing a most useful part in this development. Our conservatories are constantly improving their product and are serving the cause of music with a growing distinction. State-aid is becoming available to an increasing extent, notably in the Province of Quebec. The few symphony orchestras we have are deservedly broadening the basis of that support and here the C.B.C. is an indispensable source of revenue. On the other hand, choral music, a legacy we have received from Britain, does not appear to be as popular in Canada as it was in former years, although the growth of our annual music festivals, so often with excellent choruses, would seem to provide an argument to the contrary. We have gifted composers in Canada and the volume of their work is increasing. Has it the distinctive national quality which we find in much Canadian literature and painting? Sir Ernest MacMillan has pointed out that “the history of other countries teaches us that a period of nationalistic self-consciousness generally precedes the appearance in any nation of great composers, preparing and fertilizing the soil in which they can grow and come to fruition”. A national idiom in music will doubtless appear in time, but it will not come from a conscious effort on the part of musicians. It will be rather the unconscious reflection in their work of a national spirit pervading the community in which they live. They have at least two reservoirs of material on which to draw. The greater of these, of course, is French-Canadian folk-song. This has been made available chiefly through, the invaluable labours of Mr. Marius Barbeau of the Canadian National Museum, who has recorded also for our use the folk-music of the Indian race. As far as the drama is concerned, out of the chain of commercial theatres which used to stretch across Canada, we have left apparently only four—four theatres for twelve millions of people. (One of these, in an Ontario city, London, is now the property of the local drama society, and is doubtless destined to become a repertory theatre of importance; another, in Winnipeg, is owned by the municipality.) With these exceptions, all the “legitimate” theatres in this country have either disappeared or have been converted into moving-picture houses. There are, of course, a few small playhouses used largely by amateurs, and here and there is a municipal auditorium suitable for stage performances. If we are to have extended tours in Canada of theatrical companies from the United States and Great Britain, we shall have to provide them with facilities less expensive and more convenient than those at present available except in a very few cities. The properly equipped “civic auditorium” like that at Winnipeg is probably the answer to this question. The future of dramatic art in Canada lies largely, however, in the amateur movement, although amateur companies must gradually become professional or semiprofessional if high standards of production are to be maintained on a permanent basis. The annual competitions held by the Dominion Drama Festival have already stimulated all the branches of the dramatic art, including that of the playwright; for it is useful to remember that practicable plays are written only when their authors can keep in touch with a living theatre. That is true of the drama everywhere. The Festival has done something else. Annual meetings which bring together theatrical groups from all over Canada, representing every side of Canadian life, must play no negligible part in ministering to the cause of national unity. From these reflections on the arts in Canada, we cannot leave out architecture, the “mistress art”. The Canadian architect has good models from the past in French Canada, the Maritime Provinces, and United Empire Loyalist Ontario, although these were ignored for generations. But we cannot be contented with the reproduction of the old. That would lead to a lifeless architecture. On the other hand, new “styles” can never be consciously created. They can only emerge in response to the task to be undertaken and the environment in which it must be performed. We can neither neglect tradition nor be contented with it. But the battle between the traditionalists and modernists is perhaps a needless strife. The buildings of modern Sweden would seem to prove this. The Swedes have preserved a link with their best traditions in building, yet the old styles are boldly and skilfully adapted to modern needs. Perhaps this will happen in Canada. If Canadian architecture develops characteristics of its own—a Canadian manner—different results will doubtless be attained by architects in French-speaking and English-speaking Canada, with their dissimilar backgrounds. We may differ sharply on the subject of architectural style in Canada, but there can be no difference of opinion on one subject of concern to us all, and that is the steady disappearance from certain Canadian towns and villages of the peculiar characteristics and charm which they once possessed. It is no small tragedy that old settlements with the dignified architecture of an earlier Canada should become commonplace and standardized in their appearance; that historic places in the Maritime Provinces and Quebec and Ontario should be so neglectful of their past as to become indistinguishable from towns and villages in Tennessee or Wisconsin. One feels it would be more appropriate that places with so little individuality should be numbered rather than named. This tendency is regrettable for many reasons which need not be listed. One of these will become apparent only when the harm has been irrevocably done. It is commercially very foolish, in a country where “tourism” means so much, to destroy so many of the things which tourists come to see. The visitor crosses our border to find something different, which interests him more than a display of American flags set out to attract him. In his own country there is a tenderness for fine old buildings and a determination to preserve the monuments of the past which we well might emulate. In old Canadian towns and cities there arises now and then a sharp controversy between those who in the name of progress would ruthlessly demolish old structures which have their story to tell, and on the other hand antiquarians who would preserve them with too little regard for the needs of a modern community. These are generally quite needless disputes. It should be quite possible in most cases, by a little compromise on both sides, to meet the needs of progress without vulgarization, and to preserve venerable relics of earlier years without impeding civic development. A House with a “Southern Exposure” No study of the arts and letters in Canada can neglect one aspect of the question which is all too evident—the steady exodus over the years of Canadians of talent across the border. It has been called Canada’s “hemorrhage”. We have let too many slip away, to be remembered at home only when others abroad have recognized their merit. Sometimes it seems as though we have imported our poetry and exported our poets. The United States has the attraction of a community far larger than ours, where the monetary rewards are correspondingly greater. Sir Charles Roberts, when an expatriate in the United States, wrote some bitter lines which we should ponder: “You’ve piped at home, where none could pay, Till now, I trust, your wits are riper. Make no delay, but come this way, And pipe for them that pay the piper.”[24] Professor Brebner, in his searching study[25] of the problem, has some important things to say. If in twenty American universities taken apparently at random, there are now three hundred and fifty Canadian-born teachers,[26] what is the reason? Why should so many young men and women be leaving us? “The answers,” he says, “are only partly economic, perhaps not even mostly so. Other kinds of satisfactions must have been lacking as well. Pioneering young Canadians must have found that the inertia of their entrenched elders had drained Canadian life of colour, zest, adventure, and the stimulation which comes from free-ranging experimentation in ideas, in material enterprises, and in the arts. It must have been because they could not feel in Canada the sense of sharing in something more than the defence of things as they are that they left their country seeking ‘lots more of something else’.” Of the 23,467 persons who left Canada in the year ending June 30, 1947, to seek their fortunes in the United States, over ten per cent were professional workers:[27] physicians and surgeons, clergymen, teachers, nurses, engineers and others who had received specialized training for their occupations, for the most part in universities. We live in a house with a “southern exposure” but we must refuse to believe that the psychological climate south of our border is more attractive to young Canadians of promise than what we are able to offer them here—if we try. In the field of scholarship the problem today is of especial gravity. We have been rightly told that we could afford to be more “hospitable to distinction”. (We might even be more tolerant of eccentricity, for eccentricity and imagination are often closely allied.) If we take the long view, the exodus of Canadian scholars represents the most serious drain on our human resources. Such persons are as important in the part they play as they are small in numbers, for a nation’s attitude to scholarship is one measure of its claim to greatness. CHAPTER 4 Threads in the Fabric of Unity “_Again and again I have insisted how those are the happy moments of humanity, how those are the marking epochs of a people’s life, how those are the flowering times for literature and art and all the creative power of genius, when there is a national glow of life and thought, when the whole of society is in the fullest measure permeated by thought, sensible to beauty, intelligent and alive._” MATTHEW ARNOLD, _Culture and Anarchy_, 1869 “_As between the various Provinces comprising the Dominion, we need some cement more binding than geographical contact; some bond more uniting than a shiftless expediency; some lodestar more potent than a mere community of profit. Temporizing makeshifts may suit a futureless people._” W. A. FOSTER, _Canada First; or Our New Nationality_, 1871 4 Threads in the Fabric of Unity Unity is more than Skin-deep Canadian unity does not mean merely agreement on day-to-day policies; a _modus vivendi_ between the parts which make the whole. In our more thoughtful moments we remember that it lies deeper than that. Unity, unlike beauty, is more than skin-deep. It is a spiritual thing, not merely a matter of taxes and tariffs, although economics is an essential factor. Engineering makes its contribution, too—we should fall apart without our physical links—but the work of the engineer embraces imponderable as well as material things. Imagination inspires great engineering; provides its impulse. Imagination lay behind the early railways. It should be the spur to like efforts today. For instance, it is a strange commentary on our affairs that in a later epoch when such tasks are far easier, we should apparently be unable or unwilling to give our country the link which a great highway from coast to coast would provide. Apart from material advantages it would minister to our sense of nationality. National pride is not increased when it is necessary to make detours south of the border to travel between Canadian cities, and yet the project of such a highway seems still to belong to the category of unfinished business. But the problem of unity is more fundamental than the question of improved communications. It belongs to the sphere of the intangible. No state today can escape some responsibility in the field to which belong the things of the mind. Totalitarian governments, as we know too well, do not neglect this sphere. Their tactics strengthen the argument that democracies should be watchful and diligent in such matters. Our peoples need to understand the way of life which they are defending in the war of ideas of today so that they can defend it the better. The state indeed has very serious obligations in this field. But Canada cannot be said to have accepted this principle. We seem to trail far behind most civilized states in our _governmental_ recognition of the arts and letters and the intellectual life of the community. We should glance at what the government of Great Britain is now doing in one section of this field. The Arts Council, which deals with such things, had its beginnings, surprisingly enough, in the middle of the late war when it was founded under another name to promote exhibitions of art, organize concerts, and subsidize the production of meritorious plays for the benefit of the fighting services and the general public as well. It now carries on these activities on a permanent basis and all its money (£350,000 in the year 1946-47) comes from the British taxpayer, although in its administration it preserves independence from civil service control. We would do well to study such a successful experiment in state-aid.[28] It offers us a useful model. We need public money for the encouragement of our cultural life, but we want it without official control or political interference. That is why a Ministry of Fine Arts or a federal Department of National Culture would be regrettable. The very phrases are chilling. The arts can thrive only in the air of freedom. Official approval of this school of painting, or that group of writers, would sterilize taste and create a false orthodoxy. Tradition “. . . then lapses into dead formula. Landmarks soon become hitching posts . . .”[29] Culture and the Constitution It will be objected by many that even such a body as the Arts Council of Great Britain is no model for us, that educational activities of the kind cannot, under our federal constitution, either directly or indirectly, be a national responsibility. Every school-boy knows, or should know, that in Canada education is assigned to the provinces. We will never depart from the vital principle of decentralization in the educational field, but section 93 of the British North America Act was intended to protect the rights of the provinces in an all-important sphere and should not be invoked to provide successive federal governments with a way of escape from certain duties which belong to a modern civilized state. The authorities at Ottawa can no doubt simplify their labours by meeting any approach from within Canada or from abroad on the subject of cultural affairs with the reiterated statement that “this is a matter for the provinces”. But this traditional reply can offer no solution of the problem. However active provincial governments may be in the cultural field, there are countless things to be undertaken in this sphere which would be of great value to the Canadian community as a whole, and which, if not done by the federal government or on its initiative, cannot be done at all. It is worth while to look at two other countries, each with a federal constitution, to see how such matters are handled by them. In the United States, although its constitution deals with education in much the same way as does ours, the federal administration is prepared to assume extensive obligations in this important field. In 1946, for instance, legislation was passed, known as the Fulbright Act, which provided for the use of the proceeds of the sale of surplus war stores and equipment abroad to finance a scheme of scholarships. The plan is now in operation and makes available, in any one of the foreign countries entering into an agreement under the scheme, the maximum sum of one million dollars per annum for a period of twenty years for the purpose of bringing to such countries American scholars—teachers as well as students—to engage in academic work. It is estimated that at least $140 million will eventually be involved in the plan. This is an example which Canada might well follow on a modest scale. We could thus make a contribution to educational reconstruction in the world, and at the same time do something of practical importance to our own country. Another educational enterprise of the United States might be mentioned. Recently, largely through an arrangement made between the United States Office of Education and the British Ministry of Education, there was an exchange for the academic year 1946-1947 of seventy-four British and seventy-four American teachers. This scheme[30] had the co-operation in Great Britain of the Foreign Office, educational organizations and associations of teachers, while in the United States the Department of State collaborated, as well as certain professional bodies. Australia[31] too has a federal constitution and education in that country is assigned to the states. Australia is a younger country than Canada and closer to pioneer beginnings, and yet she can fairly claim to have outstripped us in her _national_ recognition of intellectual and cultural life. It is worth noting that in the official handbook of the Commonwealth, “culture” is given a more prominent position than in the corresponding publication in Canada. Australia has now a Commonwealth Director of Education. She has recently passed legislation to establish a national university at Canberra. The Commonwealth Literary Fund exists for the purpose of providing pensions for men of letters, assisting authors doing work of importance, and “educating the public to a full appreciation of Australian literature”. In the financial year ending June 30, 1946, it received £6,000 from the Federal Government. (The Canadian Writers’ Foundation, the only body in Canada existing to assist men of letters who are in financial need, receives an annual government grant-in-aid of $2,500.) So much for the example of two countries. It will, of course, be pointed out that the reservation of education for the provincial field in Canada has more significance in our national life than similar arrangements in either the United States or Australia. So it has. Education must be a provincial matter with us, not only because of the wisdom of the general principle involved, but because such a provision in our constitution protects for all time the rights and privileges of a linguistic and cultural minority. It is thus one of the foundation stones of our constitution, but it is one thing to assign to the provinces the control of their educational systems and quite another to hold that the federal government must not concern itself with anything related to Canadian intellectual life. As a matter of fact, there are even now one or two important exceptions to this rule, the most striking being that of the radio. Years ago it was rightly decided that broadcasting in Canada was a national responsibility and the right of the federal government to regard it as such was confirmed by a decision of the Privy Council. Among many services rendered by a national broadcasting system is that of popular education. That this is officially recognized in Canada is shown by the use of the phrase in the _Canada Year Book_, “Education by Radio”. That in itself might be regarded as an admission that education, using the term in a broad and general sense, cannot be excluded from the sphere of national affairs. The Radio and the Film When the government of Canada entered the field of radio control and set up the necessary organization, the primary motive was to harness this tremendous force in the interest of national unity. It is not the intention of this study to embark on the sea of controversy which this subject periodically stirs up. It would seem important, however, to bear in mind that in a country such as ours where the struggle for national cohesion is never-ending, a national system of broadcasting is an imperative need. Public vigilance must keep it both efficient and independent of political interference. Private enterprise must not be excluded from this field. We have rightly accepted in Canada a compromise between the British and American systems, but should we ever abandon the principle of broadcasting as a national responsibility, we shall have destroyed a vital instrument of national unification. The importance of the radio in modern life can hardly be over-stated. At its best what we receive over the air can undoubtedly be classified as of educational value; at its worst it is little better than a form of hypnosis. But all of it, good and bad, exerts an influence on the individual which can offset or indeed replace what he learns in school or church. No form of mass communication, for instance, could be a more powerful agency in popularizing the “American way of life” abroad or consolidating it at home. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is performing a service today which is indispensable. Canadian musicians testify to what it is doing to provide an audience for Canadian artists. In the relatively new field of radio drama its work is of great importance. Our national system of broadcasting makes us generally less dependent on influences from outside, and increasingly self-reliant, enabling us to draw on and develop our own cultural resources. As educational media, the film and the radio are much alike, but in one respect they are very different. Radio broadcasting lends itself to national direction and in most countries receives it. The production of films—that is, films for the purpose of entertainment—prospers best in the field of free enterprise. In Canada we are largely dependent in the commercial cinema on films from the United States or Great Britain, and for the most part we must take what is sent us. But there is one department of film production in which we have achieved distinction. The National Film Board was established in 1939. In the Act by which it was created, one of its objects is defined as follows: “. . . to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts”. The Film Board was thus brought into being, partly at least, to help promote national unity. An examination of its work shows that it has well served the purpose for which it was formed. The documentary film as a form of expression has not a long history, but it has developed into a medium of great importance, existing to tell facts with imagination. The Film Board is producing and widely circulating a great number of such films both within Canada and abroad. They illustrate every aspect of Canadian life, and in quality, they are of recognized excellence. A National Library Although we have been able to call ourselves a nation for eighty years, we have as yet no national library in Canada. It remains in the category of pious hopes. Among all the countries of the world we are almost alone in not possessing such an institution. Even Siam and Abyssinia, it is reported, have outstripped us in this respect. It is true Sir John A. Macdonald recommended the establishment of a national library, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier chose a site for it, so we have made progress; but one would like to see the pace accelerated! A national library has been defined as “that unit of national government responsible for the collection, organization, and co-ordination of printed materials of interest to the nation”. We have plenty of books in Ottawa—half a million in the Parliamentary Library which exists of course for the special purpose of providing a reference library for Parliament. We have also some 750,000 books distributed in thirty-five departmental libraries in the capital. But we have no national library to which, indeed, a great number of these volumes could be transferred and put to general use. The more the question is examined, the more serious seems to be this defect in our national equipment. There is no place in Canada where all the books and pamphlets published in this country or relating to it can be found; no single agency to ensure the preservation of the printed record of the nation, to prevent—or help prevent—the steady flow of important Canadian material beyond our borders.[32] We have no institution here giving us a master catalogue of all the principal libraries in Canada, essential for the use of students and scholars, and a bibliography of all government publications; no centre where inter-library loans could be arranged. We have no system for the reproduction of books and documents which we have lost through our own indifference. We have no central library serving as a channel through which the Canadian people could be kept in touch with intellectual activity in other parts of the world. We have no great national institution in Canada for the use of our scholars which could help keep more of them at home instead of our losing them over the border where, it must be admitted, they manage such matters better. It is not very self-respecting for a grown-up country to be so deficient in national equipment. Through the courtesy and efficiency of the Library of Congress at Washington with its many miles of shelves, our academic people are often supplied with books sent to them here, which they should have been able to find at home in Canada. We rarely can reciprocate the services of the Washington library which are many and varied. The librarian of the University of Toronto has said that when he wished to resume contact after the war with the agent who for years had represented his library in Germany, he had to do so through the good offices of the American institution. No Canadian machinery existed which could be used for such a purpose. For thirty or forty years there has been a succession of enquiries and reports and memorials and briefs and articles on this subject of a national library; everybody agrees, and there the matter rests. With every year that passes it will be increasingly difficult to establish such an institution, for temporary measures are being taken to help fill the gap, and improvisations, however unsatisfactory, have a way of becoming permanent. We must have such a library, for national pride and national efficiency demand it. It is not too much to say that without it the intellectual life of this nation is deprived of an essential part of its central heating plant. Unity’s Symbols and Instruments We can easily add to the list of missing equipment. The National Gallery of Canada, established now for nearly seventy years, is still housed in temporary quarters and awaits the erection of a proper fireproof building large enough for the nation’s pictures. The pictorial records of the First World War have reposed in storage since shortly after its conclusion. The work of our artists in the late war have now joined their predecessors in the warehouse, like them apparently “born to blush unseen”. Our collection of Canadian painting and old masters, by now one of considerable importance, is still exposed to the hazards of fire in its present unsuitable quarters. Canada possesses no national portrait gallery where the likenesses of all the eminent figures in Canadian life could be found. Such portraits should be acquired not because of any artistic merit they might possess but as documentary records in whatever form they are available. Suitably housed and catalogued, the collection would be of the greatest value to students of Canadian history and of genuine interest to the general public. These institutions would add importance to the national Capital. Ottawa should be given the best possible concentration of interest if it is to serve the community in the fullest sense as a great centre. Our capital had to be an artificial creation and the choice of Bytown was wise, but a nation suffers disadvantages when its capital city serves largely as the headquarters of its political life and public administration, and is not the centre of any other national activity. In such circumstances there is a tendency for the politician and civil servant to live too much in a sort of vacuum, out of daily touch with industry, commerce, the professions, education, and other departments of the national life whose centres are elsewhere. Another result is that the larger cities appear to rival the national capital in importance. The business of government also tends to be regarded as something apart from everyday life. Moreover, the business man and the politician, when they live apart and are unable to meet except infrequently, and then only across an office desk, are less likely to acquire some appreciation of each other’s point of view and to develop a sense of team-work. Casual and easy contacts between representatives of different groups are possible only when the national capital is the capital in every sense, as is London or Paris, Brussels or Stockholm. Australia was forced in the selection of Canberra to make a decision similar to ours. So was the United States when Washington was chosen. The occasional friction between the American political and commercial communities is sharpened by this fact. But Washington over the years has become a great and attractive city and the American, wherever he lives, takes pride in its embellishment. Our national capital as yet inspires no such pride in Canadian bosoms. We have indeed not outgrown a grudging attitude towards it. Excellent plans for a new and greater Ottawa, prepared by one[33] of the most eminent experts in this field, assisted by a group of Canadian colleagues, are now taking shape. If this project is received all over Canada with the real satisfaction which it merits, it will be another sign of national maturity. But this subject calls for further comment. The Ottawa plan is still but a blue-print. To give it substance large sums must be voted for expenditures over many years. If Parliament should look on the project as something of local benefit to one Canadian city only, then the outlook will not be promising, but if the House of Commons can be led to regard the plans for a new Ottawa as related to everybody’s constituency, which is Canada itself, we may one day see this great conception in being. No reflections on Canadian unity would be complete without a reference to the melancholy fact that we are still without the very symbol of unity—a flag of our own. We have possessed a well-conceived national Coat-of-Arms[34] since 1921 but we have no flag. Recently we apparently very nearly agreed on one. Now the position seems obscure. The settlement of the question will not be any easier as the years pass, and opposing views become more firmly fixed. It would seem unthinkable that the Union Jack should be omitted from any accepted design. We should regard the triple cross of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick not merely as an heraldic device, but also as a spiritual symbol. None which appears on any other flag represents freedom more honestly. Every Canadian, whoever he may be, is a beneficiary of many battles fought for freedom under it. Two provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and Quebec, now have flags of their own each with an ancient design. A natural expression of provincial feeling in this form should make it easier to reach agreement on a national ensign. With the question of a Canadian flag is often coupled that of a Canadian “national anthem”. People use this phrase to mean different things. The King is the head of the Canadian nation, and “God Save The King” as an anthem in his honour can surely be regarded as a _national_ anthem. But we have in “O Canada” a Canadian hymn which quite properly expresses our feelings as citizens of our own community. The use of both on appropriate occasions according to prevailing custom fully represents, it would seem, our dual character as a sovereign state which is also a British nation. It is to be regretted, however, that the English versions of “O Canada” are so unworthy of Lavallée’s fine music. It may not be entirely irrelevant to mention briefly another problem in Canadian life which has a bearing on unity and which should not be evaded in any study of the subject. Most countries have a system which enables them periodically to recognize, in some symbolic way, service to the community in all degrees of importance. During the war Canada conformed to this almost universal practice and the wartime services of both members of the forces and of civilians were recognized on a comprehensive scale. We have now apparently reverted to the status quo ante and no honours of any kind are awarded. In 1942 a Special Committee on Honours and Decorations presented a report to the House of Commons recommending “That His Majesty’s Government in Canada consider a submission to His Majesty the King, of proposals for the establishment of an Order limited in number but not involving a title, for which His Majesty’s subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall alone be eligible”. The restoration of titular honours was not within the Committee’s terms of reference. This was wise, for we have found that the award of titles can easily be abused. The House of Commons accepted the Committee’s report without division, but no action has been taken. In 1943 a decoration called the _Canada Medal_ was announced and depicted in the press but has never been the subject of award. Such projects as these may be open to criticism in detail, but there was no reason to believe that in principle they did not meet with public approval. Now that we are a grown-up country it would seem reasonable to say “thank you” for exceptional services rendered the nation in the only form in which such thanks can be expressed. Under present conditions Canadians, both civilians and members of the armed forces, receive decorations from time to time from other countries such as the United States and France, while Canada is not in a position to reciprocate. What is more important is that we cannot recognize the services of our own people, when such services in public administration in the federal or provincial fields, in the intellectual life of the nation or in other spheres of activity would merit recognition. The issue of “democracy” is not involved. Nothing could be more democratic than the periodical honours lists issued in London with the names of hundreds of persons whose duties are of the humblest nature. The “little man” represents the majority of recipients. The dignity of his task and its value to the community are thus recognized by the state which he serves. The same principle is no less applicable to Canada. A system of non-titular honours bestowed by the King on the advice of his Canadian Government on his Canadian subjects would, without question, help to unify the community on whose behalf the service was rendered. The supreme contribution to the cause of our unity is made by the Crown.[35] We know the vital part it plays as a symbol of unity in the Commonwealth, but it is no less important in serving as the greatest unifying force in Canada itself. Nothing else with us stands above all controversy, represents equally all the elements which make up the state and preserves the vital factor of continuity in our national life. We were reminded of this truth during the Royal progress through Canada in 1939. The visit taught us, too, that the Crown is not only an impersonal symbol but is represented in these days by two persons who embody its highest and finest traditions. All the formal functions of the Crown may now be performed by the King’s representative in Canada. The King himself is the Head of the State, but in his necessary absence the Governor-General as a constitutional figure possesses all the important attributes attaching to the Crown. The holder of this high office can play no small part in our national life without entering the field of controversy, and can aid the cause of Canadian unity. We have been fortunate in the distinguished men who have held the post. Some have left important monuments behind them. The Royal Society of Canada and the National Gallery at Ottawa were founded by Lord Lorne, whose efforts also led to the formation of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts. Lord Stanley encouraged sport by the gift of the Stanley Cup for hockey. Lady Aberdeen founded the Victorian Order of Nurses. The Canadian Archives were greatly strengthened and developed as a result of the initiative of Lord Minto, whose intervention also led to the preservation of the Plains of Abraham. At an earlier time Lord Dufferin was mainly responsible for the restoration of the ancient fortifications of Quebec and repaired the Citadel at his own expense. To Lord Bessborough we owe the Dominion Drama Festival. It was Lord Tweedsmuir’s keen interest in Canadian letters which led to the establishment of the Governor-General’s Annual Literary Awards during his régime at Ottawa. There are many institutions which serve the cause of Canadian unity. The Canadian Clubs call for special mention. The movement began in the 1890’s as a significant and unique expression of national feeling at a time when morale was low. It exists today as the only national body whose sole purpose is to encourage a belief in, and knowledge of, Canada and her ways; whose “only propaganda is Canada herself”. We should welcome every national organization, whose activities are conterminous with Canada’s boundaries, whatever its functions. Each helps us to think as Canadians. The Universities We have twenty universities in Canada. They play a special rôle in Canadian life. Most of them, indeed, are very “Canadian”, having grown in Canadian soil under influences from both Europe and America. They face, of course, the same problems that confront similar institutions elsewhere, for they occupy their own sector on a common front which is as wide as higher education itself. Our universities thus must deal with the complicated question of excessive numbers which will be found in their classes even after the important responsibility of meeting the needs of the large body of ex-servicemen is discharged, and may seriously impair the quality of university teaching. They must also decide how far they can extend their activities without entering fields which lie outside the proper range of higher education. But these are problems which are common to all universities today. How can our own institutions of learning serve Canadian needs in a special sense? Canada as a community, relatively young, and in population far from large, must guard against provincialism—any illusion that we could be self-sufficient in ideas. Our universities serve as a vital point of contact between this country and the outside world. We have our own academic traditions in Canada, and to these we will remain faithful, but we should welcome ideas from abroad whenever they can fittingly be built into our own structure. Through academic windows we can perhaps see most clearly beyond our boundaries. Thus, for example, we can and should keep in touch with the best in British and American life, and in other communities farther away. Such contacts are a department of our external relations as important as it is unobtrusive. If our universities provide vital links between ourselves and other lands, they can play a special part within Canada itself. Acting not only as individual bodies, but in generous collaboration, they can truly serve the supreme end of national unity. Here they have opportunities not yet realized to deepen the understanding between Canadians who speak English and those who speak French. This is surely a natural rôle for such institutions to play. There are many things we could do in exchanges of teachers and students and ideas which would minister to the cause of unity. Canadian education, as we know, was fortunate to inherit much from England and Scotland. We look to our universities to keep in being those links with the intellectual life of Great Britain which are hard to maintain in the face of the physical difficulties of the time. We must treasure the humane tradition in education which we have received from across the water; the belief that education is primarily a spiritual matter; that it must be concerned with the individual; that the humanities must hold their old pride of place in its pattern; that the university is no refuge for the pedant, (for it has always been the glory of learning in the British Isles that its virtues have been closely woven into the stuff of daily life). How well have we preserved this great inheritance? We have had kind and reassuring words from a distinguished American educationist, Dr. Harold Dodds, the President of Princeton University, when he said in an address[36] to a Canadian audience in 1947, in speaking of scholarship on both sides of our international boundary: “Your Canadian scholars . . . have adhered more closely to the British heritage. They have not neglected to pay attention to the power of ideas and the spiritual values in history, literature, and philosophy. “. . . Our scholars have suffered more than yours from a failure to remember that our gravest failures in scholarship have resulted from a lack of general richness in background on the part of specialists in the field. In the British tradition your scholars have remembered better than ours that beyond the range of the natural in human nature lies the realm of the unpredictable spirit of man, incorrigibly personal, with a soul that he insists on calling his own.” This generous compliment from an American friend should encourage us to keep intact our spiritual legacy from Britain. Today there is some reason to believe we are neglecting it. In higher education in Canada in recent years, the humanities have steadily lost ground, while the natural sciences have received priority in our attention. This is partly due, no doubt, to the impetus which the war has given science, but quite apart from this, higher education is apt to swing toward the scientific side when the physical tasks of a community like ours make heavy demands on the scientist and engineer, and their training and its equipment in consequence receive a preference. The result is shown by the attitude of government. As compared with Great Britain and the United States, Canada has still far to go in promoting research in the physical sciences; but for such activities she is now providing increasing revenue in aiding the work of the National Research Council at Ottawa. This body, the distinction and importance of whose work require no emphasis, now has a staff of about 1,000 scientific and technical workers and receives the sum of over $12 million annually from the national treasury. But other forms of research are not so handsomely treated. In the Royal Society of Canada we possess a body of scholars whose efforts are of the greatest value to us. Two of its five sections are devoted to the humanities and social sciences. The Society receives each year from the public exchequer the modest sum of $4,500, which is the only federal government grant which can aid the cause of research in these important fields. In such matters as these we should be able to look to the universities to guide public thinking, and give the lead. But they themselves have not solved the problem. Indeed the greatest question confronting them today comes from a conflict between the humanities and natural science. This reflects an error of the age in which we live. We have been led unwisely to divorce science from philosophy in our minds; to keep them in separate mental regions. Should there be any conflict between them at all? We need to bear in mind the warning: “You may not divide the seamless coat of learning”. As Lord Greene said not long ago: “A race that knew and cared for nothing but science and its practical application would, if left to itself, become as soulless and mechanical as the formulas that it invented, and the engines that it created; just as a race that knew and cared for nothing but the humanities would end its life in dreams or in some cloister of the mind.”[37] But the latter danger would not seem to be the greater one. We are not likely, at least in Canada, to be immured in any “cloister of the mind”. On the contrary, the humanities are in retreat while we stand more than at any other time in urgent need of what we can find in their teaching. How, for instance, can we relate the claims of liberal education to the training for a profession? We recognize the fact that _education_ and _training_ are two different things. One is concerned with the equipment for a career, the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and techniques; the other, the training of the intellect. The candidate for one of the professions should be enabled to receive both. Whatever his task, he can perform it better with what a liberal education can give him. Its gifts have often been defined. They include, I would suggest, intellectual honesty and a respect for ideas; mental alertness; clarity of thought and precision of expression, suspicion of the catchword; a critical sense which can detect the superficial and can distinguish the real from the spurious, the excellent from the second-rate; quickened sensibility and an awakened imagination; the ability to discern beauty and enjoy it. How do we value the humanities in the market-place of today? What is “the quotation of their stock”? In discussions of this problem the word “practical” is often used. If we wish to juggle with that term, let us bring the matter down to the concrete. What can be more _practical_ in modern business or industry or public administration than the work of young men or women who have been trained to think clearly, to organize their ideas, to detect the essential points in an argument, to express themselves effectively and, it may be added, with economy in words? All this should be in the gift of a liberal education. If we need in our national life the understanding that can give us unity, the perception that can lead to a wise use of our resources, and the imagination which inspires achievement, the study of the humanities can help us to acquire such qualities. We may have neglected, but happily we have not lost, the spiritual content in our higher education. Canada is well served by her scientists; she is fortunate in her humanists too, and they have a vital part to play. Our contribution to the problems of the time will be the greater if our universities remain faithful to their ancient and essential task. CHAPTER 5 Status and Stature “_The Dominions, having sought and gained the status of nationhood, cannot recede from assumption of its responsibilities. Their history and their traditions are an assurance that there will be no such recession. They must be mindful that real, as distinguished from nominal, nationhood cannot be founded upon the phraseology of resolutions alone; it must be measured by the acceptance of responsibility and based upon achievement._” SIR ROBERT BORDEN, _Rhodes Memorial Lectures_, Oxford, 1928 5 Status and Stature Trade as a Factor in Growth Not many years ago it was possible to discuss Canadian affairs with no reference to our place in the world at large. In effect, we had none. Now that we act as an independent international unit the words “foreign policy” represent a definite function of government in Canada, and our external relations must take an important place in any study of Canadian nationality. Foreign and domestic affairs, with us as with other countries, are closely related and cannot be separated from each other, put into different air-tight compartments. A foreign policy is really the projection of a nation’s personality. Our approach to the outside world until recent years must be defined as isolationist. When a Canadian representative[38] to the League of Nations was moved to say that we lived “in a fireproof house far from inflammable materials”, he gave us the classical expression of that vain attitude. What the speaker said was untrue then; it is still further from the truth today. For many years there has been no dearth of combustible matter about and our national structure can catch fire as quickly as anybody else’s. But isolationism, like Charles II, takes an “unconscionable time a-dying”. It is not many years since young intellectuals with misapplied brilliance were devising ingenious formulas which were to guarantee Canada in perpetuity a comfortable neutrality. (But people do not act according to formulas in moments of great crisis, as 1939 proved, for great events appeal to the heart as well as to the head. This is no doubt why polls of public opinion are so often misleading.) It is not only the advent of nuclear fission that has made us, in common with other peoples, feel that all immunity and remoteness have gone. The world as we know has been shrinking steadily. The late war forced that fact upon us; and as the world has grown smaller, Canada has in effect grown larger; larger and more exposed to what goes on beyond her borders. The factor of trade alone should have made us internationalists long ago. As we are told, Canada is now the third trading nation of the world in absolute terms and the second in relation to population. These facts reflect great vitality and strength in Canadian production. They also point to our dependence on those international conditions of peace and stability under which trade can alone prosper. The Canadian economy is such as to need foreign trade with a peculiar urgency, for Canada as a physical entity is so ill-balanced economically that it requires such trade to help us maintain an equilibrium within our borders. As one of our most acute observers[39] said, “Unless we can trade with the outside world our condition must be one of stagnation, with the standards of living falling to ever lower levels, and with increasing strains upon the bonds that keep our federation together”. We are far more concerned with world markets than are the people of the United States. In normal years, for every dollar’s worth of merchandise which an American citizen on the average exports, a Canadian must export over three dollars’ worth of goods. In proportion to population, our commercial relations with the rest of the world are therefore three times as important as those of our neighbour, and the standard of living of our people must depend to a far greater extent than theirs on international trading. When the Canadian public was counselled, as it often was in earlier years, to abandon the quest for foreign trade and to content itself with domestic markets, such advice had a comic value. To follow it in terms of wheat we should have had either to eat five times as much bread as we did, or devote four-fifths of our wheat lands to other purposes. We have fortunately come to recognize the close connection between our national welfare and political events abroad. Two major wars have taught us that. We now realize that our daily life is geared to a surprising extent to what goes on in distant places. The wages in British Columbia lumber camps may fall as a result of conflict in the Orient; destitution on the prairies may follow tension in Europe; fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard may suffer because of a revolution in South America. It was natural that the factor of trade should have started the movement which eventually led to our achieving independence and responsibility as an international unit. It commenced long ago. Since 1859 we have had unquestioned control of our own tariffs. Since 1874 we have negotiated commercial treaties as we desired. In 1895 we sent our first full-time commercial agent abroad. In 1911 we established a service of trade commissioners in foreign countries. Although we had a permanent office in London as early as 1880, our contacts with the world at large were almost entirely related to commerce until the First World War. We had looked on the international factors which lay behind trade as beyond our scope. That indeed was in accordance with the theory of the British Empire before the Treaty of Versailles. At the Imperial Conference of 1911, Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister, made clear that responsibility for the foreign policy of the Empire lay exclusively with Great Britain and that control of such policy could not be shared with any other of the Empire’s governments. This fact, however, together with our apparent remoteness from foreign affairs, probably helped us to view trade generally as something which could be isolated from elements from which it in fact cannot be separated. To this no doubt is due a certain tardiness to see trade in its proper setting and correct perspective. We were, for instance, slow to realize that a trade commissioner can best perform his task when supported by a diplomatic representative whose relations are with the government to which he is accredited, and not merely with the special department concerned with commerce. The Winning of Sovereignty The transition to a full control of our external relations, when it came, came swiftly. The essential steps were taken in seventeen years. There can perhaps be said to have been eight milestones in this constitutional progress of which the obvious beginning was our voluntary entry as a national unit into the War of 1914. It has been observed that the obligations of nationhood thus preceded its privileges—and that is a useful point to remember. Next came in proper sequence the recognition by the Imperial Conference of 1917 of Canada, along with the other Dominions, as “autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth”. The Conference also declared its opinion that any readjustment of the constitutional relations within the Empire “should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, . . .”. Third, in 1919 Canada as an autonomous state became a signatory in her own right of the Treaty of Versailles and entered the new League of Nations as one of its founder members. It has been said that Canada as a nation was born in the ante-room at Geneva.[40] Fourth, in 1922 the Government’s decision on the occasion of the famous Chanak crisis established the principle “that even when automatically at war Canada was by inter-Imperial usage constitutionally competent and morally free to refrain from any active participation”.[41] Fifth, in 1923 a treaty with a foreign power was signed for the first time by a Canadian plenipotentiary alone, when a convention was concluded between Canada and the United States to regulate the halibut fisheries in North Atlantic waters. This humble fish became almost an heraldic symbol of Dominion status as a result of the controversies over this Treaty. It is significant that the Imperial Conference of the same year gave official sanction to the practice thus inaugurated. Sixth, in 1926 the Imperial Conference of that year adopted the famous Declaration[42] affirming Great Britain and the Dominions to be equal partners in the British Commonwealth. Seventh, in 1927 Canada set up her first diplomatic mission and thus gave concrete expression to the doctrine of parity of status with Great Britain. Eighth, in 1931 the Statute of Westminster passed by the Imperial Parliament in clearing away remaining legal anomalies, gave formal sanction to the principles set forth in the Conference of 1926. By this instrument Canada and the other Dominions received the power to make laws having operation and validity beyond their territories. The Statute also provided that Dominion legislation in the future could not be held invalid on the ground that it conflicted with British laws. To this transition from the old Empire to the new Commonwealth both the political parties of the day made important contributions. Some steps[43] may have given the international lawyer for a time a pleasurable bone of contention, but the results have generally met with the approval of all save those few whose attitude to the Empire reflects an incurably antiquarian cast of mind. Our international standing is indeed above controversy. Our machinery in the international sphere has grown steadily. If one likes the “log-cabin-to-White-House” type of statistics, we have interesting figures to give. Until twenty-one years ago, no country had exchanged diplomatic missions with Canada. In Ottawa today there are twenty-nine representatives of foreign states, and Commonwealth countries. The personnel of our Department of External Affairs today includes 145 Foreign Service Officers. The corresponding figure for 1925 was eight. In 1946, we were represented at 98 international conferences. When we come to the last few years, we find that the facts of our growth have very real significance. We are perhaps still too close to events to realize how much more important a country Canada is today than she was in 1939. Only the passage of time will bring this home to us. In the First World War we won our maturity. In the second one we asserted it. During the late war we were the fourth nation among the Allies in the production of munitions; the third in sea power and the fourth in air power. In economic controls we were an acknowledged model for other countries. It was not without significance that two great and crucial meetings between British and American war leaders were held on Canadian soil. The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, vital to our victory, has passed into history but we should remember the leading part which Canada played in it and which earned her the designation given by President Roosevelt, the “aerodrome of democracy”. Status and Function In a rather neglected passage in Lord Balfour’s famous Declaration, there is drawn a very proper distinction between the “status” of a nation and the tasks it performs. “But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status”, so it runs, “do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas”. Our free and independent status was fixed and made final in 1931 but our functions were still modest in scope. Since then, however, they have steadily widened, and the recognition of that fact has been altering our position in the world. Canada took a leading part in the promotion of the principle that the “function” of a state, irrespective of its size, should have some bearing on its relation to international bodies. This principle received official expression in a speech by the Prime Minister of Canada when he declared that representation on certain international organizations “. . . should be determined on a functional basis which will admit to full membership those countries, large or small, which have the greatest contribution to make to the particular object in question.” Such a principle would provide a compromise between “the theoretical equality of States and the practical necessity of limiting representation on international bodies to a workable number”.[44] Thus, during the war Canada became a partner of Great Britain and the United States as member of the great organizations concerned with industrial production, raw materials and food. Canada has indeed gained more from the application of the functional principle than have other “middle powers”. The end of the war did not interrupt the story of our growth. It was not accidental that the headquarters of such bodies as the International Labour Office and the International Civil Aviation Authority were established in a Canadian city, or that the first conference of the organization of the United Nations concerned with food and agriculture should have met in Canada under Canadian chairmanship. Canada was the third largest contributor in money to UNRRA and in addition supplied goods worth about $100 million paid for by other countries. Our annual contribution to the budget of the United Nations is now exceeded only by those of the five major powers. Atomic energy has made us a partner with Great Britain and the United States in that fateful field. If during the war the effort of Canada gave her a position among the Allies second only to Britain, the United States and Russia, her international standing today is hardly less important. As an industrial power she remains “number four” on the list. Our relation to the drama of world events in the last thirty years can thus perhaps be divided into three phases. Before the First World War we sat in the gallery and looked on as a spectator. Between the wars we became a minor member of the cast, watching the action for the most part from the wings. Now we are on the stage, not far from the centre, with an acting part of our own, a bigger rôle than we might have expected. The Geneva Chapter Our international status is assured. But a status which is not used is like a well-found ship kept in the harbour. A glance at recent history will provide an illustration of this truth. In the inter-war years the good ship “Status” received many coats of paint but never ventured far out to sea. In both world wars Canada rose to the challenge with a very full measure of responsibility, but in between them our sense of responsibility lapsed sadly. “In our comfortable part of the world national maturity was to be measured in terms of a formal status intended actually to maintain a position of irresponsible dependency.”[45] These strictures from a Canadian historian are probably not too severe. It was once said—perhaps not very charitably—of an English writer, that he was “a tragic example of the combination of imposing powers of expression with nothing important to express”. It would not be fair to apply such a _mot_ to Canada during the inter-war years, but although we sent our delegations to Geneva and played no inactive part, it was not a very constructive one. We were useful on the administrative side but on the political issues our attitude too often seemed negative. It is true that between 1919 and 1939 the whole world was living in an age of illusions and we cannot be blamed for having shared them. But we too made our own contribution to the fantasies of that period, when so many at Geneva found abiding comfort in a reliance on the “moral authority” of the League. The idea that its moral authority needed force behind it was regarded by that school of thought—those days seem very distant now—as a dangerous notion. The Covenant of the League, of course, had its weapons for the punishment of evil-doers but we helped to blunt them. Indeed, we began our career at Geneva with a determined effort to whittle down that article in the League’s charter which guaranteed states against aggression, and all through the twenty years we consistently opposed any measure which would have led to the employment of force. That can, of course, be defended as representing a considered point of view. We preferred to regard the League as a humanitarian institution and an instrument of conciliation. It could not, however, have given much comfort to those living under the menace of invasion to hear a distinguished Canadian delegate declare, on behalf of his Government, “We hope to get nothing ourselves out of the League. We are willing to be of any assistance we can. We believe in the principles of co-operation rather than conflict.”[46] We can forgive Monsieur Siegfried[47] for saying (in 1937) “One cannot help feeling that, although collective security represents a conviction in so far as the Canadians are concerned, it is only a conviction _de luxe_.” We were, it is true, by no means alone in our interpretation of the Covenant, but sometimes we added a touch of smugness. Canadian delegates at Geneva seemed to reflect the view that the Americas possessed superior virtue, and that Europe, “a continent that cannot run itself” as we said, could learn from us if only she would. In this, as we did so often, we faithfully represented the contemporary American point of view. We talked to the Europeans about the virtues of our undefended boundary and urged them to make their frontiers as peaceful as ours. Our advice, so often repeated, must have tried the patience of the Assembly. When the Japanese crisis darkened the horizon in the early ’30’s and the League met its first great test, Canada took evasive action. Her representative,[48] apparently in the absence of instructions from home, spoke as one astonished reporter put it, “strongly on both sides”. In connection with the more striking and effective section of his speech, however, which was definitely pro-Japanese, Mr. Cahan was obliged to say that his opinions on the great issues involved were “more or less personal”, although personal opinions on such an occasion were obviously irrelevant. Our policy in relation to this episode was apparently to keep out of trouble. There was a trenchant comment from a discerning critic, Mr. Arthur Meighen,[49] two years later when he said: “Until this country is ready to take the whole consequence of membership in the League, and take its whole part in the enforcement of its covenants, we have no right to rejoice in membership at all.” The second great crisis which the League encountered and which destroyed it, was created by the Italian attack on Abyssinia. Here again Canada cannot be said to have taken a very bold or constructive part. When our representative proposed that Italy should be denied oil by the action of the League, a sanction which would probably have been effective in restraining her, his action was repudiated by his government, although Canada expressed her willingness to concur in such a decision if the lead were taken by others. A sanction on oil might have led to war, and it is well to be understanding of a small country’s unwillingness to take the initiative in such a critical business. But it may be noted that the Union of South Africa expressed a very different view on this question and was prepared to take the consequences. An examination of what was said and done at Geneva is, however, a rather morbid undertaking, except to learn the lessons it conveys. Indeed, most member-states of the League would like to forget those years. It was a time when the world as a whole suffered from spiritual bankruptcy. Our faults, as we see them now, did not seem faults to us then. The fact is, as the author of a recent history[50] of Canada has said, “Until the Second World War became imminent, the vital aspect of external relations was not foreign policy but the extension and completion of Canadian autonomy.” Public opinion indeed had not come to take foreign policy as a serious business. Our attitude, or lack of it, at least in the earlier years, was based on the lazy assumption that peace had come to stay. How many of us demurred to this view? And among those who did, how many took the trouble to make known their dissent? However this may be, an objective critic[51] has summed up Canada’s part at Geneva as far as the political activities of the League are concerned, by saying—no doubt correctly—“Taken as a whole, the Canadian stand tended to weaken faith that the League would provide security in time of danger and thereby to make more difficult subsequent efforts to re-establish confidence in the possibility of achieving international security through the League of Nations.” The League met with failure. But however we may interpret its collapse we can agree that it stood for an idea which will not perish. As a French writer has put it: “L’idée n’a pu briser le glaive; mais le glaive est insuffisant à tuer l’idée.” We must draw comfort from the fact that although the idea was not strong enough to break the sword, the sword could not kill the idea. CHAPTER 6 Foreign Policy Begins at Home “_You have sent your young men to guard your frontier. You want a principle to guard your young men, and thus truly defend your frontier._” THOMAS D’ARCY MCGEE, in the Legislative Assembly of Canada, 1865 6 Foreign Policy Begins at Home United Nations—Is or Are? It is one of the plain realities of international life that the influence of a nation in diplomacy is related to the force it can muster. It was therefore a revolutionary step, one of several at the time, when the authors of the League Covenant called all the small nations, irrespective of their size and strength, to the councils of mankind. The Assembly of the United Nations embodies the same principle. The League undoubtedly had gone too far. Small countries which can make little or no contribution to security must not be clothed with disproportionate authority. There was an air of unreality in the debates of the League Assembly when some little state, without the capacity or perhaps even the will to contribute a single gun to the necessary force, urged the League to undertake some dubious adventure, on the regrettable principle, “Here am I; send _him_!” The United Nations has gone some distance towards a solution of the problem in distinguishing between the great powers and the others, but we have still to find the right place in the scheme of things for states of middle rank. Our experience in the Commonwealth should help us to understand this question, for we recognize the difference between status and performance. It is always the British way to seek workmanlike solutions with little concern for pure logic. Thus there is no place where the problem of the smaller countries is better understood than in London with its long experience and accumulated wisdom. Respect for the individual, traditional in England, has led quite naturally to a similar attitude to the independence of communities. On the other hand there is no place where the rights of small nations are so ignored as Moscow, for the world of the totalitarian is a big-power world. The United Nations recognizes, as the League did not, that power and responsibility must be closely related. If the great nations cannot agree no system will work. The plan of operation which reflects this principle has met heavy weather. The United Nations was launched, not as was the League, in the belief that eternal peace had come. Its authors faced facts with a considerable sense of realism. They were under no illusion, and the course of events has proved them right. The word “united” has now an ironic air about it. Our instinct is to employ the title of the new organization like the name of the United States in the singular—the United Nations _is_. But that suggests a unity of purpose it shows little sign of acquiring. The world today presents a confused and complicated drama but it is not hard to discover its _leitmotiv_. All the great problems awaiting solution—the heavy labours of the new machinery with which we hope to keep the peace, almost every international issue and, indeed, many domestic ones—are increasingly dominated by the great conflict of ideas which now divides the world. This is the argument between two different ways of life: the issue is Communism versus the rest, for all other differences which divide us in contemporary life are superficial in comparison with this unbridgeable gulf. One can give a new application to Kipling’s lines about East and West for “never the twain shall meet”. There can be no compromise between the two philosophies. They are irreconcilable, for the argument between them turns on nothing less than our conception of human freedom. The conflict is as old as history. The Communist believes that there is a perpetual state of war between his system and free society—and the turbulent proceedings of gatherings where Communism is represented would support such a view. The excessive publicity attending meetings of international bodies can please no one but those who use it as a sounding board for propaganda, and only encourages the unseemly wrangles which so often degrade such occasions. Secret diplomacy of course has a bad odour, and rightly so, but open diplomacy can be so open as to cease to be diplomacy at all. While watching the Security Council in session, one wonders how any understanding can be reached or any delicate question settled by a group of men talking into microphones under the glare of magnesium, with every inflection and expression transmitted to the world. Such practice tempts a representative to address himself to the public outside rather than to the colleagues with whom he is working, and to commit himself to positions from which he cannot withdraw. The conclusions reached must of course be submitted to the test of public opinion, but the discussions by which they are arrived at are best screened from those who would exploit them prematurely. Here lies one of the mechanical weaknesses in the United Nations. A defect in any circumstances, it is most serious when exposed to the corrosive influence of Communist politics. The Factor of Responsibility These things may seem irrelevant to a study of Canadian problems, but the United Nations provides the setting for much of our activity in the foreign field, and Russia is painted large on the back-cloth of its stage. Geography alone teaches us how close we are to this problem. At one time a glance at the map was reassuring to us. It was comforting to have oceans on three sides and a friendly state on the fourth isolated from trouble abroad. Now we lie between the United States on the south, no longer isolationist, but fortunately a world power with an active sense of responsibility; and on the north, the Soviet Republic. We are a “middle power” in relation to geography as well as to economics. It has been pointed out that we are indeed not unlike a North American Belgium lying as we do between two great powers representing the extreme expression of opposing views. Now that we are an active unit in the international sphere, students often ask for a precise definition of our attitude towards world affairs. With a zeal that comes from working in a new and unfamiliar field, they talk about a “foreign policy for Canada” as if it were something that could be made to order like a suit of clothes. But foreign policies are like poets—they are born, not made. Their framework is something which comes from the facts of history and geography. Our relations with the British Commonwealth and with the United States form the basis of any Canadian foreign policy; although in such a setting our foreign affairs must of course have a conscious direction and within these broad limits there is room for discussion, and for different points of view. It might be said that the fixed objectives which should guide us in our external relations are threefold. First must come the pursuit of peace. We are not unique in that aim, but peace means more to us than to many countries. We can agree that the other objectives are the preservation of the British connection and the maintenance of friendship with the United States. These are the principal points on our chart. Our contribution to the maintenance of peace comes through our membership in the United Nations. Along with many other states we are prepared to throw what weight we have behind this great experiment. Already we have made a good beginning. We are now a member of the Security Council, and we should accept our election less as an honour than as a sobering responsibility. Our rôle in the United Nations is more active and responsible than was ours in the affairs of its predecessor at Geneva. Moreover, there is a sharp contrast between the parts we played in the creation of both. “Whereas, in 1919 at Geneva, Canada was preoccupied with the assertion of her sovereign equality and rights and the avoidance of unwelcome obligations under the Covenant, in 1945 at San Francisco she was ready for wise derogations from national sovereignties, and intent upon strengthening and clarifying the requirements of the new Charter.”[52] Our membership in the new organization implies many practical responsibilities. We have long been frightened of the spectre of “commitments”, but neither nations nor individuals can accomplish much unless they are prepared to accept obligations, as we must do under the United Nations’ charter. “Status” and “stature” are both meaningless things without the responsibility that should go with them. It would seem that we have not quite learned this lesson, and a case in point is the withdrawal of our forces from Germany in 1946. Before the conclusion of hostilities we undertook to make a modest contribution to the policing of the German Reich after the fighting was over, and some 25,000 troops and several squadrons of the R.C.A.F. were assigned to this duty. Within a year of “V-E Day” we decided to withdraw them, and returned them to Canada as fast as we could find shipping. There were admittedly difficulties in keeping these particular units abroad. They had not been enlisted for garrison duty and many of their members resented their retention in Europe, but other troops could have taken their place and the administrative difficulties involved in maintaining these forces overseas could surely have been overcome. Our moral position in Europe is strong, largely as a result of the notable part we played in the war. It would be stronger today if, like other smaller countries, we had continued to play even a modest part in contributing to the forces which at present are maintaining order and security in Germany. It would surely have been in Canada’s long-term interest to make some contribution to the pacification of Europe. Our withdrawal at so early a date did nothing to enhance our prestige or give evidence of our readiness to assume responsibilities in peace as we had so willingly done in war. Another point suggests itself. Had our troops been left in Europe, we should have been able through their presence to help ease the heavy strain on British manpower. The vacuum we left had to be filled. British servicemen who might have been released to return to industry had to replace the Canadians who went home. At a time when Canada recognized the necessity of helping British recovery by giving financial aid, she thus did something which added to British difficulties. Parliament and Foreign Affairs Canadian influence abroad is much greater than Canadians at home sometimes realize. Personal experience in Canadian missions overseas, and attendance at international meetings, constantly brings this home to one. But prestige without constant effort to maintain and justify it is a diminishing asset. The part which Canada can play in the international field, if she wishes to do so, is out of proportion to her age or her size or her resources. She is fortunate in having no enemies. The objectivity of her point of view is recognized, and what Canada thinks about a subject is a matter of interest to other states. We must, of course, not take ourselves too seriously, but these facts are an invitation to take foreign affairs _very_ seriously. This, it would seem, is the tendency among Canadians today. But one wonders whether Parliament adequately reflects this increased interest in the subject. Of the 6,827 pages of Hansard for 1947 which record the deliberations of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, not more than about 450 could be regarded as being on the subject of world affairs. This does not represent much advance on 1935 when fewer than 150 pages out of about 5,000 were related to this important field. It is true that there are not many occasions during a session of Parliament when a discussion of foreign policy is possible, but in the Debate on the Address—that annual carnival of oratory when, by an indulgent tradition, nothing is held to be irrelevant—our foreign relations would receive more attention if their real importance were adequately reflected. The recent creation of standing committees on External Affairs in the Senate and the House of Commons is likely to have the useful effect of encouraging fuller discussion of the subject in both Houses. Between the wars, such discussion was often deliberately discouraged. An interesting example of this can be found in an incident in the House in November 1932 in the first stages of the Japanese aggression. In anticipation of a special meeting of the Assembly of the League called to consider the Report of the Lytton Commission on the Oriental situation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was questioned by Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, who asked:[53] “What, if any, is the policy of His Majesty’s Government in Canada in regard to the situation in the Far East and to the Lytton Report?” The answer was to the effect that the whole question was _sub judice_ and was a matter of policy which should not be communicated to the House. When the same question was repeated later, the answer of the Prime Minister was: “. . . it is not thought desirable to enter into a discussion at this time with respect to a matter of this kind, for it not only cannot serve the public interest but would be anticipating action that might be taken, and therefore is to be deprecated.” In reply to this statement a question was asked by Mr. Ernest Lapointe: “How can members of the Parliament of Canada express their views if that is the right doctrine?” The same speaker then proceeded to point out the very real distinction between a useful discussion in Parliament of such issues as were involved in the Oriental crisis, and on the other hand a “definite stand” on the matter which might, of course, impair the freedom of debate at the League of Nations Assembly. No such discussion, however, took place. The point of view reflected in this incident has been persistent. Foreign affairs traditionally have been presented to the House as a mystery into which the uninitiated should not venture; in moments of crisis the members have been cautioned to leave such explosive matters alone. But the world seems usually to be in a state of crisis in these days, and that is the very time when public debate should be encouraged. How else can the average citizen be made aware of the issues and invited to form his own views? The foreign policy of a democracy must, after all, be the expression of what individual men and women think. The Task of Interpretation What should be our policy today? The fullest support of the United Nations, as has been said, for the pursuit of peace must come first. Our two other objectives are concerned with the British connection and our relations with our American neighbours. It is an accepted truth that Anglo-American co-operation is essential to world peace. Canada has a special interest in this question. If two points in our national orientation are represented by Great Britain and the United States, it follows that good relations between them are of special importance; indeed, are vital to us. It is obvious that we should do all that we can to promote such mutual understanding. Canada has a vested interest in Anglo-American goodwill; Anglo-American estrangement might well be our undoing. Canada is referred to frequently as an interpreter between the two Anglo-Saxon nations. The sentiment often excites mirth or skepticism. International interpretations may indeed sound like an ambitious rôle for a small country to play, and we should not be too complacent when visitors, in a complimentary mood, call us a link between the two great English-speaking nations. But our relative youth and limited population do not prevent us from playing some such part, and there is more than rhetoric in this business of interpretation. The Canadian private citizen, whenever he is abroad, will unconsciously try to remove misconceptions in the British mind about the Americans, and is equally anxious to enlighten the American on the subject of the British character. When one comes to the sphere of government, the part of interpreter can be played no less sincerely. In the United States official doors are opened wider and with less hesitation to Canadians than to persons from Great Britain or, indeed from anywhere else. Anyone with experience of official Washington knows that. This function of interpretation comes naturally to us and we are aware of its importance. But it must be a two-way traffic. We know a great deal about our American friends. It is very easy, because of our proximity, for us to be aware of what is going on in the United States, to understand the American point of view and to explain it. Indeed, thanks to Canada, it was accurately interpreted at Geneva, and this is indeed true wherever Canadian officials are to be found. But there is a very important reverse process which we must not forget, and that is the interpretation to Americans of British policy and British points of view. Unlike the United States, Great Britain is a long way off from us, and it is not easy for us to keep in touch with what is going on in that country. Most of the information we receive about Britain in printed form does not come direct from British sources. To a large extent we receive our accounts of her policy and her affairs filtered through American channels and read the comment on them which appears in American periodicals. Although this is often well-balanced and objective, it is not always so, and it is thus very easy at times for us to misunderstand British policy. For example, we for long shared pretty generally the American failure to comprehend the Indian problem. It has required the demonstration of actual events to show how over-simplified the issues were in the American press, and how one-sided its interpretation could be. So if we are in a modest way to keep open a bridge between Great Britain and the United States, we must be concerned not only with the North American end of the bridge, but we must understand, and be willing to interpret, what is going on at each end to those who live at the other. It would be well if this were better understood by official Canada. Canada, it may be said here, is equipped to play another rôle as interpreter. Nearly one-third of her people are of French descent, and French-speaking Canadians have taken an important part in the establishment and development of Canada’s external relations. The only Canadian[54] to serve as President of the League of Nations Assembly came from French Canada. Canadians of French origin are equally at home in Paris and London for different reasons; in the former they find their mother tongue, in the latter a common political language. Such a duality should enable the French-speaking man of affairs from Canada to provide a liaison on occasion between members of the British Commonwealth and continental groups. This should be particularly true of our relations with France. It is customary to speak of the French-speaking Canadian as indifferent to the fortunes of the European French. This has been proved to be far from the truth. There have been growing contacts between metropolitan France and French Canada in the last generation. This we should welcome, for these help to broaden our international outlook. The Citizen’s Part The function of interpretation is of great value, but it is less important for Canada to interpret other nations’ points of view than to have one of her own. We cannot escape the responsibility of making up our own minds about the questions which may concern us, and this responsibility must in the long run rest on the individual. As citizens, we Canadians are perhaps inclined to be rather passive and easygoing; although here there would seem to be a difference between town and country. If there is a more active interest in politics in rural Canada than in the cities, this may be partly due to the fact that the former provides the individual with a much wider range of local political responsibilities than does urban life. There are many more municipal offices open to the citizen in the country than to the city-dweller. But generally our interests are detached from politics. In England, with her centuries of self-government springing originally from the local communities, the strongest political tendencies have been developed. The average Englishman is a political animal. No government is ever immune from his active criticism. Also he has lived close enough to a turbulent continent to have realized long ago the impact of foreign affairs on his daily life. There are many reasons why we are different in this respect. We have been absorbed in the tasks of a pioneering country, far removed from politics. Also a federal system divides our political activities and makes national affairs seem more remote. But whatever the causes, the fact remains that, relatively speaking, our interest in politics—between elections at least—seems to be latent, and Canadian governments rarely evoke from the citizen that sustained critical attention they might reasonably expect. Yet the citizen is responsible. When he talks about some mysterious “they” who are running his affairs he is apt to forget his relation to their actions. There is a legend of a father who, whenever his son was punished at school, insisted on receiving a caning at the hands of the unfortunate youth. It was embarrassing to the boy, no doubt, but it was sternly logical. The father felt responsible for his misbehaviour. It may not be too frivolous to suggest that if we perhaps gave ourselves to some form of mortification of the flesh whenever our elected legislators did something to merit our disapproval, it might be equally consistent, and would be a salutary practice for the electorate. But to be serious, it is surely wiser to be less critical of the statesman who is acting according to his lights, whatever they may be, than of a community which fails to give him brighter light to follow. Prevailing practice in Canada deprives our political life of large numbers of men and women who could contribute greatly to it. Our great financial and industrial corporations usually discourage their employees from taking an active part in politics. The theory is that such companies should preserve neutrality in political issues. It is reasonable for them to be collectively neutral, but surely that should not prevent the individual employee from taking such part as he wishes, in political organizations, provided his service to his firm is not impaired. Perhaps we have not yet learned to dissociate a man’s business from his politics. If so, the existing ban on political activity can perhaps be defended, and the community itself held to blame. But the fact remains that as a result, Canadian politics today is without the participation of many thousands of able and responsible people whose services it needs. We do little to encourage the young man who wishes to stand for election to Parliament. There are certain difficulties which are irremovable. One of these arises from the remoteness of Ottawa from so many other parts of the country. This imposes a great hardship on the average member of parliament who, unlike the British M.P., must come from such a distance from his home as often to find it impossible to keep in adequate touch with his business or practice or farm, and therefore may see his earning capacity seriously reduced. But there is one difficulty which would yield to reform; the problem of finance. Money plays far too large a part in our elections. Our unreformed Elections Act places no limit on the amount which a candidate may spend. He must generally either be a man of private means, or he must lean too heavily on the party organization for the funds, for his campaign. In Great Britain the government thought a reform of election procedure important enough to pass legislation on this subject during the war. Well-planned electoral reform would help to bring the individual into a sounder relation to government. Such contacts should be much closer than they are. Until the First World War, if government in general touched us lightly, foreign affairs seemed especially unreal. If we thought about them we were inclined to apply to ourselves the Psalmist’s declaration of humility, “. . . neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.” But the “great matters” of the world now call for our thought and our action no less than they do for those of others. The defence of peace is everybody’s business. The Quaker community has a charming word to describe what persons require in terms of their individual obligations—“concern”. That is what the citizen needs, “concern” for the affairs of his community, foreign as well as domestic. His responsibility should need no emphasis. Foreign policy begins at home. CHAPTER 7 Kinsmen “_. . . a great empire and little minds go ill together._” EDMUND BURKE, _Conciliation with America_, 1775 “_Our system of free association has enabled us, each and all, to claim a full share of the common burden. . . . We believe that when victory is won and peace returns, this same free association, this inherent unity of purpose, will make us able to do further service to mankind._” The Prime Ministers of the British Commonwealth, London, May 1944 7 Kinsmen The British Commonwealth a Canadian Interest Most Canadians believe in the British Commonwealth. Most Canadians are satisfied that Canada should remain a member of it. We enjoy the right of self-determination, but we realize, as someone has put it, that self-determination need not always mean a contracting “out”. It can be a contracting “in”, or a decision to remain in, and we, without doubt, have made that decision for good. There are, however, two small minorities in Canada, neither of which is helpful. One of these believes in a continuance of the British connection for very old-fashioned reasons. These imperialists of the old school are a dwindling group, but in the past they have often created an emotional reaction against the British Commonwealth, and have helped to strengthen the other minority on the opposite side, composed of critics who, although perhaps not numerous, are active and vocal. These are incapable of understanding the contemporary Commonwealth. They look on it as an outworn conception decked out with a rather faded sentimentality and hold that we in Canada have outgrown it. We should ask ourselves an important question—not in rhetorical or emotional terms but in the language of reason. What does the British Commonwealth mean to Canada?[55] It is true that some of us approach the matter with both our heads and our hearts and will always do so. We both think and feel on this subject. But every Canadian, irrespective of race or language, can consider it in terms of cool analysis. That is what we should do. Can, for instance, an immigrant from Denmark or the Ukraine, with no ties of sentiment with Britain, and indeed a bias against all Europe, be convinced that it is better to live in a Canada which remains a member of the Commonwealth than in a Canadian republic? I am certain that he can. There are good reasons why the Commonwealth is of importance to us in our national life; important both in our relations abroad and in our domestic affairs. For one thing, we have greater influence in the world as a member of the British family than would otherwise be ours. Membership gives us in a sense a double status. It provides one of the rare instances in which one can “eat one’s cake and have it too”. I feel sure from my own experience that the fact that Canada appears on the international scene, not only as an important country on her own account, but also as a member of a great world association, lends her enhanced prestige. In the international world, prestige means influence. As far as domestic affairs are concerned, there is a persistent illusion in the minds of some people that the British connection has somehow a limiting effect on our national growth; that the term “dominion” is derogatory to our national dignity. “Dominion” is only a word, and it has all but disappeared. In any event, it is important to consider things rather than their labels. In Canada we have certain institutions and traditions and characteristics which give us, whatever language we speak, our meaning as a separate country. Without the British connection these things would steadily evaporate and we should have less and less significance as an individual state. How long would a Canadian republic maintain its individuality here in North America? The forms of our sovereignty might be retained, but we should be caught inexorably by the southward undertow and completely assimilated to American life. It is thus true to say that the British connection is essential to Canadian independence; we are the more Canadian for being British. (The converse of this of course is also true. We have been the more British for being stoutly and resolutely Canadian, for nothing is so British as a disposition to run one’s own affairs in one’s own way.) Our British connection has moulded our national characteristics and given them different shape from those of the United States. In a recent history[56] of Canada it is observed: “A government whose centre was across the sea failed to generate the same healthy public spirit as existed across the border, where self-government prevailed; a certain lack of responsibility towards public affairs ensued.” It is no doubt true that following the period of colonial tutelage from which we eventually emerged, a communal spirit and local pride were slow to develop, and that the British colonial communities in North America showed little of the exuberant self-confidence of the Republic across the border. But had we not been colonies we should have become part of that Republic. The close contacts with Great Britain gave us certain qualities which remain as some of our distinguishing characteristics as a sovereign state. It will be appropriate to quote what a thoughtful American has to say. Mr. Lawrence Hunt of New York declared not long ago before a Canadian audience:[57] “. . . Your people have no desire to turn your nation into a mere ‘geographical expression’. You would scorn any attempt to play your Mother Country and your best friend one against the other. Canadians know what the rest of the world knows—that Canada, outside of the British Commonwealth, would lose her spiritual and political significance as a nation. “The self-respecting friendship of a loyal member of the British Commonwealth is vastly more important to the United States than the sly subservience of a satellite. We Americans don’t want any satellites. We want friends who can differ with us without fear and can agree with us without servility.” We must naturally submit all questions regarding our affairs to one supreme test: What is best for Canada? What in the long view and deeper sense is the right course for our country? An objective study of the subject of our external relations can lead but to one conclusion: the British Commonwealth is a major Canadian interest. The world in which we live is the better for the existence of the Commonwealth and it is good for us to be part of it. The Commonwealth a Practical Matter We want a peaceful world; how does the Commonwealth contribute to peace? We may remind ourselves that it was not the arguments of theorists that stopped Hitler in 1940 and 1941; it was the joint action of five free nations. That is as plain a statement of fact as we could have. It was an active sense of responsibility which had led these British states in 1939 to do the same thing at the same time for the same reasons. That is worth remembering. But what about the present? The Commonwealth stands today as the most successful union of free peoples in a world which must have union between nations or perish. Were the British Commonwealth and Empire to disappear, we should lose the only group of states which possesses, from its very nature, a world outlook. In contrast to the two great continental empires, the United States and Russia, the Commonwealth is a network between continents. So far as the Dominions are concerned, “though their interests are regional, they can never in the nature of things be exclusively so. They link the old world and the new, bound to Europe through Great Britain more closely than other independent overseas countries have been, yet responding to all the forces which characterize the frontier areas of western civilization.”[58] The Commonwealth, in the nature of things, can never be isolationist. It can never be a self-contained group of states. It stands to gain from unity among nations. It can never profit by their division. Its interests are essentially those of moderation and harmonization. On a grand scale it performs the functions of an interpreter between peoples. It must be vitally interested in any great organization set up to maintain security. Today it has thrown all the weight of its experience and influence and power behind the United Nations. It has been observed that the Commonwealth is never so active as when it is dealing with problems bigger than itself. It is perhaps not unfair to say, however, that enthusiasm for the League of Nations in its early years, or for the United Nations later, on the part of repentant isolationists was coloured by a desire to “by-pass” the British Commonwealth. New international organizations have seemed to them to offer an easy escape from the implications of Commonwealth relations. But the great organization at New York to which we have pinned so many of our hopes, is no substitute for the British family. On the other hand, the United Nations stands to gain greatly from the Commonwealth’s support, and receives such support from an association which is not without some successful experience as a working league of nations. “British institutions rarely yield their secret to the logical mind.” The foreign observer, when he attempts with his nice sense of logic to discuss our relationships, generally retires with a full quota of erroneous conclusions. Criticism of the Commonwealth, and there is plenty of it, is often based on ignorance. Sometimes the critics are definitely ill-disposed. Sometimes they are the innocent dupes of skilful and malicious propaganda. The Security Council and international conferences have served frequently as sounding boards for this. The ideological guns of Moscow are often turned on the Commonwealth as a favourite target, for it reveals certain truths most disturbing to the Communist. First, it demonstrates impressively how successful a form of government democracy is. Secondly, the Commonwealth shows that a nation can enjoy complete freedom while in close relation with others. This great association, as a bastion of Christian civilization which respects the dignity of man and gives him his personal liberty, could not be further than it is from Communist philosophy. Unities—Real and False The British nations are often accused of forming a bloc; of attempting—to use the current language of diplomacy—to “gang up” on other states. It is almost an obsession in some minds, but any experience I may have had in international gatherings would lead me to believe that the British Commonwealth should be peculiarly immune from such a charge. Indeed, a study of the facts should remove from the minds of all, save those hopelessly prejudiced, the fear that its members will act as a “bloc”.[59] Collaboration with other peace-loving nations is the aim of them all. It has long been an accepted principle in the British Commonwealth that co-operation with the United States in matters of world policy is essential to the continuance of satisfactory relations between its members. In Canada we have been over-sensitive to the charge that the Commonwealth is given to selfish collective action. The approach of any important meeting of its members has been likely to evoke routine assurances from this country, almost suggesting an uneasy conscience, that there is no intention to act as a group or indeed to come to agreement on anything. Others are not so squeamish. We often see, for instance, solidarity among Latin-American countries. Colonel House once said on this subject when Commonwealth representation in the League of Nations was a controversial topic in Washington: “As for the Empire’s six votes, supposing they can be held together on occasions, we could always have brought against them in counter-balance many more from the Pan-American Republics.”[60] This was a frank reference to a Latin American “bloc”. There is such a thing as a collective Arab vote in the United Nations Assembly, and we see regimented ballots produced again and again by the stern discipline of Moscow, but Commonwealth delegations on such occasions are characterized by the honest and sometimes very forthright disagreements among them. It is healthy that there should be different opinions among British representatives—it is also, of course, very British. This should have reassured the most sensitive nations that there was little danger of a uniform point of view in the British Commonwealth. But there is surely nothing reprehensible in our agreement when we do agree. It was well for the world that we did so in 1939. At all times we should refuse to accept the notion that there is any impropriety in our consulting together on any matter of common concern. When it was reported in the press in 1947 that we had assured the United States Government that the forthcoming Commonwealth conference on the peace treaty with Japan did not foreshadow the formation of a British “common front”, these representations seemed both unnecessary and undignified. The British Commonwealth possesses a moral unity. Its members have identity of tradition and constitutional usage; they have community of interest. But we must beware of “false unities”. The present Poet-Laureate once declared that, “King, law and language give us unity”. There is no question as to the rôle of the Crown as a unifying force, but one of the greatest merits of the Commonwealth is that it embraces so many languages in its bounds and gives to several of these an official sanction along with the English tongue. The same is true of legal systems, of which there is a great variety under our common Crown. All this suggests that combination of unity and diversity which is the majestic paradox that the Commonwealth embodies. But if there is no unified policy among British states it is not to be inferred that there is no common outlook on fundamentals, although we often “arrive at conclusions by the characteristic British course of scrupulously avoiding a decision”. We share the same views about freedom. We are not alone in that, but we have in common another characteristic even rarer—a traditional sense of responsibility as national communities. As far as our senior partner is concerned, and she bears by far the heaviest burden, her immemorial sense of responsibility has never been more active than now. That has led Britain to assume thankless tasks in many parts of the world and has exposed her to irresponsible interventions and sharp criticisms from abroad which a heavily-burdened and high-spirited people have found very hard to endure. It is difficult to understand how her critics today can shout “power politics”. Mr. Roosevelt gave the world a useful definition of that phrase when he said that “power politics” meant the abuse of power. Britain today is _promoting_ self-government. That stubborn belief in freedom which carried the British through the war is not a commodity for domestic consumption alone, it is an export. She remains on the frontiers of freedom in a world where freedom is in jeopardy. The British Commonwealth and Empire today represents the most impressive effort to extend personal liberty and promote human welfare in the world. This may sound like a rhetorical exaggeration; it is nothing but the truth. The Changing Commonwealth If we believe that it is in our national interest to belong to the Commonwealth, what, if anything, is there for us to do about its organization? I am one of those who regret the occasional suggestion that it should be given centralized political machinery. Such a step would in the long run be to its disadvantage. The Commonwealth cannot be organized to speak with a single voice. That would be false to its peculiar genius. But when there is a unison of British voices, when the harmony is brought about by independent thinking and directed to right ends, that is surely a useful factor in the world’s affairs. The mechanism we have in the Commonwealth today is well conceived and for the most part adequate, but it must be fully used if we wish to keep this great association of free states in being. It will not survive automatically. Mere acquiescence in the Commonwealth is not enough. Something more positive is required. If the most important element in our joint relations is consultation, we should consult as often as we can on all matters of common interest, and on all levels, and in the unofficial as well as in the governmental sphere.[61] Only through such contacts can we keep alive the consciousness of our association, and in a group of states whose connections are so tenuous, consciousness is all-important. To preserve this sense of family, its representatives must forgather. It is a regrettable fact that no Imperial Conference has been held since 1937. It is time another one took place. Such hasty improvised meetings of Prime Ministers as have since been held are, of course, useful for they are better than nothing. But they offer no substitute for formal Conferences with adequate preparation and opportunities for the full consideration of vital questions. Changes have recently taken place in the British Commonwealth. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs has become the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The word “Imperator”, now that Indian independence has been proclaimed, has been dropped from the King’s title. These things are inevitable. They simply bring terminology up to date with facts. But we should be careful that the realities are preserved. The Commonwealth is still an association. It cannot be less than that and continue to exist. There is a persistent tendency to “water it down”, to dilute our relations with Great Britain. One writer, apparently with some relish, has suggested that one day perhaps the word “British” will be dropped from the title of the Commonwealth. To mention a less important matter, it is sometimes proposed that the designation “high commissioner” for the representative of one British nation in the capital of another should be replaced by the very inappropriate term “ambassador”. How can the Sovereign accredit a representative to himself? The Commonwealth would survive such a change, but the desire to make it suggests a lack of understanding of what our association really is. Why should we assimilate our unique relationship to that existing between foreign states? The Commonwealth represents the organic growth of many generations. It lies as much in the psychological as in the political realm. Those with official experience in both Washington and London know that the family relations enjoyed by its members are much closer and much more intimate and much more informal than those between any member-state of the Commonwealth and any other country. Alliances between foreign states can be effected and dissolved at will. The relations existing between the members of a family of nations are the result of natural growth. Once destroyed they could never be reconstructed. If we believe in the British Commonwealth in Canada, we should say so more definitely than we do. Mr. Sumner Welles has said,[62] “The continued existence of the British Commonwealth of Nations (as distinct from the British Empire) should be one of the objectives of United States policy.” Many in the United States and other countries have frequently paid the Commonwealth similar tributes. It would be fitting not to leave such things to be said by them. And when our own public men do refer to our connection with the Commonwealth, they should not so often feel it necessary to balance such a reference by speaking of our relation to the United States as if the latter were a counter-weight. If we believe in the British Commonwealth and our relation to it, we should be prepared to say so with conviction. We should be willing now and then ourselves to propose some measure for its increased well-being. Canada has no connection with the Colonial Empire. We have always preserved a coldly correct aloofness from the British colonial world, even from those parts of it closest to us geographically. We might well, for instance, have contributed to the development of the British West Indies, apart from our Trade Agreement which has been useful to all parties concerned. Had we shown any interest, our co-operation would have been welcomed. A closer relation between the West Indies and Canada might also help to dissuade American politicians from making the occasional proposal that these colonial communities should be ceded to the United States as part of an Anglo-American bargain. There is still widespread ignorance about the chain of colonies in all stages of development which make up the Colonial Empire of Great Britain. The briefest study of the facts will reveal a programme of constitutional reform and economic progress in those varied units which discredits the criticism that is so common. The march towards self-government is Empire-wide.[63] It is important to think about the subject in _contemporary_ terms. No empire ever showed less “imperialism” than does the British Empire today. Many critics have not been immune from the American tendency to endow the words “colony” and “empire” with a connotation they have long since lost. (Colonies of the United States are called “territories” or “possessions”, for to the American, “colony” recalls the régime of George III.) It is well to remember the part which British Crown Colonies played in the late war. Had Malta belonged to Italy, or Gibraltar to Spain, what would have been the effect on the course of the conflict? The Senior Partner No comment on the Commonwealth would be complete without a word about the senior partner. Thousands of Canadians who served in our forces got to know Great Britain during the war, and most of them returned with a fondness for the country and its people. This feeling was fully reciprocated. They like Canadians in England. This indeed has long been true. The Canadian brings characteristics which the British value, and he fits easily into the new environment because, being a Canadian, he happily finds himself in no alien land. The welcome he receives in peace or war is genuine, and he learns that the so-called “reserve” of the Englishman is little more than a persistent legend. The war left Canadian prestige in Great Britain so high as to be almost embarrassing. It is well that we should understand Britain in Canada, for as a result of the economic difficulties through which she is passing, hasty and very erroneous conclusions have often been drawn in other countries. Indeed, ever since the end of the war she has frequently been the subject abroad either of misunderstanding or misrepresentation. It is, for instance, a sad fact that a country which above all others has always shown hospitality and tolerance to persons of Jewish race, and does so today on a generous scale, should as a result of her commitments in Palestine be bitterly attacked as hostile to the cause of Jewry.[64] Great Britain traditionally has not been much concerned with the problem of explaining herself. Perhaps publicity has been naturally foreign to a people, one of whose strongest habits is that of understatement. It would therefore not be inappropriate for her friends and kinsmen to help tell her story for her. There is reason today for the world to have a sympathetic understanding of those things which have made her a great humane and stabilizing force in the world. An American philosopher[65] declared shortly after the First World War: “Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.” British recovery is essential to Europe and to the world. Britain has moral qualities which are sorely needed today, and most people would agree on a list of them: patience, integrity, tolerance, a sense of responsibility. In 1940 there were plenty of people in the world who thought Britain was finished. They were very wrong. There are others who think so today. They are equally wrong. Britain was grievously wounded in a war in which she carried an unequal burden. Her organized dedication to the struggle was more complete than that of any other country. Between 1914 and 1945 she was nearly one-third of the time at war. Her recovery will be a long and difficult process. She is suffering from hardships which are normally associated with defeat, not victory. She will require all the help she can be given, but we need only remember some simple things to have faith in her revival. She now applies to her problems not only the courage and self-discipline and endurance which lay behind her war effort and saved herself and civilization in 1940 and 1941 (they did not evaporate when the war came to an end), but also her resourcefulness and inventiveness and power of organization which played so notable a part. The latter qualities are sometimes overlooked in a nation we know as the “_old_ country”. If we want evidence of the talents which will reorganize her industry and increase her production, we have only to recall the war inventions and discoveries which we owe to British laboratories and workshops where most of the fundamental research related to the allied war effort took place. It is very easy to forget these facts; indeed, often hard to find them.[66] The economic crisis has not changed the British character. Only the very shallow-minded could act as if it had. Britain has as much to offer today in the sphere of moral leadership as ever in the past. A man is not thought less wise because misfortune has made him poor. Great Britain is poor but she is still great. If we seek for evidence of that, we have but to look at what has taken place in India. Such a voluntary surrender of power—so gracefully effected—is unique in history. It is a striking fact that in the things of the mind Britain is pulsating with life. In educational experiments she leads the world today. In scientific achievements she is second to none. In the arts she is experiencing what might fairly be called a renaissance. Music and painting are flourishing as they have not done for generations. As for her moral stature, nothing can diminish it. We can make a fresh application today of the sentences which the American, Emerson, wrote about Britain just one hundred years ago: “England is neither weak nor dispirited but well remembers she has seen dark days before—indeed has a kind of instinct that she sees a little better in a cloudy day, and in storm of battle or calamity has a secret vigour and a pulse like cannon.”[67] Our links with Great Britain are imponderable. They belong to the realm of things of the spirit; those subtle habits of mind we have in common and which elude definition. It is commonly said that such bonds are stronger than material ties: so they are, but even they can be weakened. Only through constant contact can we keep alive a sense of our kinship. CHAPTER 8 Neighbours “_. . . it is more to the advantage, both of the United States and of the Canadians, that they should continue to develop independent types of political life and intellectual progress. Each may, in working out its own institutions, have something to teach the other. There is already too little variety on the American continent._” JAMES BRYCE, _The American Commonwealth_, 1888 “. . . _to thine own self be true_, . . .” _Hamlet_, Act. I. Sc. 3 8 Neighbours Neighbourliness in Practice It is said that Sir Richard Cartwright, the Canadian statesman, once told a British Colonial Secretary that he should keep on the walls of his room a card with the legend: “Remember, Canada lives cheek by jowl with the United States”. This elementary fact with so many implications was suggested by Mr. Louis St. Laurent, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he said in a lecture[68] in 1947: “The relationship between a great and powerful nation and its smaller neighbour, at best is far from simple. It calls for constant and imaginative attention on both sides.” Good relations with the United States are so natural and essential to Canadian external policy as to need little comment. The over-emphasis of a truth can only dull its edge. There is therefore little need for eulogy of the “undefended frontier”. (Orators differ as to its length; it extends, apart from the Canada-Alaska boundary, for 3,986 miles.) Our frontier has long been immune from conflict, it is true, but it has suffered grievously from the effects of rhetoric. As a matter of fact, some of the realities have been obscured by the clouds of oratory which hang above this famous border. It has long been undefended, but realists have observed that the disparity of population has made armaments for one country futile and for the other superfluous. The statistics of peace between ourselves and our neighbours are impressive but they are never improved by being sentimentalized. We have enjoyed over 130 years of peace. Our friendship has deep foundations which can only be strengthened by the recollection that less than fifty years ago our relations were exposed to a sharp demonstration of power politics when the course of the arbitration on the Alaska boundary was overshadowed by a threat of force of a type which we liked to think was confined to Europe. We know that the incident belongs to the category of things that “can never happen again”. The international atmosphere has changed profoundly. Not for generations has the permanence of the boundary been questioned by individuals as it was now and then long ago under the spell of Fourth of July celebrations. The orations, which dealt with what the speakers habitually called the “manifest destiny” of the United States, occasionally overlooked the existence of the Canadian line. It was the American historian, John Fiske, who humorously recalled an occasion in the last century on which a speaker referred to the confines of his country in an immortal passage when he affirmed that the United States was bounded “on the north by the aurora borealis, on the south by the procession of the equinoxes, on the east by the dawn of history, and on the west by the day of judgment!” But even this fanciful expression of an expansionist policy can no longer be heard, and the frontier remains inviolate, not because of any sanctions which may lie behind it, but because of a simple desire to keep the peace. It is true to say that the North American point of view can best be described by the phrase “friendly commonsense”, and the frontier is one of those rare subjects in which abstract ideals and existing realities are in a pretty full measure of agreement. The word “foreigner” is rightly rejected on both sides. But Canadian-American relations cannot be dismissed too simply. There seem to be three contradictory elements in the attitude of the United States toward her neighbour; neighbourly respect, benevolent ignorance and the occasional minor forgetfulness which inevitably marks all frontiers. The element of respect is undoubtedly growing. Canada has come to be looked upon as a nation whose experiments in the solution of common problems possess some value. Americans are often readier than we are ourselves to see that our duty is to remain true to our own national traditions, and they are often generous enough to express the sincere hope that we will. The boundary, despite its amicable atmosphere, is not, as is often said with polite intent, an imaginary line. It is not imaginary; it is real, and separates two peoples, each with a self-respecting desire to work out its own destiny in its own way. But the United States possesses a vast population many times that of Canada and has pressing problems of its own. In the circumstances Canada could hardly hope to be exactly a major preoccupation of the American mind. It is worth noting by way of illustration that when the centenary of the birth of Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, was celebrated in 1947, Canada recognized the fact that it was in Brantford, Ontario, that Bell carried out certain essential experiments, and appropriately issued a stamp in his honour. In the celebration of his centenary in the United States there seems to have been no reference whatever to the fact that Bell ever worked in Canada. Our neighbours might certainly know more about us than they do. Canada, to most people from the United States, is a country for a pleasurable holiday. We shall not discourage that point of view; our visitors are very welcome, but it would be helpful if they carried back more knowledge of Canada as a community. There would seem to be doubts in the minds of some as to our national status. On a conservative estimate,[69] between 30,000 and 40,000 letters and postcards are mailed each year in Canada by American visitors with United States stamps affixed. Over twenty million persons[70] cross our border from the United States annually, but the average American is very hazy about our form of government; how we run our affairs. He finds it hard to understand our constitutional system. Our combination of national independence and allegiance to the same Crown as the United Kingdom is confusing to him. Countless Americans still think that we pay taxes to London and that there is some measure of control exercised over our affairs in that capital. We have ourselves to blame for much of this ignorance. We have done little to dispel it. If our American friends are deficient in knowledge of Canada, they are not found wanting in a generous attitude to Canadians. Many educational undertakings in Canada have been beneficiaries of the great philanthropic foundations in the United States, and American hospitality to their neighbours is something which requires no emphasis. One example of this is to be found in the numerous professional organizations which perform a useful function in the United States. In these, the word “American” has been liberally interpreted to mean “North American” and Canadians have been freely invited to membership. Our countrymen frequently hold high office in these societies. The exchange of ideas between them and their American colleagues is a useful activity which needs no comment. We have, however, in almost every case special problems which do not apply to our American friends, and their approach to questions often differs from ours. It is therefore right and fitting that we should have our own organizations representing our efforts in these different fields, and such has been the tendency. Our scientists and medical men and others have thus the advantage of two fields in which to meet their colleagues—the national and the international. Inter-Governmental Contacts In thinking of the United States, the average Canadian makes a distinction in his mind between individuals and institutions. He likes the individuals he knows, but to certain institutions across the border he quite properly prefers his own. This is especially true of the United States Constitution. The difficulties which from time to time call for adjustment between the United States and her northern neighbour are settled without much trouble. But sometimes the United States _Government_ itself seems but remotely concerned with such issues. It is not our business to criticize the constitution of another country, but the American system of government presents difficulties in the international field which cannot be ignored. Mr. Taft, a former President, once said with one of those subterranean chuckles which heralded his best observations, “The great merit of our Constitution is that it makes it so difficult for anyone to do anything.” Under our British system responsibility for all policy rests with the Cabinet. In the United States with its division of constitutional powers there are conflicts between executive and legislative branches of which the world is, of course, well aware. But, problems can arise in Canada from minor divisions within the American administrative sphere itself. It happens, for instance, now and then that an important decision affecting our relations with the United States is taken by American authorities with no reference to the Department of State, which as the American Foreign Office, is the arm of the Government concerned with international matters. Such action may be taken individually by various offices such as, for instance, the Department of Labour in connection with movements of persons across the border, or by the authorities responsible for the armed forces, or by those concerned with the movement of railway freight cars, or with civil aviation, or by many other agencies. Our only official approach in such matters is to the Department of State which can be relied upon to have a sound international sense, a knowledge of Canada and a desire to maintain good relations with her. Other departments, however, tend, perhaps not unnaturally, to have a departmental outlook, and before the Secretary of State can act, if indeed he can, prolonged discussions may take place in Washington between his Department and the other offices concerned, which generally resent the former’s “interference”. This complicates the problem of effecting a settlement. Difficulties in the past were increased by the fact that the Department of State in Washington did not possess the prestige appropriate to the functions of a Foreign Office. Perhaps this was a by-product of the prevailing isolationist outlook. If so, one may expect the authority of this important Department to increase as the years pass. The United States Department of Justice was responsible in 1947 for an action which by implication at least may be said to have ignored the existence of the international boundary, and aroused a strong protest in Canada. In connection with an enquiry into the American Newsprint industry under the United States Anti-Trust Law, subpoenas were served on the representatives of certain Canadian firms, ordering them to appear in a district court in New York State and produce their records. It was natural to assume at the time that such an assertion of extraterritorial authority must have been due to the error of some subordinate official. This, however, was not the case, the action having been taken apparently by the United States Attorney-General. The Ontario Provincial Legislature, which was in session at the time, promptly passed a Bill “to prohibit taking, sending, removing records relating to any business carried on in Ontario from a point outside of Ontario in answer to a subpoena or a like order issued by an authority outside of Ontario”. In due course, presumably after conversations between Canadian and American federal authorities, the subpoenas were withdrawn. Whenever the United States Government is brought in touch with such issues as occur in North America, with a full knowledge of the situation, one can depend on its acting as the average American individual would act, with intelligence and fairness.[71] This, however, does not relieve us from the duty of making our views known and protecting our interests in all matters which concern both countries. Someone has said that “it is the merest common sense, when one lives in the same house with a giant, to attempt to keep on good terms with him”. This is no doubt true, but the United States is a very friendly giant who will respect us all the more if we do not take for granted that it is our duty to yield automatically when there are differences of opinion, and will appreciate our speaking with frankness and candour. The war has brought great changes in Canadian-American relations. Knowledge of Canada, at least in official circles, has grown strikingly with our co-operation in the war. Our collaboration, particularly in the field of defence, continues. Today in the Canadian Arctic, for long almost forgotten as a barren waste, there is active co-operation between Canadian and American military forces. Events have led us to grant privileges on Canadian soil to United States troops which were not granted even to British forces before the war. Circumstances made this new development a matter of necessity. We should be foolish to question it, but the situation calls for the greatest vigilance on the part of Canada. When Mr. Roosevelt said at Kingston in 1938 that if Canada were threatened with invasion the United States would not stand idly by, his statement was closely followed by an assurance from Mr. Mackenzie King in his speech at Woodbridge that Canada would not permit her territory to be used by any power as an avenue of attack on the United States. This put us on the proper basis of reciprocity with the American Government in the sphere of defence. We are an ally of the United States, not a protectorate. One may be permitted to wonder whether this principle was fully borne in mind when, according to newspaper reports, it was decided that in the event of Newfoundland becoming a province of Canada, the latter would not take over the three American naval and military bases in that colony, but would leave them in the hands of the United States forces. This was stated to be in accordance with “the joint United States-Canadian declaration on peace-time defence co-operation”. In the statement referred to, made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons at Ottawa in February 1947, on the subject of collaboration between Canada and the United States on joint defence in the post-war period, it was declared that: “As an underlying principle all co-operative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory”. It is very unlikely that our forces at present are large enough to take over maintenance of the bases in question. However, that should not be allowed to determine the principle of our policy in such an important matter.[72] Our moral position in relation to our American friends would be far stronger in the field of defence if our forces were closer to the size of hers in proportion to our population. “Taking the ‘voluntary system’ countries of the United States and Canada for separate examination”, says General Crerar,[73] “it will be seen that if our country were prepared to maintain its active, or regular, forces at a strength proportionate to those maintained by the United States, our present estimated total of 35,000 all ranks of the three armed services would be increased between four and five times, to about 165,000.” The tiny size of our fighting services, even on a relative basis, does little to help us maintain a position of reasonable dignity in the joint discussions between ourselves and Washington on the subject of defence. An Erosion of Canadianism? The Canadian attitude towards our neighbour has developed and changed with Canada’s growth as a national entity. It has become steadily more friendly with the attainment of a greater confidence in our own institutions. National self-respect is a sound, even essential, foundation for neighbourly goodwill. A healthy desire to cherish our own nationality is not only compatible with good neighbourly relations, it is essential to them. The old animosity between the United States and Canada is long since dead, and will never be revived. It seems a long time ago now since there was evident here and there that conscious dislike of the Republic and its people which is illustrated by the story of the old lady who had not realized, until she was grown up, that “damyankee” was not one word. That point of view is happily gone. While it lasted it was often accompanied by an indifference to Canadian nationhood on the part of Canadians and a distrust of our own national development. One negative attitude is always apt to breed another. The assumption by Canada of the position of a sovereign state within the Commonwealth has been accompanied by greatly improved relations between the North American neighbours. In discussing this welcome development one writer[74] has given us a word of caution. “There is every reason to suppose”, so he says, “that as Canadian feeling becomes more and more friendly towards the United States, as it has done during the past quarter century, our cultural dependence on the Americans will grow.” Another observer takes a different view and declares that Canada has been “outgrowing her colonial subordination in certain cultural and economic matters to the United States”.[75] Undoubtedly in the field of national culture there has been a growth of national consciousness. But certain external influences have grown in strength. Thinking Americans are fighting gallantly against the spiritual dangers which both they and we face: a distorted sense of values, the standardization of life, the worship of mere bulk for its own sake, the uncritical acceptance of the second-rate. But the very size of the United States intensifies these tendencies in that country however they may be resisted, and we in Canada are increasingly exposed to their influence. In a discussion of Canadian nationality three or four generations ago (if such an idea could have been accepted then) the British Colonial Office might well have been referred to as the principal obstacle to the development of true Canadianism. Such was the major problem of the time. But that issue is long since past, and we have now abundant opportunity and full power to control our own political future. If, however, we are to keep our Canadian traditions inviolate, we must face another battle, a spiritual battle, for if the obstacle to true Canadianism was “Downing Street” in the nineteenth century, its enemy today is “Main Street” with all that the phrase implies. Monsieur Siegfried has asked a very searching question:[76] “With an American culture whose centre of gravity lies outside Canada’s frontiers, is it possible to found a lasting Canadian nation?” Our answer to that query must be a confident “yes”. But it is a subject which invites earnest enquiry on the part of Canadians. Influences from across the border are today far stronger than ever in the past. Their significance is obvious to any thinking Canadian. The radio, for instance, ignores frontiers and American broadcasting is a powerful expression of American ideas. Our films still largely reflect the culture of Hollywood. The few commercial theatres we have are served largely from New York. In cities near the border American papers compete on the news-stands with our own. Magazines from the United States have an immense Canadian public. Eighteen of them have each a circulation of over 60,000 in Canada; two of about 200,000, and one of over 235,000.[77] To turn to another sphere, Canadian industry strongly mirrors the forces of geography. The investment in manufacturing establishments in this country which are controlled in the United States amounts now to $2,300 million or about one-third of the total investment in the whole of Canadian industry. In the entire field of Canadian business—manufacturing, commerce, mining, transportation and public utilities—investments controlled in the United States are estimated to amount to about one-fifth of the total at the present time.[78] Our trade unions are, with few exceptions, international, and although trade union organizations in Canada maintain greater autonomy than is sometimes supposed, they operate under powerful influences from the United States. American participation in the field of industry has, however, less impact on Canadian thinking and the shaping of the Canadian mentality than influences from across the border in the cultural field. Here, from the beginning of the late war and since its close, there have been striking changes. Our contacts with Great Britain have in many ways been greatly weakened by wartime exigencies and post-war restrictions and our dependence on the United States has greatly increased. If, for instance, the sale of books in Canada is any criterion, as indeed it is, our contacts with the United States have grown steadily in the last decade or so at the expense of our relations with Great Britain. The Chief Librarian[79] of Toronto in commenting on this development, made this observation: “We need American books. We want American books. But Americans will fully understand if we say that in Canada we also need and want books from Britain—they are part of our birthright.” It is perhaps not an understatement to say that we have been, and still are undergoing a cultural reorientation in Canada which demands our thought and attention. We should naturally be as self-reliant as possible in such matters, but external contacts are essential, and it is vital to us to see that these are not thrown hopelessly out of balance. In the field of education the pull from the South is increasingly strong. In recent years a growing proportion of our teachers in both secondary and higher education have attended American universities for post-graduate work. Fellowships and scholarships in the United States are generally open to applicants from Canada. Our students receive the warmest hospitality in these American institutions whose facilities have in recent years been greatly extended. It is natural that these men and women should return to Canada greatly influenced by their life and experience across the border. This is often to our advantage for it is right that our educational systems should have the cross-fertilization of ideas from outside, but undue dependence on the institutions of another country is a different matter. American hospitality, however generous, does not exempt us from the responsibility of providing proper facilities for our own scholars. It will help to keep Canada Canadian if our intellectual leaders are, as far as may be possible, trained in our own institutions. No nation can afford to be so largely dependent on another as Canada is on the United States in the sphere of graduate studies. Our future teachers should be given the opportunities for training which we owe them. In Canadian universities the number of American textbooks has increased steadily. It is estimated that the basic texts of American origin now represent some three-quarters of the total, the remainder being British and Canadian. The preponderance of American texts is due partly to the fact that so many of our teachers receive their advanced training in the United States, and partly because with a larger market than Canada provides, American publishers can produce books at lower costs than would be possible for Canadian houses. In primary and secondary education the various provincial authorities concerned are doing what they can to increase the proportion of Canadian textbooks used in our schools. But there are arrears to make up. Our geographical position has tended to produce a sort of snobbery in some minds. It is natural that in certain spheres the smaller country will accept the standards of the larger. For example, the styles of women’s clothes in Canada are inevitably established in New York, and this practice is as unalterable as the movement of the tides, but it is quite another matter to regard American credentials as essential to a textbook for use in Canadian schools. It is no doubt simpler to accept a ready-made book from the United States than to encourage the production of one at home on the same subject. Sheer duplication should be avoided, but it is of obvious importance that Canadian scholars should be employed in such tasks as far as possible, and that the Canadian character of Canadian education should be preserved. “Inferiority complex” is a tiresome phrase, but a useful one. It can still be applied not unfairly to some of our people as they look at our great neighbour, but in a healthy mind physical disparity should not cause a sense of inferiority. We can never equal the United States in terms of size. It will always build higher buildings; it will always have larger crowds. American life has pace and magnitude and glamour. It has immense vitality and exuberance, too, but these things must not blind us to the quality of our own life, and as we study that there will be no room left in our minds for any sense of inferiority, or an unthinking mimicry. We cannot afford to allow an erosion of our Canadianism. Our safeguard against this must be a belief in the things which are ours, a warm confidence in our own institutions, and a determination to see our national experiment succeed on its own appointed lines. Influences from across the border are, of course, largely unconscious, but they have none the less force for that. Our efforts to keep our Canadianism intact can only be successful, first, if we are aware of the differences which distinguish us from the United States and give us our significance here in North America, and secondly, if by constant and unremitting effort we are determined to preserve them. It may be said that these differences are exaggerated, that we are so much alike on both sides of the border that in any event nothing can be done about it. But this is not true of certain principles.[80] Incidents that occur from time to time can teach us that we have ways of our own and that they are worth keeping. Recently, Canadian citizens of negro race have suffered from disabilities purely as a result of their racial origin. To turn to another sphere, in 1947 it was reported that the appeal judges in two Canadian murder cases made grave and disturbing comments on the methods of the police in extracting from the accused statements which played an important part in securing convictions in both trials. Such things are disquieting. There is much that we can learn from the United States, but racial discrimination and third degree police methods are not on the list. There is a serious warning for Canadians to be found in these incidents. We must be mentally on the defensive. It is wise to borrow ideas from our American friends when they fit into our own pattern. There is more we can learn in some fields than we realize; for instance, in industrial organization, in certain branches of public education, in town planning, in the administration of museums and libraries, in the theatre, in the preservation of monuments and respect for history, and in the application of private funds to public objects. In these things and many others we can and should learn much, but it is foolish to imitate practices across the border or anywhere else without discrimination. It is doubly foolish to take ideas from our neighbours after our neighbours have discarded them. This has often happened, particularly in education in Canada, when we did not look carefully enough. There are many examples of this; indeed, the whole field of education is involved. Many American experts for a generation or so seem to have been so concerned with the technique of education as to neglect its ends. They have been unduly occupied with standards and tests and procedures, and educational leadership in the United States has fallen to a considerable extent into the hands of technicians who appear to look upon educational “methodology” as being of greater importance than the content of education itself. Our own educationists have too often followed these false prophets and have failed to listen to wiser Americans who have deplored this tendency in their own educational systems. These have always been an important group and have much to teach us. They are now being listened to in the United States as not before. We have a fine educational tradition of our own in Canada. It invites us to be careful as to what ideas we import. Americans, (and I remember their advice when I lived in Washington), tell us to be ourselves, to carry on our own national experiment here in North America from which they are good enough to say they can learn, as we know we can learn from theirs. Exposure to outside influences, however, produces its own antidote. Canadians can be said to have acquired in a national sense a sort of protective skin by means of which our own peculiar institutions and qualities have been rendered more secure. If this had not been so, we should long ago have lost what national characteristics we possessed. Such is the only way that Canadianism can be preserved. There is no other means of conserving our institutions. Our national characteristics can be protected only by the strength of our national feeling. If we should ever become indifferent, then the battle will not be worth fighting. But the defence of our own ideas must be something more than a passive one. National feeling cannot content itself with a mere resistance to alien ideas. It must be expressed by a positive determination to do things for ourselves—to use the fine talent we have produced and have so often lost—for instance, to give opportunity to our own writers and artists in all fields, to develop our own graduate schools, to write more of our own educational books, to be more self-reliant in a thousand ways. That will require an active public opinion inspired with pride and confidence in our own resources. Our North American Outlook Externally there will always be a similarity between the life on both sides of the international border in North America. It should be realized by those who study our institutions from abroad that this is not necessarily due to conscious imitation, or even to unconscious influence, although both these play their part, but often to the fact that both nations live under the same geographical conditions. From these spring many qualities which we possess in common. It is often implied in what is known as a “goodwill speech” that we North Americans are a very superior people, that our virtues are a matter for self-congratulation, and that other peoples might well learn to run their own affairs better by a study of our mature wisdom. We may well derive satisfaction from our relationships here in North America, but it is perhaps well that we should refrain from boasting. If we have been able to establish here on this continent a tradition of good feeling and a decent sense of neighbourliness, this has been greatly helped by the fact that we have been free to start afresh in North America without the embarrassing legacies of racial feuds and dynastic quarrels, and the great pressure of population which have made the international problems of Europe so difficult to solve. We have been allowed to form our own international habits on this continent, and these have developed on lines of sound commonsense. It is well not to become self-complacent; but on the other hand what merits we may possess can equip us to comprehend the problems of continents less favoured than ours, for although the problems may be different the basic principles of international harmony are everywhere the same. Indeed, we cannot proceed very far in any sphere of human relationships without an effort to understand one another’s difficulties. Perhaps if North American people were more willing to extend this rule to apply to other regions we might modify one of our common characteristics—a readiness to assume that the major share of human virtues resides in the Western Hemisphere. The American Background The American outlook today is undergoing profound changes. In its relation to the outside world, the United States is passing through the greatest mental revolution in its history. The long tradition of isolationism is broken, a tradition which even the First World War failed to break. She now is prepared to match responsibility with the great power she has acquired, and while an anxious and grateful world looks on, she is assuming the rôle fate has given her, not without some reluctance and a certain disturbance of mind which should not surprise the student of world politics. The significance of this revolution becomes apparent only when we glance at America’s past. We should remind ourselves that the United States was originally founded on an act of repudiation, a formal renunciation of all connection with Europe. The legend of the revolution is primarily a negative ideal. The flag, however constructively interpreted, remains in the popular mind as the symbol of revolt. We must not forget that as the Republic grew, its anti-European bias not only remained but became even stronger. The millions of people who came to the United States from Europe during the last hundred years—from 1900 to 1910 nearly a million immigrants a year—felt that they, like the original New England Puritans, had left a reprobate world behind them. They came from Europe in search of freedom of conscience, of political liberty, of economic opportunity, and in most cases found what they sought. The majority of Americans today are probably children or grandchildren of these people, or are immigrants themselves, and it is not unnatural that they should think of Europe in terms of the conditions which prompted the original migration. As a shrewd observer has pointed out, the immigrant looks on the Revolution as a covenant between him and America. In the United States Europe has been regarded as the source of most political ills. We in Canada are not wholly free from such a tendency. It is unfortunate that the average American fails to recognize that although Great Britain is inevitably part of the European system, in her social fabric and habits of thought she is so different from most continental countries that she is “European” in little more than a geographical sense. Nevertheless he has been apt to group all the countries of the old world together and to envisage them as practising a cynical diplomacy and placing a blind reliance on force in their relations. A common saying in Washington used to be “We have never lost a war and we have never won a conference”. Certain things have seemed to place Great Britain in a peculiarly disadvantageous light. The tradition of the Revolution, as still interpreted in school books, imposes on her the rôle of the greatest sinner of a sinful hemisphere. Her relations with Ireland and India have been skilfully exploited by local politicians and foreign propagandists. Events have removed these sources of misunderstanding between Britain and the United States, but misinterpretation of British policy in Palestine has taken their place as a cause of friction. We need not lay stress on national achievement as a factor in the American point of view. The United States may sometimes forget those natural advantages which have brought such rewards to their efforts, but they do not overlook the contrast between the economic standards which their population have found themselves able to attain and those existing elsewhere. The system of high tariffs, protecting a vast area in which internal free trade and the maximum degree of _laissez faire_ have prevailed, created an American economic orthodoxy in which virtue and success were closely related and which have given rise to a sort of economic Calvinism. With the traditional mental attitude to the outside world, preoccupation with their own problems, a buoyant confidence in their own future, it is not surprising that American judgments should not always have been objective. They have not been immune from the very human error of applying to themselves criteria different from those they applied to others. This tendency has not been absent in recent years. For instance, although both the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal have recently played a similar part in world security, the United States has been apt to view British policy with regard to the latter as “power politics” and her own attitude towards the Panama as simple self-defence. Both the United States and Great Britain will benefit from the restoration of Singapore as a base, and the fortification of the American outpost of Guam. The same arguments apply to these undertakings; they are equally in the interest of world security, but there is a disposition in the United States to apply the term “imperialism” to such British enterprises. At best Americans are indifferent to the re-constitution of the British Colonial Empire, unaware of the contribution it is making today to the extension of human freedom and welfare. It is hard to avoid, in this connection, a reference to the thorny question of Imperial Preference. The long-established preferential system in the British Commonwealth and Empire has been the subject of vigorous and unremitting attack in the United States for many years. The study of American policy in this matter leaves certain questions unanswered. How can it be that the United States can approve the preferential arrangements made by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg labelled “Benelux”, and yet regard tariff preferences between the British nations as involving unfair discrimination in trade? There would seem to be a measure of inconsistency between the arrangements[81] for trade between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines which, until 1954, will be on the basis of free trade, and the American objection to preferential tariffs within the Commonwealth. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the matter is not viewed by Washington entirely as an economic problem, and it has been not unnaturally asked whether the word “imperial” is not a factor in American disapproval. This is not the place in which to embark on a discussion of so complicated a problem. Our preferential system has undoubtedly called for modification in the light of present-day conditions. But that is a practical matter, not a question of international morals, and it can be reasonably maintained that the _principle_ underlying preferential arrangements between member-states of the British family, whether in tariffs or communications or in postal rates, can, if not abused, be fully justified. Despite the ignorance of Great Britain still so widespread in the United States, there are striking examples of knowledge and understanding. No more discerning or sympathetic comments on British life and institutions could have been written than those which appeared in the little handbook[82] which during the late war the United States military authorities gave to each American soldier on his way to the British Isles. In this admirable booklet he was told that “the British enjoy a practical, working twentieth-century democracy, which is in some ways even more flexible and sensitive to the will of the people than our own”; that “the British system of justice is just about the best there is”; that “the British are leisurely, but not really slow. Their crack trains held world speed records. A British ship held the trans-Atlantic record. A British car and a British driver set world’s speed records in America”. The little book must surely have made a genuine contribution to Anglo-American understanding. England, like the United States, has practised aloofness from the world in the past. The English Channel once gave her immunity from the ills of Continental Europe. With the advance of science this barrier has all but disappeared. So has the United States found that modern warfare no longer respects her protective moats—the oceans on her eastern and western flanks. If we look at history we will find that nineteenth century Britain, too, like the United States in later years, used to lecture Europe at a time when “splendid isolation” was her policy, but after the turn of the century she left the spectators’ benches and entered the arena to carry more than her share of the heat and burden. The United States is now passing through a similar transition in her story and the world can hardly survive without what she can give to its welfare and stability. CHAPTER 9 North American or Pan-American? “_Speak softly and carry a big stick._” THEODORE ROOSEVELT, 1901 “. . . _I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbour._” FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, 1933 9 North American or Pan-American? The Hemispheric Myth Canada lies in the Western Hemisphere. Her life is deeply influenced by that fact, and we have much in common with one American nation. The frequent use of late of the words “hemispheric solidarity” and like phrases leads us to examine our relation with the other countries in the Americas. As a slogan inviting the nations of this continent to consider the question of joint defence, or as an emotional appeal to promote sentiments of friendship, it can be understood, but as a statement of political or economic fact, the phrase has little meaning. A dispassionate study of the subject can lead only to the conclusion that continental solidarity in the Americas is but an illusion. In this area we can indeed find little or no unity, cultural, economic or strategic. The “Western Hemisphere complex” which regards North and South America as a unit can seriously mislead us. The Americas in their history have, it is true, certain things in common vis-à-vis Europe in the field of discovery, exploration, and the influence of new world environment on their national life, but these facts do not form a basis for anything that can be called “hemispheric unity”. An important American commentator made a frank and refreshing admission when he said on this subject: “. . . when all is said and done we are compelled to face the uncomfortable fact that it is difficult both to plan and practise a system of solidarity which embraces the whole of the Western Hemisphere.”[83] Geography often plays odd tricks with our thinking. An American economist[84] asserts that “the existing patterns of culture, tradition, political affiliation and economic interdependence which confront us in the world of today are as often oceanic as they are continental”. He points out that continentalism as applied to the Americas leads us astray because of our tendency to look on land as an element which unites and water as much as one which divides. If, for instance, the Isthmus of Panama did not exist, would we regard North and South America as a unit in any sense? But if there were water between us instead of the Isthmus, we should be no farther apart, for there is little or no communication between us along that neck of land. If we visit South America we must go by water or by air. Water, far from separating peoples, is a means of linking them, as we know in the British Commonwealth. We in Canada are geographically, as well as in other ways, farther from most of South America than we are from Europe; farther from Rio, Buenos Aires and Santiago than from London or Paris. The conception of inter-American solidarity is expressed in institutional form by the Pan-American Union. Canada has never been formally invited to join it, but some of the Latin-American nations have declared that they want us in; Chile, for instance, in 1945. More recently, influential voices have been raised in the United States, urging us to join and make “our continental brotherhood” complete. A suggestion made in such terms sounds impressive. Brotherhood always seems a good thing, and it might look a bit churlish to remain outside, especially when we are told about “hemispheric solidarity” and the “spiritual unity” of the Americas. But it is always wise to be cautious when proposals are put in such high-sounding language. Emotion is no substitute for thought; the boiler must never replace the steering gear. In arriving at our decision we must do some very serious, realistic thinking. We must not be swayed by easy generalizations or hazy conceptions of brotherhood; we must get down to the sober facts. It is tempting for a young country to “join all the clubs”: when it has acquired an adult ticket to all world events it seems natural to use it. But we must ask ourselves three very important questions. Have we any obligation to join the Union if we were formally invited? Would it be to our advantage to do so? Should we meet with any embarrassment if we did? The Pan-American Union: Its Origin A glance at the past will help us. What is the Pan-American Union and how did it come into being?[85] In the first place we must remember that this phrase really means, not a group of countries, but an executive office in Washington. The association of countries we are thinking about is known as “The Union of American Republics”. This group of nations as we know it, and the Pan-American Union which acts as its secretariat, date from 1890. They were formally established after a conference in Washington in the previous year which was the first gathering of American republics at which the United States was represented. There had been numerous meetings of Latin-American countries before this, ever since they won their independence in the 1820’s with the United States a friendly onlooker. Everyone knows that in 1823, in the statement of policy known as the Monroe Doctrine, the American Government declared that it would regard any attempt to reimpose the European despotic system on the Western Hemisphere as a threat against the United States itself. Not so many people realize, however, that George Canning, the British Foreign Secretary of that day, suggested a joint declaration of both countries to the effect that “while neither Power desired the colonies of Spain for herself, it was impossible to look with indifference on European intervention in their affairs”.[86] Canning, by his policy of non-intervention, prepared the way for the Monroe Doctrine.[87] Without the British fleet it would, of course, have been a vain hope. The Pan-American Union is only one part of what is called the Inter-American System which, in the first place, is a series of conferences. These fall into two classes: first, the major conferences, which take place usually every five years and deal with a variety of subjects, the most important of which are in the political and economic fields; and secondly, special conferences on special questions. Of the latter there have been about one hundred and sixty, and they have dealt with a wide range of matters of which commercial co-operation, highways, public health, child welfare and consular procedure are a few examples. In the second place, the Inter-American System represents a complicated network of treaties dealing with many subjects from international arbitration to the care of archaeological records. Thirdly, the System includes a chain of organizations of which the Pan-American Union is the most important. These, over fifty in number, are responsible for a great variety of subjects stretching all the way from economic questions, sanitation, trade-marks and international radio, to eugenics and the Columbus memorial light-house. The story of the Pan-American movement falls naturally into two chapters. The first covers about fifty years. It commenced with the initial conference which was held at the invitation of the United States Government, whose motive was the promotion of American trade in Latin America. An American historian has described the Pan-Americanism of the time as “a diplomatic trade-mark for the expansion of the commerce of the United States”.[88] The United States had no desire to see political subjects on the agenda of Pan-American conferences, and for many years imposed a ban on their discussion. This was a period during which the United States occupied a highly-privileged position in the Inter-American System. For instance, the governing body of the Pan-American Union consisted of diplomatic representatives in Washington, so that if a government was not recognized by the United States, it was automatically deprived of membership. It has been said that the Union during these years had some of the characteristics of a colonial office. This first period of the Union of American Republics covers the years during which Theodore Roosevelt was pursuing his aggressive foreign policy in Central and South America. Those were the days when United States forces intervened freely in the affairs of Caribbean republics; when Panama was detached from Colombia and set up as an American protectorate; when the independence of Cuba was seriously limited by American action. It is not surprising that the meetings of the Union often revealed a severe strain on the relations between the United States and the Latin-American countries. Pan-Americanism and the War The second period of the Pan-American System dates from the early 1930’s and is closely associated with the name of Franklin Roosevelt. The great President’s application of the “good neighbour” policy which had been initiated by his predecessor, liberalized the American attitude to Latin America and greatly changed the climate of the Pan-American Union itself. American intervention in the affairs of small republics ceased. Cuba was freed from that clause in her constitution which had limited her sovereignty. In the Caribbean area, although American economic power remained an overwhelming factor, the outward expression of political domination vanished. In the late 1930’s the Pan-American movement fell under the shadow of the European war clouds. At the conference in Lima in 1938 when war seemed inevitable, the American Republics declared their solidarity, if their peace and security were threatened. Shortly after the outbreak of war, a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Republics took place in Panama. The aim of this gathering was to maintain neutrality, to keep the war as far away as possible from the Western Hemisphere, and to limit its impact on the American Republics. The assembled representatives issued a General Declaration of Neutrality, affirming “their unanimous intention not to become involved in the European conflict”. An Inter-American Neutrality Committee was set up. As one effort to keep the war away, a futile attempt was made to establish a 300-mile neutral belt around the Western Hemisphere excepting Canada and Newfoundland. At the meeting at Panama, the representatives proclaimed on the part of the American Republics “their absolute adherence to the principles of international law”. The Canadian attitude on this subject was no less resolute, but our action was very different. We believed, as international law had been threatened by Germany, something practical had to be done about it. Another article in the neutrality declaration made at Panama deserves notice. According to its terms, it was considered lawful to transfer the flag of a merchant vessel to that of any American republic, provided such transfer was made in good faith and in territorial waters. That meant, of course, that a German vessel could find protection under such neutral registry. This decision was contrary to prevailing British policy and was far from helpful to the Allied cause. A second meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the American Republics took place at Havana in July 1940. Here the emphasis shifted from neutrality to the problem of defence, but neutrality was still the primary object of all concerned, even though by that time France had fallen. Fortunately, however, the United States, with a growing sense of danger to herself and of her own responsibility as a world power, threw her economic weight into the struggle, although she remained neutral for another eighteen months. After the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the United States into the war, the American Republics, meeting at Rio de Janeiro in January 1942, declared their determination to co-operate for their mutual protection and recommended that each should break off diplomatic relations with the Axis powers. In both world wars the Latin-American nations followed the United States as a belligerent less readily than they had previously accepted her lead into neutrality. After Washington had declared war on Germany in 1917, only eight Latin-American governments followed suit. In the late war the nine small Caribbean Republics became cobelligerents with the United States shortly after Pearl Harbor, and most of the Latin-American governments had broken off relations with the Axis powers by the end of January 1942, but four South American countries became belligerents only when the war was virtually over; four others did not declare war at all, and with one or two exceptions the participation of the Latin-American nations was generally passive in character. An important Pan-American Conference was held at Mexico City in 1945. Here the outstanding event was the Act of Chapultepec, a very full and precise declaration on the joint defence of the Americas. This lapsed with the end of hostilities. In August 1947, at a conference at Rio de Janeiro, a permanent treaty was signed by all the American Republics save two, which because of “governmental changes” were unable to send representatives, and was subsequently ratified by the United States Senate. This agreement, known as the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, provides for the collective security of the signatories against aggression from within, or from outside the Western Hemisphere. In Article 3 of this Treaty, it is agreed, “that an armed attack by any state against an American state shall be considered an attack against all the American states”. Each contracting party “undertakes to assist in meeting the attack . . .”.[89] The area to which the Treaty refers includes, as it is defined, both Canada and Greenland. Our Part in the Defence of the Americas Defence has naturally become one of the main preoccupations of the Inter-American System. But although Canada does not belong to the Pan-American Union, she has herself already assumed very definite responsibilities in connection with the defence of the Americas. In August 1940, under the famous Ogdensburg Agreement, Canada and the United States set up their Permanent Joint Board on Defence. Its task is to “consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the Western Hemisphere”. This means that we are directly concerned with defence as far south as the equator, which divides the hemisphere in half. If we count the Latin-American nations which are on the north side of this line in whole or in part, we find that more than half of them are so situated. We are thus committed to the problem of defence from northern Greenland to the mouth of the Amazon, and in performing this task we are collaborating with the principal military power in this hemisphere, and indeed, in the world. When the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance was debated in the United States Senate, in December 1947, one Senator (who cast a solitary vote against the pact) said, according to the newspaper report, “At the present time Canada is in the position of getting a free ride—she has benefits but no obligations.” The criticism was well answered and the critic was reminded of the satisfactory joint arrangements on the subject of defence between Canada and the United States. This collaboration is indeed closer and more intimate than such co-operation between any other two nations in the Americas. Let no one say that we have not assumed full obligations in the field of defence. Our part will be well understood should war ever come to the Americas. “Hemispheric defence” cannot be limited to this hemisphere. The phrase came into use while the idea of continental isolation still persisted. This hemisphere, as events have taught us, can be defended only by the use of bases thousands of miles away on the coast of Africa and in the southern Pacific and elsewhere. As an American expert says, “We cannot accomplish the defence of the Americas by creating a system of bases and forts and threatening to shoot at any rascal who attempts to come within a certain line . . . with the intent to disturb our peace. We can assure the peace only by dealing as drastically as may be necessary with the disturber of the peace. . . .”[90] The only real defence of the Americas under the conditions of modern warfare, is an effective system of world security. What, it will be asked, has the Pan-American movement accomplished in the maintenance of peace in Central and South America? There have been plenty of conferences and no dearth of discussion at each on this subject, but the results could have been more impressive, however gallant have been the efforts to use the Union as an instrument for keeping the peace. Elaborate agreements have been signed providing for conciliation and the arbitration of disputes, but one of the most savage wars in the history of South America raged for three years until the contestants, Paraguay and Bolivia, reached peace in 1935 not through the good offices of the Pan-American Union, but only through the process of exhaustion. Another dispute, this time between Peru and Colombia in 1932, which nearly became the cause of war, was settled not by any Pan-American machinery but with the help of a commission set up by the League of Nations. What would the Union mean to Us? In some fields useful results have often followed Pan-American technical conferences. Agreements have been reached on such matters as hygiene, commercial relations, finance, labour, international law, education, intellectual co-operation, and minor matters as well. But resolutions have often led to no action and many of the conventions which were signed remain unratified. Pan-American conferences have a healthy appetite for resolutions, but if more of these had passed the pleasurable stage of speech-making, the record of practical accomplishments would have been different. In any event, the important thing from the Canadian point of view is that the subjects dealt with have been generally of little or no direct interest to a country so remote geographically as Canada. We, after all, have our own standards in such matters as quarantine, consular practice and highway construction. When we find ourselves interested in the subject of a Pan-American conference, we can always be represented. We have already sent representatives to many of these, and we are free to adhere to Pan-American conventions when we so desire. International radio provides an example; Canada is a member of the Inter-American Radio Office. What about trade? It has been freely suggested that membership in the Pan-American Union would increase our trade, but such suggestions rarely come from persons with practical experience of business. There is indeed no evidence that any country in the Inter-American System has increased its trade and commerce with any other part through the machinery of the Pan-American organization, although there have been high-sounding declarations on this subject in many of its conferences. As a matter of fact, our trade with Latin America—with all twenty countries—is a relatively small matter. (In certain commodities we are, indeed, highly competitive.) In 1939 it amounted to less than three per cent of our total trade. In the last five years our trade with Central and South America has increased sharply, but it still is, and will remain, a tiny fraction of the total. We must naturally do what we can to increase it, but this will be best accomplished by direct contact with Latin-American countries through our expanding diplomatic and trade representation. Pan-American conferences and the work of the secretariat in Washington would do little to help the Canadian businessman increase his markets. In one of the official publications of the Pan-American Union, it is pointed out that in actual practice, trade between the nations of the Western Hemisphere is “carried on mainly through private channels”. Friendship and Detachment So much for some of the reasons why the Pan-American Union could do little to help us. We can go further and find positive embarrassments which would result from our membership. What, for instance, would have happened if Canada had belonged to the Inter-American System when its members met in 1939 and unanimously declared their neutrality? It is impossible to escape the view that had we been a member of the Pan-American System at that time, our position would have been one of grave difficulty. The movement was cradled and reared in isolationism. That was the prime motive which led the South American states to group themselves in the nineteenth century. In both world wars Pan-Americanism showed its isolationist instincts. It has never outgrown a definitely regional outlook. It is not surprising that many of those in Canada who advocate our joining it are former isolationists. Of those, however, who not long ago were in favour of Canadian participation, not a few have had second thoughts and have changed their minds. The Union, with its tradition of isolationism, is in sharp contrast with the British Commonwealth, a world association with a sense of world responsibility. There are other contrasts between these two groups of states. The Commonwealth is a natural growth; the Union was made to order. The Commonwealth is the most flexible of associations; the Union is a much tighter organization. The Union has a highly-organized secretariat; the nations of the Commonwealth have always rejected such an idea as suggesting over-centralization. It would indeed be an odd thing if, after opposing the establishment of a permanent secretariat for the British Commonwealth we joined the Pan-American Union, an organization of foreign states which carries on its affairs through centralized machinery in Washington. It would also be highly inconsistent to have avoided, as we have always done, strategic commitments abroad, and then to subscribe to a security pact so formal and binding as that which was signed by the American Republics at Rio de Janeiro in 1947. But if we wish to do so, can we join the Pan-American System and remain a loyal member of the British Commonwealth? We certainly can. There is no constitutional reason whatever why we should not belong to both. The British Commonwealth is quite flexible enough for that. It has been hinted darkly that there are influences in London against our joining the Pan-American System. I would take the strongest exception to such a suggestion. If we are asked to join the Union, and wish to do so, it would naturally be regarded in Great Britain as entirely our own affair. I cannot, as a matter of fact, remember ever having heard the subject talked about in London. Many of those who advocate our joining the Pan-American Union seem to regard it as a more appropriate association for Canada in the post-war world than the British Commonwealth; indeed, almost as a substitute for the latter. In this connection a comment made by Professor Trotter is apposite: “. . . most of its champions”, so he says, “have seemed frankly to prefer subordination of Canadian to American policy rather than maintenance of a genuine British Commonwealth connection, equal though the latter has now become”.[91] This suggests another difference between the Pan-American system and the British Commonwealth which we must consider carefully. There is complete equality in the Commonwealth between Great Britain and the other British nations. This is not only accepted in principle, but it has been put into practice over the years. Equality among American Republics in the Union is also established on paper, but circumstances make it difficult to apply. The United States has a population about equal to that of all the twenty Latin-American countries combined, and possesses overwhelming economic and military strength. In the Pan-American Union the American Secretary of State has always been the chairman of the governing body (although the United States has now accepted a resolution which would make the chairmanship rotate among member nations); the permanent seat of the Union is, of course, at Washington. In its grandiose building (in which the Canadian visitor is astonished to find the arms of Canada emblazoned along with those of the twenty-one republics) there is a corridor called the “Hall of Heroes”. In this apartment are displayed the busts of great figures in the history of the respective countries. That of George Washington occupies a position of very special prominence. We would be the last to begrudge the greatest of Americans any honour due him, but the symbolism involved is not without significance, and would seem to be appropriate. It reflects the leading part which the United States has taken in the creation of the Union. The history of the Pan-American movement affords many instances when there were sharp issues between the United States on the one hand and her Latin-American colleagues on the other. After the Pan-American Conference at Santiago in 1923, the American Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Kellogg, was reported to have said, “The Conference has been a great success”. A less favourable comment appeared in an article on the same Conference in _El Mundo_ of Havana, which observed: “This meeting was entirely under the control of the United States—the same old patents and trade-marks and sanitation.” The greater wisdom and moderation of American policy in the last fifteen years have by no means removed the possibility of misunderstandings in the future. Indeed, at the conference at Mexico City in 1945 the United States and Latin America were often on opposite sides of the fence on economic questions. Such differences are indeed to be expected in an organization composed of one very great nation and twenty lesser ones with political and economic interests which are by no means parallel. Should we be invited to join the Pan-American Union, the Latin-American countries would regard Canada as an important recruit, of value to their group of smaller nations in its relations with the United States. The latter would look to our country as a next-door neighbour with a better understanding of Washington’s policies than would be found in Latin America. What does this mean to Canada? It means that issues may arise in the near future—as they certainly have done in the past—on which, as a member, we should have to take sides, either with Washington or with the Latin-Americans. These would often be issues in which we are little interested. If they were questions of importance with which we should be concerned, they would inevitably be reflected in the meetings of the United Nations where we could express our views as we saw fit. On those problems which concern us as an American state, our relations with the United States are all-important. For us inter-American questions mean largely Canadian-American questions. There is no country enjoying such close and friendly contacts with the United States as we do. Canada has almost a special door in Washington. Our position will remain more dignified, and also more effective, by maintaining our own special relations with her, than by assimilating our position to that of a group of twenty republics, large and small. It will be better for us to approach Washington as an important and respected neighbour than to go arm in arm with, say, Paraguay and Costa Rica. If friendly suggestions have been made both from Latin America and from the United States that we should join the Inter-American System, these have been expressed in moments of Pan-American fervour, and it must be admitted little thought seems to be given to Canada at other times by the Union of American Republics. At the conference in Lima in 1938, among matters discussed relating to Axis activities in South America, was the problem of minorities. An important resolution was passed on this subject, of which the following is one sentence: “The system of protection of ethnical, language or religious minorities cannot have any application whatsoever in America where the conditions which characterize the group known as minorities do not exist.”[92] There apparently was little knowledge of the fact that in Canada alone among American countries we have just such a minority, whose position is formally safeguarded as an essential and permanent feature of our national system. The Declaration of Neutrality at Panama in 1939 asserts that: “The peoples of America have achieved spiritual unity through the similarity of their republican institutions”. Here again Canada seems to have been left out. We belong to the “peoples of America” but we do not possess republican institutions. The Pan-American movement theoretically is intended to represent all the Americas, and in its numerous resolutions this is assumed, but not only are Canada and Newfoundland outside the Pan-American organization, so are the British West Indies and the French and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean. The West Indies represent no unimportant factor in the life of this continent. Their population is larger than that of most of the Caribbean republics. All this serves to reveal the fact that the Pan-American movement is primarily not “_Pan_-American” at all, but an association of twenty Latin-American republics and the United States, and rhetorical phrases like “the continental unity of the Americas” and the “common American point of view”, are largely meaningless. Culturally and politically Canada has much more in common with Western Europe than with Latin America, and the same is true of economic relations. Just as culturally South American countries are linked with Europe, our history is in sharp contrast with that of the American Republics. They all had a revolutionary origin and severed their ties with Europe. This still colours their thinking. We took a different course and achieved our freedom without a break with the past. All the nations of the Americas profess belief in the principles of democracy, but it is an understatement of fact to say that some Latin-American countries still practise it imperfectly. Certainly the Americas have no monopoly of democracy. We in Canada have much more in common with the democratic practices of, say France or Scandinavia or the Low Countries than we have with democracy as we find it in Latin America. The Western Hemisphere will always mean less to us than the Northern Hemisphere, for in the Northern Hemisphere are to be found both Great Britain and the United States. This argument may seem to suggest an indifference to the importance of cultivating relations with our Latin-American friends. That is far from being my intention. I believe we should know more about Latin America than we do. There is much we can learn from its peoples. I am one of those who are strongly in favour of promoting close and friendly relations with them, but the test of our friendship is not our willingness to join the Pan-American System, as some people seem to think. That step I believe would serve no useful purpose and would lead to definite embarrassment. Let us cultivate good relations with Latin America in our own way, and not as a cog in the Pan-American machine. Three years’ personal experience at Washington makes it impossible for me to avoid the conclusion that were Canada to join the Pan-American Union, her prestige would inevitably suffer. If we look on the Union’s activities with friendly detachment (as I hope we will) and wish to remain outside (as I hope we do) we should make known our views. Otherwise we may well find ourselves manoeuvred towards joining this organization. That would not indicate a very firm conception of Canadian policy. CHAPTER 10 The Projection of Canada “. . . _the States parties to this Constitution . . . are agreed and determined to develop and to increase the means of communication between their peoples and to employ these means for the purposes of mutual understanding and a truer and more perfect knowledge of each other’s lives_;” Preamble of the Constitution of UNESCO 10 The Projection of Canada The Function of Publicity Publicity is a normal function of the modern state. Such activities can assume disquieting forms. We shall not forget the sinister part which the “German Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment” played in the late war. The information bureau of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is styled with unusual candour, the “Propaganda and Agitation Administration”. The methods of neither are ours, but it is the privilege, and indeed the duty, of a modern nation to give to other peoples some knowledge of its institutions and affairs and maintain the machinery necessary to this end. Publicity is more important to Canada than to most countries. We are a comparatively new arrival on the international scene, and less is known about Canadian life than would be the case if we had been a grown-up member of the family of nations for a longer time. In the second place, as has been said, the paradox of enjoying at the same time complete independence and the privilege of membership in the British Commonwealth is confusing to the foreigner. This imposes a special obligation on us to enlighten others as to how we carry on our affairs. Canada has been almost a _terra incognita_. It is not unnatural that one of the best recent books about this country should, indeed, have been called “The Unknown Country”.[93] Knowledge of Canadian life is gradually being extended, but far too little is known about us even yet. On a visit to Eastern Europe between the wars, I was shocked to find that in some places Canadian goods were being sold as American, because too many purchasers had never heard of Canada. Let us hope we have emerged from that obscurity. But there is still much ignorance of us. It is even true of our neighbours in the United States. When our new Citizenship Act was proclaimed, the comments in American papers were revealing. One headline read: “Canadians end status as British subjects”. Another ran: “Canada breaks all ties”. In an editorial comment, as reported, we were told that as the result of the Citizenship Act, “Canada now joins two other independent members of the Commonwealth—Eire and South Africa”. Another article talked about the “weakened” position of the British Empire. When the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London gave its recent decision on the subject of appeals from Canada, this was referred to in American papers as leading to the “abolition of one of the strongest ties Canada still has with Britain”. One writer said that with appropriate legislation “the old dependence upon London will be ended”, and amiably suggested that Canadian nationality should be “developed and perfected” through the adoption of a constitution modelled upon that of the United States. These are not the views of well-informed Americans, but there are many of their fellow-citizens who apparently would find little strange in such observations. One can never expect an immense country to know as much about a smaller one on its borders as the latter does of its large neighbour, but we could have done much more in the past than we did to promote a better knowledge of Canada in the United States. An American newspaper proprietor, when his attention was drawn to the dearth of Canadian news in United States papers, observed to the author that Canada was deficient in “news value”. One must define the phrase. If it means sensational occurrences, then the remark was complimentary, and doubtless my American friend meant it as such. The happiest nations, it has been said, are those which have no history. One might substitute “news value” for history. At all events, we should do what we can to avoid misinterpretation abroad of what we do at home. The Citizenship Act was a timely measure, much needed, indeed overdue, but as we know it made no revolutionary break with the past. We were, in effect, Canadian citizens before the Act permitted us to say so. Also we remain, as it rightly declares, British subjects too. The Act makes us more consciously Canadian and we therefore acclaimed it with fitting warmth, but it also preserves continuity with the past and reminds us of our allegiance to the Crown as individuals, and our membership in the Commonwealth. Perhaps in our celebrations we neglected this aspect of the matter and unconsciously invited misunderstanding beyond our borders. A true comprehension of our constitutional position, as has been noted, is not made any easier by the fact that although a sovereign state, we can amend our constitution only through legislation passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is difficult to explain to the outsider that we alone are responsible for this most illogical state of affairs. These are complicated problems. When we find ourselves confused about them it is not unnatural that others would be even more so. But it underlines the importance of making our national institutions better known. In the first place, it is essential that we should be understood to be what we are, and have been for many years: a free and sovereign state. Secondly, it would be a service to the much-abused British Commonwealth to which we Canadians belong, and in which we believe, if the world could be brought to realize that our freedom has been fully achieved within its bounds. UNESCO We belong to the international organization established to promote, among other things, wider knowledge among its members of each other’s affairs.[94] The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (or UNESCO to use its alphabetical name) was formed, as the world knows, especially to encourage interchanges between nations in the field of culture for the promotion of their mutual understanding. UNESCO is a gallant effort. We should wish it well and support it loyally and help keep it on realistic lines. One important result of Canada’s membership will, it is to be hoped, have a domestic bearing. She may be induced to take more seriously the task of making herself better known to the outside world. The aims of this body, of which Canada is a charter member, call for some attention. Its programme falls into two parts, in the first of which are some very practical projects: the rebuilding in Europe of the educational structure which has been destroyed by the war; the revision of textbooks, with the aim of removing those passages which are internationally provocative; the organization of exchanges of teachers and scholars. UNESCO has declared that it will lead a crusade against illiteracy, having reminded us that half the people in this world cannot read or write. It is important, however, to remember that though illiteracy must be conquered, its conquest will not in itself bring us peace. One of the most highly educated of nations, as we know only too well, ran amok twice in one generation. Literacy is less important in itself than the ideas which language conveys to the literate. This makes the other part of the programme of such great and immediate significance. UNESCO, we learn from its constitution, is concerned with the advancement of “the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication”, and the promotion of “the free flow of ideas by word and image”. That is a tremendous proposition. It means the enlistment of the mighty forces of the radio and the film and the press as well as everything in the field of culture, for the purpose of enabling peoples to talk to peoples. Nothing could be finer than the ideals which have inspired such a programme. Nothing could be more impressive than the language in which the ideals of UNESCO are expressed. “Peace,” (so one of the passages runs) “must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.” Such solidarity has still to be achieved. Ideals always call for realistic thinking. One of the most significant things about UNESCO is the vacant chair at the table of its governing body. Russia is not a member, and the shadow of the “iron curtain” falls across the proceedings of this body no less than on those of other international organizations today. But if the Soviet Government is not represented at its meetings, its views were faithfully expressed by a Yugoslavian observer at the conference in Paris in 1946. His comments on the conception of the “free flow of ideas” were clear and precise. He said that it “provides for the penetration of the masses by a new propaganda devised by the adversaries of peace and the instigators of new wars”.[95] In our free society we believe in interchanges in the realm of culture and ideas as a link between nations which can only lead to their greater mutual understanding. The totalitarian denies this, for he looks on culture as an ideological weapon. So Russia stands aloof, and UNESCO will go on, and its member-states will be invited to tell their stories. Those countries that believe in the democratic way of life will be thus encouraged to let the world know more about how they practise it. Publicity a National Duty Where does Canada come in? As in all international matters nowadays, we have a considerable part to play. We have a unique story to tell of achievement as a democracy. If Canada has been a laggard over the years in projecting its own picture on the screen of the world, let us hope that we now are learning that such functions are not only a normal and respectable activity of a modern state, but indeed are essential to the conduct of its affairs. In this as in other fields we Canadians now have new obligations. The publicity of a country must be largely a governmental matter. The public relations officer is a comparatively new arrival in modern life, but he has proved his usefulness, whether in the field of private business or public administration. No great corporation today can afford to dispense with the services of persons whose task it is to think exclusively of relations with the public, and national governments must be no less well-equipped in this sphere. Publicity for any purpose, if employed in excess, always defeats its own purpose. It must have been a P.R.O. who, turning the pages of _As You Like It_, misread a familiar passage and was heard to murmur ecstatically: “Sweet are the uses of advertisement”. But advertisement is not always sweet. The machinery of governmental publicity can be abused. It may be affected by party politics; tinged with partisanship. Properly conceived, however, it is essential, as the modern world knows well. The diplomat’s task is to express his government’s policy: the duty of the public relations officer is to see that that policy is made known and understood through all the media which in the modern world form public opinion. Personal experience in Washington and London makes one realize the unquestionable importance of well-chosen officers in such posts, whose primary duty it is to see that the point of view of Canada is presented effectively through all appropriate channels, and that greater knowledge of this country is promoted in every possible way. It is important to remember, however, that the head of a diplomatic mission abroad can never afford to leave the question of publicity to anyone on his staff, and then forget about it. Wherever he may be serving, he personifies his country which is judged not only by what he says but by what he is. The head of a Canadian mission overseas in the eyes of the community where he lives is “Canada”, and in his public appearances, his relations with the press, his official hospitality, he is his own public relations officer and must remember it. Every Canadian officer serving his government abroad must, indeed, play some part in public relations. Consular officers have an important function in this sphere because each is his country’s representative in his own local community. It is to be regretted that Canada has been slow in organizing a consular service of her own. This is particularly true of our representation in the United States. In 1943 we established a Consulate General in New York which has already more than justified itself. Canada is far better known in that city as a result of its existence. Not until four years later was a second Canadian consular office opened in Chicago. Consuls, of course, have much to do apart from promoting a wider knowledge of their country. We shall be aware of the large amount of Canadian business which has been faithfully and efficiently dealt with by British officials when we take over this work from them in all the larger centres of population across the border. As for the field of publicity, it is obvious that a number of well-qualified consular officers in the United States would do much to make the American public aware of Canada, and their appointment would be of greater importance to us than the establishment of embassies in certain capitals abroad. The British Council But the task of national publicity should not be only a governmental one. It is important that there should be machinery with the freedom that departmental mechanism cannot enjoy, to deal with those long-term aspects of the life of a country, particularly its cultural activities, which lie outside the sphere of official administration. There is a very good example of this to be found in that body in Great Britain known as the British Council. We should know about its work, for we need something like it in Canada. The British Council is a public organization, but it is not under departmental control. The appointment of its chairman and secretary-general must receive the approval of the Government, and its funds are voted by Parliament, but it has a very large measure of independence. This characteristic British compromise works well. The Council’s primary duty is to tell other nations about the British way of life. In all its activities, however, not only does it tell other peoples about Great Britain, but in accordance with the principle that such traffic should be two-way, it performs the reciprocal function as well of telling Great Britain about life in the other countries. _The Times_, in an article on the British Council, defined its “principal task” as being “to promote the free movement of persons and ideas to and from Britain”. For the year 1947-48 the sum of £2,913,000 was made available by the British Treasury for the various functions of the Council. With this money, as far as its work in the foreign field is concerned, it supplies British books, periodicals, films and photographs to other states. It arranges for the visits of lecturers, musical and dramatic organizations and art exhibitions from Great Britain to countries abroad. It subsidizes scholarships for foreign students in British schools and universities. The Council does not conflict in its functions with the ordinary machinery of publicity, which is under different authority; it operates exclusively in the field of national culture. Its primary task is one of “national interpretation”. No one familiar with the work of the British Council will fail to realize that it remains faithful to one important principle which should apply to all international exchanges in the realm of art: they must represent the best. This is an activity on which it is easy to go astray, for in such efforts there is often a sentimental motive. But if Ruritania, for instance, sends an exhibition of pictures to a neighbouring state, these must be something more than a mere reflection of Ruritanian life; they must be good pictures in themselves, interesting as good pictures, and not simply as “national art”. If that principle is applied, the questionable element of national propaganda can be successfully eliminated. The examples of music and painting made available to foreign peoples by the British Council are always of the highest quality. Such work as is carried on by the Council, and by corresponding organizations in other countries, belongs to the category of long-term projects. If classes are held in a South American city on British history, or an English orchestra or a Scottish theatrical company visits a European capital, such efforts can have no immediate effect, but over the years they will diffuse a knowledge of life in Great Britain. Other democracies should be glad to know that serious efforts are now being undertaken to make the world more aware of life in an island which has meant, and still means, so much for the world’s freedom. It is only in very recent years that Great Britain has accepted with reluctance the necessity of telling its story abroad. In former days foreigners learned about Britain by accidental means. One cannot help being reminded of the unobtrusive rôle which in the nineteenth century was unconsciously played on the continent of Europe by English governesses and nurses in countless foreign homes. The English nurse, the traditional “nannie”, was certainly not sent abroad as a propagandist (how surprised she would have been at the thought!) but she could not help making her young charges aware of some of the simple elements of the English character. What they learned in their tender years often influenced them later on. The Germans were fully conscious of this, and, we are told, during the Hitler régime did what they could by way of a conscious effort to supplant the English nannie with German nurses subsidized from government funds and charged, of course, in the Teutonic manner, with a heavy mission of propaganda. The British Council does not extend its activities to the United States or Canada. Its relation with the former is not our business, but it is permissible for Canadians to express the hope that the Council will be invited to include Canada along with the other British nations in its field of activity. We need surely have no fear that a representative of the Council resident in Canada would threaten our national integrity with British “propaganda”, or that our sovereign status would be undermined. The result would be simply this: it would be easier for Canadians to become familiar with British plays and music and pictures, and there are many of us who would like to know more about them, particularly now when British efforts in this field are of more than usual interest and importance. Canada’s Part In a useful American study[96] of international relations in the cultural field appears the following: “It would be difficult to mention a land with a national consciousness which does not have a programme of cultural relations abroad”. If this dictum were true, Canada would be in danger of being ruled out of the category of countries with a national consciousness, for we have no Canadian “programme of cultural relations abroad”. The foreign field, it is true, is not entirely neglected in terms of publicity. The Department of External Affairs maintains Information Officers on the staffs of certain diplomatic missions. In 1945 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation established an international service and the short-wave station at Sackville, N.B., now transmits programmes in seven languages. But there is no organized, comprehensive national effort to make the world aware of Canadian life and institutions. Perhaps this is due to those constitutional inhibitions which are touched upon in an earlier chapter. However that may be, if some Latin-American state desires to arrange an exchange of visits between Canadian musicians and its own artists, or if a European country wishes to establish a hostel for Canadian artists and they are told that a Canadian Government cannot concern itself with such matters, what are they to do? They cannot be expected to approach the Governments of nine provinces; in fact, they have no means of official approach to them. The best way in which such matters could be handled would be through a separate body with powers of independent action, resembling in important respects the British Council. It might well, for our purposes, include such functions as are performed by the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is referred to earlier in these pages. The example of the United States in this field is both interesting and helpful.[97] Under the American system, the functions of cultural interchanges abroad are carried on under direct governmental control. The United States Department of State maintains “Cultural Relations Officers” in the American diplomatic missions to each of the other American Republics, and nine European countries as well. In January, 1946, a new organization within the State Department was established, designed to co-ordinate all the activities of the American Government abroad in terms of cultural affairs and information. Among its several responsibilities is the “promotion among foreign peoples of a better understanding of the aims, policies and institutions of the United States”. The American Congress made available for the 1947 programme of this organization the sum of $19 million. The United States Government has always shown imagination in the application of public funds to provide educational facilities. We have never been willing to follow her example in this sphere. Our attitude to students from China provides an important case in point. It is rightly a settled policy in Canada to be vigilant in the matter of Oriental immigration, but that suggests no good reason why we should not have admitted Chinese students for temporary residence on a far more liberal scale. We did all we could to prevent them coming. On the other hand, the United States encouraged such a movement, with the result that in the academic year 1936-1937 there were over 1,500 Chinese students pursuing their studies in that country, while by way of contrast, in the twelve years between 1924 and 1936 the students from China admitted into Canada for the same purpose reached the aggregate number of 20. It was not surprising to find that a survey made in the early ’30’s disclosed the fact that out of 566 Chinese eminent in the public life of their country, 27% had been educated in United States universities. It is unnecessary to point out the effect on American influence in China, and on American trade with China, of the far-seeing policy which the United States has pursued. This may seem to be a digression. It is not irrelevant to the main thesis of this chapter, namely, that exchanges in the cultural field bring rich dividends both to the intellectual as well as to the material life of a nation. The requisite mechanism is best one stage removed from direct government control, and should enjoy a large measure of independence, but whatever the machinery employed, we have need to take seriously this aspect of our national life. It is interesting to find that its importance was once recognized in a Treaty between Canada and Brazil signed in 1944, and providing for interchange between the two countries in the form of concerts, art exhibitions, lectures, moving pictures, radio programmes and books. This is the only agreement of the kind to which Canada is a party. One would like to know how, in the absence of any machinery for the purpose, it was intended to fulfil the admirable intentions which lay behind it. But it was a step in the right direction. We owe it to our scholars and artists and writers that they should have the fullest opportunity of exchanges with their “opposite numbers” abroad. At present, apart from occasional sporadic arrangements to send a Canadian singer or exhibition of painters or a lecturer on Canadian literature here or there, our workers in the arts and letters are severely handicapped because it is no one’s business to look after such things. Every Canadian representative abroad receives many requests for information about the cultural and intellectual life of Canada. No government office is equipped to deal with such matters, however earnestly it may try to do so. Some special body is required in Ottawa, whose representatives in the principal world capitals can work closely with our resident diplomatic staffs. There is one further point. The work of an organization established to make other countries more familiar with Canadian achievement would have an impact on our own thinking at home. It would help us Canadians to have a deeper comprehension of our own national life and thus to be better Canadians; for an effort to explain Canada to the outside world would help us to understand her better ourselves. It is supposed to be a sound pedagogical principle that the best way to learn a thing is to teach it. CHAPTER 11 On Dominion Day “_When I can hear our young men say as proudly, ‘our Federation’, or ‘our Country’, or ‘our Kingdom’ as the young men of other countries do, speaking of their own, then I shall have less apprehensions for the result of whatever trials the future may have in store for us._” THOMAS D’ARCY MCGEE, in the Legislative Assembly of Canada, 1865 “_A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its muniments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures, and fosters national pride and love of country, by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past._” JOSEPH HOWE, at the Howe Family Reunion, Framingham, Mass., 1871 11 On Dominion Day The First of July A visitor to Canada on the First of July would scarcely be aware that it had a particular meaning. He would discover no special ceremonies to mark it. He might see a few flags flying—not many more than usual. The local newspaper might perhaps mention the significance of the day, but perhaps it might be forgotten. If he had been in Ottawa, in recent years at least, our visitor would have seen our Parliament ignoring the national holiday, absorbed in its routine business. If, however, the stranger had crossed the international border three days later he would have witnessed a great festival celebrated with an enthusiasm and a unanimity reflecting a buoyant confidence in national achievement and the national future. Why does the First of July seem to mean so much less to us than the Fourth of July to the Americans, or the Fourteenth of July to the French? The event commemorated, it is true, was less “dramatic”, and the fighting man creates a legend more readily than the statesman, but that is not the reason. Our people are perhaps less given to demonstration. But neither can this provide the answer. Dominion Day in the past has had stiff competition from other festivals. St. Andrew’s Day and the Seventeenth of March and the Twelfth of July and the Fête of St. Jean Baptiste have been marked with a fervour which July the First was denied. These celebrations belong to our national calendar. Each represents a part which makes up the whole, but the whole should mean more than the parts. The national festival has an importance of its own. Its observance is some measure of _Canadian_ feeling. So perhaps our historical sense is not active enough. If we abandon the old name, “Dominion Day”, for some new and meaningless phrase, as we nearly did officially in 1946, will it be because we have forgotten the significance of that moment eighty years ago when we took the first step towards full nationhood? In effect, we have long since outgrown the original meaning of the word “Dominion”, but that offers no reason why we should not duly honour the anniversary of the occasion when we became a Dominion; not necessarily with fireworks, but certainly with conviction. It would serve to remind us of our foundations and the influences which have given us shape. A Time for Self-Appraisal Canada has recently emerged from the greatest moment in her history. A supreme effort, such as hers in the late war, drawing on all her resources to the fullest extent, must lead to a reaction when the strain is over. It is perhaps natural that there should be a period of pause; that we should not for the time-being be “on the march”. This is, therefore, a good moment for self-examination. We can now ask ourselves what lies ahead of us; what is the next chapter to be? It is fitting and helpful that a spate of books should be appearing today with the object of appraising Canada. Psychiatrists may warn persons against introspection, but the theologian, on the other hand, encourages a searching of soul. It is wise not to enter on the slippery ground of that controversy, but we can agree that national soul-searching is no bad thing. Self-consciousness is no doubt to be avoided by individuals, but with a national community it is different, for without awareness of itself a nation would cease to exist. So it is right to ask ourselves what we are, and why. The experience of the war should help us if our memories remain fresh. We were able during those years to view our accomplishments, not in isolation, but for the first time alongside the best that other peoples were doing, and we found no reason to fear such competition. There are some fields, indeed, in which we have done better than we ever thought possible. In the spheres of science, medicine and engineering, for instance, not to mention others, we now realize that we can more than hold our own. It is stimulating and right to be judged by the highest international standards in these things. We should, indeed, be content with no less; that is the only yardstick we can accept. It is now possible to say without complacency that there is little that anybody can do that Canadians cannot do, and in certain fields, perhaps a bit better than others. This should encourage us to approach our great economic problems with fresh vigour and resourcefulness. There are tasks before us now which call for the same qualities that gave us, half a century ago, so striking an era of national expansion when both public and private enterprise possessed in a high degree vision as well as daring. Today there are huge projects awaiting our attention and, if deemed profitable, our action. Our north country, for instance, as economists tell us, has immense latent resources which call for a programme of development charged with imagination and that willingness to take risks, without which great undertakings are seldom possible. We are proud of our Canadian North. Countless speeches are made with this great natural frontier as their theme. We like to believe that it colours our thinking; keeps alive the spirit of adventure; serves as a standing challenge to Canadian enterprise. We cannot afford to leave its development to others. The North will be a testing ground for Canada in the years that lie ahead. A Glance at the Past If we can draw confidence and encouragement from recent years, we should not neglect earlier times as well. We can derive comfort and assurance from those Canadians of an earlier age who believed in their future. It took a man of vision to say, as did the great Nova Scotian, Joseph Howe, in 1851: “I believe that many in this room will live to hear the whistle of the steam-engine in the passes of the Rocky Mountains.”[98] His imagination spanned a gap of a third of a century. There was more than rhetoric in D’Arcy McGee’s eloquence when he said some years later: “. . . I see in the not remote distance one great nationality, bound like the shield of Achilles, by the blue rim of ocean . . .”[99] It was a bold prophecy then, but it came true in practical terms. Great feats of engineering were the fulfillment of just such dreams. We can draw encouragement today from the speeches of such men. We can also find deep satisfaction in the views of their opponents, the men of little faith, in seeing now how wrong they were. In the debates on Confederation there were many derisive references by persons who, no doubt, called themselves “practical” men, to the idea that Canada could ever become a nation. “Our new nationality”, said one of them with scorn, speaking in the Debate in 1865, “would be nothing but a name.”[100] These words happily fell on deaf ears. Goldwin Smith was the prophet of the pessimists of a later period. His name may now be almost forgotten, for men of negative mind, however able, do not easily hold a place in the hall of fame. Smith, who could see no future for Canada as an individual country, took refuge, like so many of his cast of mind, in continentalism, the barren view that Canada’s survival was a vain hope even if she had traditions which were worth preserving, and that absorption in the United States was foreordained. Such a course would have made nonsense of our Canadian history. The building of the Canadian Pacific Railway—an enterprise which we regard as a great expression of our faith in our future—aroused Goldwin Smith’s derision. To quote one historian,[101] “He believed that the taking into Confederation of the great distant stretches of western prairie and of the still more distant province of British Columbia had produced a geographical structure in which no real unity was possible, and that the attempt to bind these vast territories together by the C.P.R. would bankrupt the country . . .” His views were shared by Edward Blake who held[102] that Canada would be “a frightful loser” by the agreement under which British Columbia was to enter Confederation on condition that the railway was built. But to be fair to Blake we must remember that in the same speech he declared: “The future of Canada, I believe, depends very largely upon the cultivation of a national spirit.” The faint-hearted and short-sighted in those days were many. Lord Dufferin, who was here as Governor-General in the ’70’s, felt moved to say: “It may be doubted whether the inhabitants of the Dominion are themselves as yet fully awake to the magnificent destiny in store for them”, and that Canada “scarcely recks as yet of the glories awaiting her in the Olympus of Nations.”[103] Perhaps this was from one of Dufferin’s speeches which Goldwin Smith politely described as “elegant flummery”. The vision which called forth so much scorn is now a matter of orthodox belief. We believe in Canada as a matter of course. It is well to remember, however, that political faith, like religion, is always in danger when it is taken for granted. While it may not have to contend with foes from without, it may suffer from inertia within. Ours is a good story, but most of us of the older generation at least, cannot, perhaps, look back on our classes in Canadian history at school as moments of palpitating excitement in the routine of the week. Why did they seem so boring? It may be because once we get past the capture of Quebec, that mountain-peak in the romance of our annals, we seem to descend to a dull plain of constitutional problems and economic issues. And parliamentary questions and trade statistics are just not exciting; at least they naturally do not seem exciting to the pupil not yet emerged from that period of simple adolescent emotions when the stuff of history, to command his interest, must be concerned with fighting and adventure. In any event, we should be grateful to the present generation of historians who are re-telling our story in such a way as to demonstrate that arguments across a table can have plenty of romance when the issues are great and far-reaching, and the personalities involved are such richly-endowed characters as were the Fathers of Confederation. Those bewhiskered, frock-coated Victorian politicians in the familiar print were actors in a drama just as romantic as any linked in our minds with jerkins and rapiers. Theirs was a victory of imagination over geography. But it was a victory in a struggle which is not yet over. To those who must carry it on, ’67 should mean no less than ’76 does to our neighbours. History, however, is a means to an end, not an end in itself. A story is told of the late Lord Keynes which illustrates the point. A visitor whom he was showing over his college at Cambridge, (King’s) observed: “You people seem much attached to tradition.” Keynes looked at him severely and replied: “Sir, we are in love with the past and with the future.” So might it be with Canada. We should be inspired by the past, but concerned with the future. The Teacher’s Task The future, one need hardly say, is cradled in our schools, and no theme calls more urgently for our fresh thought and action than the subject of education and the Canadian spirit; the relation between the two. The school, after all, should be the power-house of Canadianism. But enquiries into education have a way of getting bogged down in a morass of technicalities. It is hard to keep before one the simple outlines of the educational horizon. We must ask ourselves repeatedly: What do we intend to produce, and how best can we produce it? It is easy to smile at the ideal of the “three R’s”, but the fundamentals have not changed since this primitive triad served as the foundation of primary schooling, and a fancy curriculum is no substitute. We might, for one thing, reasonably expect that a primary duty of the schools is to send out boys and girls able to express themselves with some degree of ease and efficiency in their own language. We can hardly claim that our educational systems in English-speaking Canada meet that test. But textbooks and curricula are only part of the problem. They, and still more all the physical equipment of teaching, must be subordinate to the teacher. Inspired teaching can overcome most deficiencies. We have gone some distance towards recognizing the position of the teacher and giving him or her the dignified standing, and the remuneration which the calling deserves, but we have still far to go before we approach it as one of the highest of vocations. Such it is, as we know from teachers today who are in the great tradition created by men and women in humble, ill-equipped schools who were dedicated to their calling and content to express themselves through those whom they taught and sent out as builders of their country. That was the best way to learn citizenship. For books on civics do not make citizens, although they may help. Canadian boys and girls will become good Canadians by breathing the atmosphere of Canada in their schools. If their teaching and their studies and their school life reflect Canada, they will absorb its spirit almost, as it were, through their pores. Then they will be Canadians not artificially, but through a natural process. Is it asking too much of primary education to suggest that the teaching of good manners should have some place in its scheme of instruction? We have neglected the truth that good manners are a branch of citizenship. It would be well if our teachers could make their pupils realize that the practice of courtesy is not an admission of inferiority, but an expression of self-respect and a mark of the good citizen. They might be told, indeed, that the term “civility” comes, as we know, from the Latin word for citizen, and could not be further removed from “servility”, derived as it is from the word for slave. The two ideas are as unlike as two things could be. Good manners provide the oil for the machinery of human relations, which needs lubrication as much as any other mechanism. Formal attention to this problem in our schools would not solve it completely, but would go far in the contribution it would make to our daily life. These are but the random reflections of a layman on the subject of education. They may seem irrelevant to a study of Canadian nationality. There is, however, one subject which, if our schools are to give us good Canadians, must have an honoured place in their curriculum, and that is Canadian history. That must be the foundation of Canadianism. Boys and girls learn history best through a study of historical persons. School histories, like daily journalism, must be closely concerned with people. But how well do the pupils in our schools know the great figures in our past? If, for instance, we should ask a group of school children today who D’Arcy McGee was, would they return the question with a blank stare? Let us hope not. Had McGee lived in the United States and played a part in American history comparable to that which he played in ours, there would be a monument to him in every city, and his name would be a household word. Our future citizens should know his story: how this journalist, at one time an Irish insurgent, came to Canada in the 1850’s, caught the vision of her future as a united country, preached it in legislature and market-place, lent spiritual force to the work of practical statesmen, dropped out of his country’s councils after Confederation by a great act of self-sacrifice, and later fell at an assassin’s hand as a martyr to his belief in Canada and in the British connection. But history is not to be found only in books. The imaginative teacher discovers it all around him. If, for instance, we wish to teach boys and girls to understand the Constitution under which they live, it would help to let them know about the ancient ceremony of the Opening of Parliament, which is the central institution in our State. Ceremonial, when it has a meaning, can be more revealing and certainly more vivid than the printed word. That should encourage us to treasure such pieces of state ceremonial as have survived. There is truth in a dictum of Queen Elizabeth which the modern world should not neglect: “In pompous ceremonies a secret of government doth much consist.” A Canadian Credo This little study began with young men, for with young Canadians are we chiefly concerned in any such enquiry. So with young men will it end. Canada is no abstraction for the statistician; not an impersonal term. It represents the sum total of individuals and their ideas and hopes and fears and ambitions. We shall be true to ourselves in education, in industry, in life as a whole if we keep the individual from being lost in the mass. We look to our schools, therefore, not to generate Canadianism so much as to produce _Canadians_ in the fullest sense of the word; Canadians conscious of their country and with convictions about its life. What sort of person do we wish our young Canadian to be? What will he be like if he embodies the best in the Canada around him? He will have some reverence for the past, a respect for what has gone before. He will have kept some of the simple virtues of an earlier time which will help him to sort out the real from the counterfeit. He will think for himself, with respect for the views of others. He will work hard and play hard and know how to use his increasing leisure. He will have resources within him to keep him independent of the mechanized pleasure of the age. He will be able to laugh at the absurd and will become angry at the sight of injustice. He will not be ashamed of good manners. He will show an inherited instinct for freedom. He will nurse a personal devotion to the welfare and the safety of his country. He will have a deep and quiet belief in what she is and what she can do. What might be the _credo_ to express his beliefs? He should be able to say: I believe in Canada, with pride in her past, belief in her present and faith in her future. I believe in the quality of Canadian life, and in the character of Canadian institutions. I believe in the Commonwealth of Nations within whose bounds we have found freedom, and outside which our national life would lose its independent being. I believe in our abiding friendship with our nearest neighbours; an honest friendship without either the subservience or the mimicry which must impair true partnership. I believe that Canada is one, and that if our minds dwell on those things which its parts have in common, we can find the unity of the whole. I believe that with sound work, the spirit of a team and an awareness of ourselves, we can look forward to achievements beyond our imagining. It will be said that our young Canadian has been given here a formidable list of virtues. But no lesser ideal would be worthy of his country. For no citizen has a nobler inheritance. We are fortunate in Canada beyond our reckoning, in our natural treasure; in our place on the great air highways of the globe and in our neighbourhood in America; in our links with the other British States; above all, fortunate in the skill and character of a people who can rise to any challenge. But there is one thing essential to all these advantages, and that is faith in ourselves. Without it, something will always be missing from the list. We can borrow, if need be, from the faith of others. We can find plenty of it in the early builders, whose speeches still glow in musty pages. We need their vision to carry us on through the years that lie ahead which are not without their perplexities and their dangers. We should remember the advice of the poet, Charles Roberts. What he said to his generation applies no less to ours: “Let thy past convince thy future”. In the confused and difficult world we see around us, any nation can be pardoned for moments of hesitation. But with all the blessings which Providence has given this land we should have no cause for doubt. If the men of ’67 were with us today they would call upon us to move forward together with confidence and pride. We can hear them say to their fellow-Canadians, “Let us take the road again”. NOTES CHAPTER I ----- [1] See R. G. Trotter, in _Queen’s Quarterly_, Vol. LII, (1945), No. 2 for an interesting study of the Canadian orientation. [2] George W. Brown, in _The Round Table_, March 1944 as quoted in _A Pocketful of Canada_, ed., J. D. Robins, (Toronto, 1946). [3] _John Bull’s Other Island_, (1920). [4] In _A Study of History_, Vol. I, (London, 1934). [5] Quoted by Bolton King, in _Mazzini_, (London, 1902). [6] See W. S. Wallace, _The Growth of Canadian National Feeling_, (Toronto, 1927) for a most useful study of the subject. [7] R. G. Trotter, in _The Inter-American Quarterly_, January 1940. [8] _The Canada Year Book_, (1946) gives the racial origin of the Canadian population for 1941 in their percentage of the total as follows: Races of the British Isles, 49.68; French race, 30.27; other races, 20.05. [9] As to how well this process is succeeding, there are different opinions. Stephen Leacock gave picturesque expression to an optimistic outlook when he said, speaking of new Canadians: “Leave them alone and pretty soon the Ukrainians will think they won the Battle of Trafalgar.” [10] George W. Brown, in _Canadian Historical Review_, June 1942. CHAPTER II ----- [11] In _The History of Freedom and Other Essays_, (1907). [12] _Parliamentary Debates on the subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces_, Quebec, 1865. [13] A. R. M. Lower, _Colony to Nation_, (Toronto, 1946). [14] Abbé Arthur Maheux, _What Keeps Us Apart?_ (Quebec, 1944). [15] The story was told by Thomas D’Arcy McGee as follows: (See above, Chap. II, note 2) “About the year 1790 the Presbyterians of Montreal of all denominations, both British and American, organized themselves into a Church, and in the following year secured the services of the Rev. John Young. At this time, they met in the Recollet Roman Catholic Church, but in the year following they erected the edifice which is now known as St. Gabriel Street Church—the oldest Protestant Church in the province. In their early Minutes we find them in acknowledgement of the kindness of the Recollet Fathers, presenting them with ‘One box of candles, 56 lbs., at 8d., and one hogshead of Spanish wine at £6 5s’.” CHAPTER III ----- [16] The phrase which Pitt used in his speech on the Constitutional Act, 1791, was the “image and transcript of the British Constitution”. [17] This monument pays a joint tribute to victor and vanquished probably unique in commemorative sculpture. [18] Gilbert Jackson, _Facts in the Case_, (Toronto, 1944). [19] E. K. Brown, _On Canadian Poetry_, (Toronto, 1943). [20] _Culture and Anarchy_, (1869). [21] E. K. Brown, _op. cit._ [22] C. W. Jefferys, R.C.A., quoted in E. M. Pomeroy, _Sir Charles G. D. Roberts_, (Toronto, 1943). [23] The oldest Canadian picture in our national collection was painted by a native Canadian, François Malepart de Beaucourt, born in Laprairie, Quebec, in 1735. [24] Quoted by W. Stewart Wallace, in _The Growth of Canadian National Feeling_, (Toronto, 1927). [25] J. Bartlett Brebner, _Scholarship for Canada_, (Ottawa, 1945). [26] T. E. Newton quoted by J. Bartlett Brebner, _op. cit._ [27] From figures supplied by U.S. Research and Educational Services, Washington. CHAPTER IV ----- [28] Another British example might be noted, that of the National Trust, a non-governmental corporation existing to preserve properties in England of national beauty and historic or architectural interest. It now administers more than 800 such places. The British Treasury has promised this foundation for its endowment fund a sum equal to what it raises from private sources. [29] Lorne Pierce, _A Canadian People_, (Toronto, 1945). [30] See R. E. McMurry and M. Lee, _The Cultural Approach_, (Chapel Hill, 1947). [31] The information regarding Australia’s activities in the cultural field has been kindly supplied by Mr. Walter Herbert of the Canada Foundation. [32] There are of course no statistics available to record the lamentable loss of invaluable material which now reposes in American libraries and museums. All that can be said on this melancholy subject is that for many years there was little money available in Canada for the purchase of Canadiana and little public interest in preserving it. Precious documents were burnt, stolen, or sold outside the country. After the First World War the establishment of public archives and museums in some of the provinces, which previously had no such institutions, did something to dam the outflowing stream, but much still remains to be done. Our debt to far-seeing and generous private collectors is immeasurable. Among these should be mentioned their _doyen_, Dr. J. Clarence Webster of Shediac, N.B. [33] M. Jacques Greber. [34] In the official version, the Canadian Coat-of-Arms is so ill-drawn as to be often quite indecipherable when reproduced. [35] A writer in an American journal has defined the British Crown in monumental prose: “. . . it is neither the jewelled object lying in the Tower, nor a mysterious power over-riding the constitutional authorities of the different parts of the Commonwealth, but a compendious term for a member of the constitutional machinery of each part, and of the embryonic but still amorphous contrivance by which the whole acts in unison, as well as a symbol of the historical traditions and constitutional unity of the peoples of the Britannic Commonwealth; whose Empire is no alien rule but their own self-government.” _Harvard Law Review_, Vol. XXXV, No. 5, (1922). [36] Before a Convocation of the University of Toronto, November 21, 1947. [37] From the presidential address before the Classical Association in London, 1947, by Lord Greene, Master of the Rolls. Quoted in _The Times_. CHAPTER V ----- [38] Senator Raoul Dandurand, 1924. [39] J. W. Dafoe, in _Canada, an American Nation_, (New York, 1935). [40] See article by J. W. Dafoe, “Canada and the Peace Conference of 1919” in _Canadian Historical Review_, September 1943, for an illuminating account of the decisions by which the British Dominions were given representation at the Peace Conference. [41] C. W. A. Manning, _The Policies of the British Dominions in the League of Nations_, (London, 1932). [42] The famous passage runs as follows: “They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” [43] Others created a sense of apprehension in some minds. This feeling was expressed with clarity and conviction by Mr. R. B. (later Viscount) Bennett in the House of Commons when, referring to the newly-established Legation to the United States, he said: “The country apparently is entering on a great adventure, the last great adventure in our relation to the British Empire. I am wholly opposed to the establishment of this embassy at Washington. It is but the doctrine of separation, it is but the evidence in many minds of the end of our connection with the Empire. For that is what it means.” (_House of Commons Debates_, April 13, 1927). [44] _Canada, House of Commons Debates_, July 9, 1943. Quoted by H. G. Skilling in _Canadian Representation Abroad_, (Toronto, 1945). [45] R. G. Trotter, in _Canadian Historical Review_, June 1945. [46] Hon. N. W. Rowell, 1920, quoted by S. Mack Eastman in _Canada at Geneva_, (Toronto, 1946). [47] André Siegfried, _Canada_, (London, 1937). [48] Hon. C. H. Cahan. [49] Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen, _Debates of the Senate_, 1934. [50] A. R. M. Lower, _Colony to Nation_, (Toronto, 1946). [51] Gwendolen Carter, in _The British Commonwealth and International Security_, (Toronto, 1947). CHAPTER VI ----- [52] S. Mack Eastman, _Canada at Geneva_, (Toronto, 1946). [53] _Canada, House of Commons Debates_, November 18, 1932. [54] Senator Raoul Dandurand, President of the Sixth Assembly. CHAPTER VII ----- [55] For a discerning study of Canada’s relation to the Commonwealth, see George Grant, _The Empire: Yes or No?_, (Toronto, 1945). [56] A. R. M. Lower, _Colony to Nation_, (Toronto, 1946). [57] The Empire Club of Canada, Toronto, November 20, 1947. [58] Gwendolen Carter, _The British Commonwealth and International Security_, (Toronto, 1947). [59] The Ottawa agreements of 1932 may seem to be an example to the contrary. The agreements, which were an answer to the extreme tariffs introduced by the United States, were undoubtedly provocative, but in the fifteen years which have elapsed since then, the trend of opinion within the Commonwealth has moved steadily in the opposite direction, and there is no likelihood of a repetition of such a plan. [60] Gwendolen Carter, _op. cit._ [61] Successive Canadian governments between the wars declined without exception to take part in the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence in London, of which all the other nations of the Commonwealth, with the exception of South Africa, were members. This Committee, which has not been reconstituted since the late war, was intended to provide an important medium for consultation between Commonwealth governments on matters of defence against a gathering menace which proved all too real. [62] In _A Time for Decision_, (London, 1944). [63] During the war and since its close constitutional developments have taken place in nearly all the forty-odd British Colonial communities. “In Africa the most distinctive developments have been an increase in direct representation of Africans on all Legislative Councils, the creation of unofficial African majorities in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, and the inclusion of Africans on the Executive Councils in West Africa. New constitutions have been introduced in Nigeria and the Gold Coast and steps taken to amend several others.” Ceylon’s new constitution will give the colony “virtually complete self-government in internal affairs”. In the West Indian colonies “considerable advances were made during the war (particularly in Jamaica) in the reform of individual constitutions, in broadening the suffrage and in increasing popular representation”. Malta’s new constitution will ensure “responsible government in the domestic sphere”. The establishment of a Legislative Council has been approved for Gibraltar. In Hong Kong “a Municipality with a majority of elected members is to be established”. A new constitution is under consideration for Mauritius. The new constitution of Malaya represents an important step towards complete self-government. (The extracts are from _The Colonial Empire_ (1939-1947) Cmd. 7167, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.) Colonial Development and Welfare Acts were passed in 1940 and 1945, making available sums for economic and social development in the Colonial Empire. Under the second of these, £120 million will be applied to this purpose during a ten-year period. (_Colonial Development and Welfare_, Cmd. 6713, H.M.S.O.) [64] It was announced by the British Government in August 1947 that during the war “200,000 refugees, a large proportion of them Jewish, landed in Britain”. The Jewish Committee themselves are understood to have formed an estimate that Jewish refugees to Britain since 1933 numbered 125,000 to 145,000. In addition Great Britain has taken many displaced persons, given in _The Times_ as over 200,000 (including members of the former Polish army and their dependents). [65] George Santayana, in _Soliloquies in England_, (London, 1922). [66] Following is a list of some British wartime Inventions, Discoveries and Engineering Achievements: RADAR: Used successfully by the United Kingdom long before it assumed its present name. It made it possible for her to win the Battle of Britain. R.D.X.: The explosive which is much more powerful than TNT. DEGAUSSING For the conquest of the magnetic mine, perfected at the : commencement of the war. ASDIC: The device for the detection of U-boats. THE Made possible radio short waves one thousand times more MAGNETRON intense than had been available, and played an essential VALVE: part in the Battle of the Atlantic. THE The projectile which was used so successfully by the ROCKET-PRO American Flying Fortresses. PELLED BOMB: THE RADIO Of vital importance when used against the flying bombs in PROXIMITY 1944. In 1940 the idea had been passed on to the United FUSE: States by a British mission and American industry put the fuse into mass production. PENICILLIN. MULBERRY: The artificial harbour which made possible the invasion of Europe. PLUTO: Carried oil to France under the Channel. FIDO: Dispersed fog on aerodromes. THE BAILEY BRIDGE. PERSPEX: For the windows of aircraft. MINE-SWEEPING TANKS. BRIDGE-LAYING TANKS. JET A group of British engineers was sent to the United States PROPULSION in 1941, taking an experimental engine and drawings of a : later engine, after which the Americans became important collaborators in this field. To this list should be added the leading contribution which British scientists made over a period of more than forty years to the researches which led to the discovery of atomic energy. [67] Ralph Waldo Emerson, in a speech in Manchester, England, November 1847, published in _English Traits_. CHAPTER VIII ----- [68] _The Foundations of Canadian Policy in World Affairs_ (Duncan and John Gray Memorial Lecture, University of Toronto, 1947). [69] Based on the fact that on an average, twenty-five letters are mailed daily in Toronto with United States stamps, and in the holiday season, about one hundred each day. [70] In 1946 the total number of border crossings into Canada from the United States was 21,282,033. [71] The case of the Canadian rum-running schooner _I’m Alone_ which was sunk in 1929 by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel will probably serve in the future as a classic example of good relations in North America. It is hard to think of any two neighbouring countries elsewhere which would have settled so awkward a problem with better feeling on both sides during the course of diplomatic and judicial procedure which ended in an apology from the United States for the incident and the payment of damages. [72] When the Agreement was signed in 1941 by Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and the United States relating to bases in Newfoundland and certain colonies which were leased to the United States, a protocol was signed by representatives of Great Britain, the United States and Canada, in which “It is recognized that the defence of Newfoundland is an integral feature of the Canadian scheme of defence, and as such is a matter of special concern to the Canadian Government, which has already assumed certain responsibilities for this defence.” [73] General H. D. G. Crerar, C.H., in _Maclean’s Magazine_, July 15, 1947. [74] E. K. Brown, _On Canadian Poetry_, (Toronto, 1943). [75] R. G. Trotter, “Future Canadian-American Relations” in _Queen’s Quarterly_, Vol. LII, 1945, No. 2. [76] André Siegfried, _Canada_, (London, 1937). [77] The figures are from _Marketing_, December 13, 1947. [78] See _The Canadian Balance of International Payments_, 1926-1945, (King’s Printer, Ottawa, 1947). [79] C. R. Sanderson, Chief Librarian of Toronto, in _Reading in Toronto, 1945_, (Report of the Toronto Public Library Board for 1945). [80] The late J. W. Dafoe once observed that although the difference between individual Canadians and Americans may seem to be trifling, the collective reaction of groups in both countries to the same question will generally reveal considerable differences. [81] After 1954, the customs duties will rise on a gently graduated scale until 1973, when preferential arrangements will cease. (From _Foreign Commerce Weekly_, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, April 5, 1947). [82] _A Short Guide to Great Britain_, (U.S. War Department, Washington, 1942). CHAPTER IX ----- [83] Alvin H. Hansen, in _Foreign Affairs_, October 1940. [84] Eugene Staley, in _Foreign Affairs_, April 1941. [85] For a useful historical survey of the Pan-American movement, see John P. Humphrey, _The Inter-American System, a Canadian View_, (Toronto, 1942), to which the author is indebted for certain facts regarding the earlier history of the movement. [86] _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VII. [87] See H. W. V. Temperley, _Life of Canning_, (London, 1905) for a full account of the incident. [88] S. F. Bemis, _A Diplomatic History of the United States_, quoted by J. P. Humphrey, _op. cit._ [89] From _The New York Times_, August 31, 1947. [90] George Fielding Eliot, in _Inter-American Solidarity_ (Harris Foundation Lectures, Chicago, 1942) ed., W. H. C. Laves. [91] R. G. Trotter, in _The Inter-American Quarterly_, January 1940. [92] Quoted by J. P. Humphrey, _op. cit._ CHAPTER X ----- [93] By Bruce Hutchison, 1942. [94] In article VII of the Constitution of UNESCO it is asserted that: “Each Member State shall make such arrangements as suit its particular conditions for the purpose of associating its principal bodies interested in educational, scientific and cultural matters with the work of the Organization, preferably by the formation of a National Commission broadly representative of the Government and such bodies.” Canada, has not yet (at the time of writing), set up such a National Commission. [95] Quoted by Byron Dexter, in _Foreign Affairs_, April 1947. [96] R. E. McMurry and M. Lee, _The Cultural Approach_, (Chapel Hill, 1947). [97] _Ibid._ CHAPTER XI ----- [98] Quoted in _The Heart of Howe_, ed., D. C. Harvey, (Toronto, 1939). [99] Thomas D’Arcy McGee, from a speech in the Legislative Assembly of Canada, 1860, (quoted by Alexander Brady in _D’Arcy McGee_, Toronto, 1943). [100] Quoted by W. Stewart Wallace in _The Growth of Canadian National Feeling_, (Toronto, 1927). [101] F. H. Underhill, in _The University of Toronto Quarterly_, April 1933. [102] Speech at Aurora, 1874. [103] Harold Nicolson, _Helen’s Tower_, (London, 1937). Index Aberdeen, Marchioness of, 60 Abyssinia, 28, 53, 78 Acton, Lord, 18 A. E. (George Russell), 28 Africa, 147, n. 190 Alaska boundary, 116 Amazon River, 146 American Congress, 170 American Republics, 144, 145, 153, 154, 170 American Republics, Union of, 141, 143 Anti-Trust Law, U.S., 120 Arnold, Matthew, 33, 46 Arts Council, 48, 169 Asdic, n. 191 Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H., 71 Australia, Commonwealth, Director of Education in, 50 Bailey Bridge, n. 191 Barbeau, Marius, 39 Belgium, 134 Bell, Alexander Graham, 117 Bemis, S. F., n. 193 Benelux, 134 Bennett, Rt. Hon. R. B., n. 189 Bessborough, Earl of, 60 Blake, Hon. Edward, 179 Bolivia, 147 Borden, Sir Robert, 68 Brady, Alexander, n. 194 Brantford, Ontario, 117 Brazil, 171 Brebner, J. B., 42, n. 188 Britain, relations with, 5, 8, 9, 10 British character, 91 British Colonial Empire, 134 British Colonial Office, 124 British Columbia, 179 British Commonwealth, 6, 10, 11, 13, 19, 22, 73, 92, 99, 101, 103, 105, 140, 150, 151, 159, 161, n. 189 British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, 74 British Commonwealth Prime Ministers, 98 British connection, 9, 86, 90, 100, 101 British Council, 166, 167, 168, 169 British Crown Colonies, 109 British Isles, 4, 12, 30, 62 British manpower, 88 British Ministry of Education, 50 British nations, 104 British North America, 5 British Parliament, 9 British policy, 91, 92, 144 British tradition, 5, 19, 63 British West Indies, 109 Brock, Sir Isaac, 22 Brown, E. K., n. 188, 192 Brown, George W., n. 187 Bryce, James, 114 Buenos Aires, 140 Burke, Edmund, 98 Bytown, 56 Cahan, Hon. C. H., 78, n. 190 Cambridge, 180 Canada, capital of, 32 Canada, early days in, 19 Canada, education in, 49, 50, 51, 52, 62 Canada, English-speaking, 24 Canada, External Relations of, 69 Canada, international standing of, 76 Canada, languages of, 21 Canada, meeting ground, 4, 6, 7 Canada, middle power, 75, 86 Canada, pursuit of unity in, 25 Canada, trade of, 70, 71, 72 Canada First movement, 36 Canada Foundation, n. 188 Canada Medal, 58, 59 _Canada Year Book_, n. 187 Canadian-American relations, 116, 117 Canadian architecture, 40, 41 Canadian Archives, 60 Canadian Arctic, 121 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 38, 39, 52, 169 Canadian business, 125 Canadian cities, travel between, 47 Canadian citizens, 93 Canadian Clubs, 60 Canadian Coat-of-Arms, 57, n. 189 Canadian culture, 21 Canadian currency, 32 Canadian economy, 63 Canadian flag, 57 Canadian foreign policy, 86, 89 Canadian Government, 169 Canadian history, teaching of, 24, 182 Canadian life, 38, 53, 58, 61 Canadian literature, 33, 35, 37, 39 Canadian musical organizations, 38 Canadian musicians, 52 Canadian Pacific Railway, 179 Canadian painting, 34, 39, 55 Canadian Parliament, 88, 89 Canadian people, 54 Canadian poets, 36 Canadian politics, 94 Canadian scholars, exodus of, 43 Canadian symbols, 31 Canadian Trade Commissioners, 71 Canadian type, 3, 11 Canadian unity, 23, 24, 29, 47, 57, 60 Canadian Writers’ Foundation, 50 Canadians, French-speaking, 19, 20, 21, 30, 92 Canning, George, 141 Caribbean Republics, 143, 145, 154 Carman, Bliss, 36 Carter, Gwendolen, n. 190 Cartier, Sir Georges É., 16, 18, 19 Cartwright, Sir Richard, 115 Central America, 147, 148 Ceylon, n. 190 Chanak crisis, 72 Chapultepec, Act of, 145 Chile, 22, 140 China, 170 Citizenship Act, 160, 161 Colombia, 143, 148 Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, n. 191 Colonialism, 8, 9 Commonwealth Literary Fund, 50 Communism, 23, 85 Communist Party, 159 Communist philosophy, 104 Communist politics, 85 Confederation, Debates on, 178, 179 Confederation, Fathers of, 21, 22, 180 Consulate General, Canadian, 165 Costa Rica, 153 Crerar, General H. D. G., 122, n. 192 Cuba, 143 Dafoe, J. W., n. 189, 193 Dandurand, Hon. Raoul, n. 189, 190 de Beaucourt, Francis M., n. 188 Defence, Permanent Joint Board on, 146 Degaussing, n. 191 Department of External Affairs, 74 de Salaberry, Charles, 22 Dexter, Byron, n. 193 Dodds, Dr. Harold, 62 Dominion Drama Festival, 40, 60 Downing Street, 9 Dufferin, Marquess of, 60, 179 Eastman, S. Mack, n. 189, 190 Eire, 22 Elections Act, 95 Eliot, George Fielding, n. 193 Elizabeth, Queen, 183 Elizabethans, 37 Emerson, Ralph W., 112, n. 192 England, 4, 11 England, seventeenth century, 19 English Channel, 135 Europe, 5, 30, 77, 88, 131, 135, 139, 140, 154, 168 Fido, n. 191 Fiske, John, 116 Foster, W. A., 46 France, 4, 12, 59, 145, 154 French Canada, 92 French culture, 19 French Régime in Canada, 24 Fulbright Act, 49 Geneva, 76, 77, 78, 79, 87, 91 German Ministry of Propaganda, 159 Germany, 144, 145 Gibraltar, 109, n. 191 Gold Coast, n. 190 Governor-General’s Annual Literary Awards, 60 Grant, George, n. 190 Great Britain, foreign policy of, 71 Great Britain, government of, 48 Great Britain, heritage from, 4, 5, 62, 63 Great Britain, parliamentary system of, 30 Greber, M. Jacques, n. 189 Greene, Lord, 64, n. 189 Greenland, 146 Guam, 133 Halifax, 12 Hansard, 88 Hansen, Alvin H., n. 193 Harvey, D. C., n. 194 Havana, 144, 152 Herbert, Walter, n. 188 Hollywood, 124 Hong Kong, n. 190 House, Col. Edmund M., 104 Howe, Joseph, 174, 178 Humphrey, John P., n. 193 Hunt, Lawrence, 101 Hutchison, Bruce, n. 193 Imperial Conferences, 71, 72, 73, 107 Imperial Defence, Committee of, n. 190 Imperial Parliament, 73 Imperial Preference, 134 India, 132 Inter-American Neutrality Committee, 144 Inter-American Radio Office, 148 Inter-American System, 142, 143, 145, 148, 149, 153 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, 146 International Civil Aviation Authority, 75 International Labour Office, 75 Ireland, 18, 132 Italy, 109 Jackson, Gilbert, 32, n. 188 Jamaica, n. 190 Jefferys, C. W., n. 188 Jet propulsion, n. 192 Kellogg, Frank, 152 Keynes, Lord, 180 King, Bolton, n. 187 King, Rt Hon. W. L. Mackenzie, 121, 122 Kingston, Ontario, 121 Kipling, Rudyard, 37, 84 Lapointe, Rt. Hon. Ernest, 89 Latin-American Nations, 140, 143, 145, 146, 149, 151, 154 Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, 2 Leacock, Stephen, n. 187 League of Nations, 69, 72, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 90, 92, 104, 148 Lee, M., n. 188, 193 Library of Congress, 54 Lima, Conference, 144, 153 London, 3, 6, 9, 24, 56, 83, 108, 140, 151, 160, 165 Lorne, Marquess of, 60 Lower, A. R. M., n. 187, 190 Luxembourg, 134 McGee, Thomas D’Arcy, xvi, 82, 174, 178, 183, n. 187, 194 MacMillan, Sir Ernest, 39 McMurry, R. E., n. 188, 193 Magnetron Valve, n. 191 Maheux, Abbé Arthur, n. 187 Malaya, n. 190 Malta, 109, n. 191 Manning, C. W. A., n. 189 Mauritius, n. 190 Mazzini, Guiseppe, 8, n. 187 Meighen, Rt. Hon. Arthur, 78, 190 Mexico City, 145, 152 Minto, Earl of, 60 Monroe Doctrine, 141, 142 Montreal, 12 Moscow, 103, 105 Mulberry, n. 191 National Film Board, 52, 53 National Gallery, London, 33 National Gallery, Ottawa, 35, 55, 60 National Library, 53, 54, 55 National Research Council, 63 National Trust, British, n. 188 Netherlands, 134 Neutrality, Declaration of, 153 New Brunswick poets, 36 Newfoundland, 5, 122, 144, 154, n. 192 Newton, T. E., n. 188 New York City, 38, 103, 124, 127, 165 New York, musical metropolis, 38 New York State, 120 Nicolson, Harold, n. 194 Nigeria, n. 190 Nova Scotia, flag of, 57 Ogdensburg Agreement, 146 Ontario, historic places in, 41 Ontario Provincial Legislature, 120 Ottawa, 35, 49, 53, 74, 122, 175 Ottawa, capital city, 55, 56, 57, 94 Ottawa River, 19 Pacific Ocean, Southern, 147 Palestine, 110, 133 Panama, 143, 144, 153 Panama Canal, 133 Panama, Isthmus of, 140 Pan-American Conferences, 142, 145, 148 Pan-American Republics, 104 Pan-American System, 143, 151, 154, 155 Pan-American Union, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 152 Paraguay, 147, 153 Parliamentary Library, 53 Paris, 56, 140, 163 Pearl Harbor, 22, 145 Perspex, n. 191 Peru, 22, 148 Philippines, Republic of, 134 Pierce, Lorne, n. 188 Pitt, William, n. 188 Plains of Abraham, 60 Pluto, n. 191 Princeton University, 62 Privy Council, 9, 10, 160 Quebec, Province of, 18, 19, 20, 39, 41, 57, 60, 180 R.D.X., n. 191 Radar, n. 191 Radio, national system, 21, 51, 52 Radio Proximity Fuse, n. 191 Recollet Fathers, 24, n. 187 Rio de Janeiro, 140, 145, 150 Roberts, Sir Charles G. D., 16, 36, 42, 185 Robins, J. D., n. 187 Rocket-Propelled Bomb, n. 191 Roosevelt, F. D. R., 74, 106, 121, 138, 143 Roosevelt, Theodore, 138, 143 Rowell, Hon. N. W., n. 189 Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, 60 Royal Society of Canada, 60, 63 Royal 22nd Regiment, 24 Russia, 75, 85, 102, 159, 163 Russia, Soviet, arts in, 36 Russia, Soviet Republic, 86 Sackville, N.B., 169 St. Laurent, Rt. Hon. Louis, 115 St. Lawrence River, 5 Sanderson, C. R., n. 192 San Francisco, 87 Santayana, George, n. 191 Santiago, 140, 152 Scandinavia, 154 Security Council, 85, 86, 103 Shaw, Bernard, 7 Sherman, Francis, 36, 37 Siam, 53 Siegfried, M. André, 77, 124, n. 190, 192 Simcoe, Col. John Graves, 29 Singapore, 133 Skilling, H. G., n. 189 Smith, Goldwin, 178, 179 South America, 140, 143, 147, 148, 153 Spain, 109, 141 Staley, Eugene, n. 193 Stanley Cup, 60 Stanley, Lord, 60 Statute of Westminster, 73 Suez Canal, 133 Supreme Court of Canada, 10 Taft, Wm. Howard, 119 Temperley, H. W. V., n. 193 Toynbee, Arnold, 8 Trotter, R. G., 151, n. 187, 189, 192, 193 Tweedsmuir, Lord, 60 Ukraine, 100 Underhill, F. H., n. 194 UNESCO, 162, 163, n. 193 UNESCO, preamble of Constitution, 158 Union of South Africa, 78 United Empire Loyalists, 13, 40 United Kingdom, parliament of, 161 United Kingdom, trade with, 5 United Nations, 75, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 103, 153 United Nations Assembly, 105 United Nations Charter, 87 United States, constitution of, 30 United States, Department of State, 119, 120, 169, 170 United States, government, 170 University of Toronto, 54 _Unknown Country, The_, 159 UNRRA, 75 Vancouver, 12 Versailles, Treaty of, 71, 72 Victorian Order of Nurses, 60 Wallace, W. Stewart, n. 187, 188, 194 Washington, 56, 104, 108, 122, 127, 129, 134, 140, 143, 145, 151, 153, 155, 165, n. 188, 189 Washington, George, 151 Webster, Dr. J. Clarence, n. 188 Wells, Sumner, 108 Winnipeg, 12, 40 Woodbridge, 121 Woodsworth, J. S., 89 Young, Rev. John, n. 187 TRANSCRIBER NOTES Misspelled words and printer errors have been corrected. Where multiple spellings occur, majority use has been employed. Punctuation has been maintained except where obvious printer errors occur. The footnotes have been renumbered sequentially throughout the entire book. The photograph of Vincent Massey by Yousuf Karsh cannot be included for reasons of copyright. Index page references refer to the book’s original page order. Actual placement of the reference may be offset depending on the page and/or font size of your eBook reader. [The end of _On Being Canadian_ by Vincent Massey]