Canada Day

I've been remiss in failing to wish a happy Canada Day to all my Canadian readers and to Canadaphiles around the world. Those of you from the states looking to learn a thing or two about our neighbor to the north should know that Canada Day celebrates not Canadian independence, but the passage of the British North America Act of 1867, which established the Canadian Confederation by uniting four separate British colonies -- the Province of Canada, the Province of New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia -- into a single consolidated political entity. At the same time, the Province of Canada was re-divided into its constituent element of Ontario and Québec.

One motive for consolidation was that British and Canadian officials were concerned about a potential American invasion of Canada. We tried to pull this off during the Revolution and the War of 1812 and it continued to be a popular idea for a while. The feeling was that now that the US had put the Civil War (which heightened US-British tensions) behind it and the country had the experience of building a large and powerful military establishment, that our thoughts might turn to expansion. Consolidating Britain's North American holdings was thought to help make them more defensible.

Comments

Dang. See, the properly Canadian way to celebrate these holidays is to ignore them. I feel like I've been robbed of my right as a Canadian citizen to feel no particular pride in my country by this unfortunate reminder that it in any ways exists or could be of any importance.

Posted by Brendan | July 1, 2008 3:07 PM

With respect to Canadians, a Canadaphile sounds more like a concept than reality. Have any been encountered in the real world?

Posted by Rid | July 1, 2008 3:07 PM

With respect to Canadians, a Canadaphile sounds more like a concept than reality. Have any been encountered in the real world?

Those who wear the maple leaf when travelling overseas to avoid being mistaken for Americans probably would count. That, and any non-Canadian fans of any Canadian hockey team.

Posted by pan | July 1, 2008 3:11 PM

In Canada it's just called "The start of NHL Free Agency"

Isn't half of the American left Canadaphiles? (which is probably a greater proportion than the Canadian right)

For that matter, doesn't merely mentioning Canada Day make Matt a Canadaphile?

Posted by DR | July 1, 2008 3:13 PM

if canada were a gas, it would be nitrogen.

Posted by nobi yuno | July 1, 2008 3:13 PM

Thx for the good thoughts on our Canada Day.

In light of previous American incursions, a question:

In that the Alberta tar sands are providing a substantial percentage of oil for US consumption, what would happen if the provincial and federal governments decided that the huge ecological costs involved in the production of that oil required that the production be curtailed or even stopped?

Iraq North?

Posted by canucknucklehead | July 1, 2008 3:14 PM

four separate British colonies -- the Province of Canada, the Province of New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia

Nova AND Scotia?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 1, 2008 3:14 PM

Well, we've never encountered in the real world, but you just met one on-line.

Posted by Noah Millman | July 1, 2008 3:15 PM

And it is because of fear of US hegemony that 141 years later Canada maintains the Queen of England as its head of state - they still want to have a counterbalance (understandably) to us.

Posted by hopeless pedant | July 1, 2008 3:16 PM

Canadaphile sounds more like a concept than reality

I thought moving to Canada is a common sentiment amongs discontent liberals, with harsh climate being the only obstacle to massive migration.

Posted by MS | July 1, 2008 3:16 PM

Nova AND Scotia?

What MY means is that after dividing the Province of Canada into Quebec and Ontario, the British combined the resulting 4 colonies (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia being the other two) into Canada.

Posted by rea | July 1, 2008 3:20 PM

I thought moving to Canada is a common sentiment amongs discontent liberals, with harsh climate being the only obstacle to massive migration.

That's why God created Vancouver, and gave it to Canada.

Great place to get stoned as well. Free Marc Emery!

Posted by DR | July 1, 2008 3:24 PM

"I thought moving to Canada is a common sentiment amongs discontent liberals, with harsh climate being the only obstacle to massive migration."

That doesn't strike me as caused by love for things Canadian so much as disgust with an American president and laziness over having to learn a new language to move to France, Sweden, Denmark, or the Czech Republic.

Posted by Rid | July 1, 2008 3:27 PM

Canada is safe these days: a Democratic president wouldn't invade because they're too sane; and a Republican president wouldn't invade because annexing Canada would bring in millions of voters convinced of the necessity for universal single-payer health care.

Mebbe the Dems should think about giving Texas back to Mexico though ...

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 1, 2008 3:29 PM

annexing Canada would bring in millions of voters convinced of the necessity for universal single-payer health care

Not enough millions to be decisive, I'd bet.

Plus they'd find a way to keep the new subjects disenfranchised for a while.

The invasion, when it comes, will be over fresh water. You watch.

Posted by Ryan | July 1, 2008 3:35 PM

I just got back from a business trip to Montreal, where I had a great time. Count me a Canadophile.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 1, 2008 3:37 PM

Is Canadian democracy a real one compared to our sick corporate plutocracy? Do they respect civil liberties there? Is their political culture as pathological as ours? Not feeling they must save the world they have no imperial ambitions, no global megalomania I know of as we do. Their size keeps them humble and sane? I dream of a healthy democracy somewhere and would leave for Canada in a minute but the immigration restrictions are not designed to encourage me even though can take care of self financially. What should I read to help me believe somewhere there is a robust democracy at work. (The idea we have democracy and freedom to give the world obviously psychotic.)

Posted by Dorothy ready to leave Kansas | July 1, 2008 3:53 PM

In Quebec, we call it Moving Day or Fête du déménagement ;)

Posted by ClaudeB | July 1, 2008 4:01 PM

Hey, you forgot the "Americans" who really did invade Canada during the 1860's!

The Fenians were anti-British Irishmen who camped out in northern New England and occasionally mounted raids into Canada: burning, pillaging, etc. They were particularly active during the Civil War, when (of course) U.S. troops were busy elsewhere and didn't have time to deal with people who only caused trouble on the other side of the border. The Fenians quieted down once the civil war ended, but their activities were enough to persuade the Canadian colonies to start talking about uniting in self-defense.

Posted by Jim Gardner | July 1, 2008 4:01 PM

One motive for consolidation was that British and Canadian officials were concerned about a potential American invasion of Canada. We tried to pull this off during the Revolution and the War of 1812 and it continued to be a popular idea for a while. The feeling was that now that the US had put the Civil War (which heightened US-British tensions) behind it and the country had the experience of building a large and powerful military establishment, that our thoughts might turn to expansion. Consolidating Britain's North American holdings was thought to help make them more defensible.

This is simply god-awful history. The US/Canadian border was drawn peacefully and permanantly 2 decades earlier during the polk adminstration; neither side had designs on the other after that.

All the European powers were watching the civil war, and had a nominal self interest in multiple less powerful states than the single power that was emerging - plus a clearer self interest in access on favorable terms to the south's agricultural output. But the moral odiousness of the confederate cause won the day for the union, leading only to half-hearted efforts to assist the south, and never recognition of their independence. By 1864, what the end result would be was pretty clear, and all european support dried up, and at that time, any strain on US-European relations.

Posted by Kolohe | July 1, 2008 4:05 PM

Still, they remain the only nation against which we're 0-2 in invasions (though they're mostly too polite to mention it).

Posted by Tel | July 1, 2008 4:13 PM

Some musical accompaniment for the holiday:

Stompin’ Tom Connors “Canada”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=012Bo_iihpI

And of course the Joe Canada rant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpVH7kIb_8

Peace and love from Calgary, Alberta

Posted by bobskis | July 1, 2008 4:44 PM

Jim Gardner, wikipedia agrees with my recollection of the Fenians as mostly Union Army veterans, causing trouble after the war.

Posted by john bragg | July 1, 2008 4:45 PM

All the best Canadian holidays are ones that exist only due to America.

That said um....

Jaime Koeppe, Canadian.

Posted by MNPundit | July 1, 2008 4:45 PM

Those who wear the maple leaf when travelling overseas to avoid being mistaken for Americans probably would count.

Nope. They put the reputations of real Canadians in jeopardy by that idiotic ruse. (Of course, most foreigners can also see through that ruse pretty quickly).

Posted by Stefan | July 1, 2008 4:54 PM

Americans had a brief period of rabid Canadaphilia in 1979 when their embassy in Tehran sheltered and then smuggled home many of our people in Iran during the Ayatollah Khomeini business.

Mr DR, the borders of the Oregon Territory on American maps once included British Columbia. And there was a rowdy movement to take it the hard way; "Fifty-Four-Forty or Fight" they said. As Mr Kolohe mentioned, Pres Polk negociated the present boundary.

We forget that in the 1800's America pursued a pretty antagonistic foreign policy when it came to Britain. The influx of Irishmen (who had many grievances of course) had the same effect on our diplomacy as the influx of Cubans in the later 1900s; England was the Castro's-Cuba of it's time.

And Mr Cownie, one hears complaints that Mexicans actually are taking Texas back. I say good riddance. Maybe we could work out a triple swap and give Texas to the Mexicans while we get British Columbia from the Canadians?

Posted by JohnMcC | July 1, 2008 4:58 PM

Those who wear the maple leaf when travelling overseas to avoid being mistaken for Americans probably would count.

Nope. They put the reputations of real Canadians in jeopardy by that idiotic ruse. (Of course, most foreigners can also see through that ruse pretty quickly).

Posted by Stefan | July 1, 2008 5:02 PM

Nope. They put the reputations of real Canadians in jeopardy by that idiotic ruse. (Of course, most foreigners can also see through that ruse pretty quickly).

Ah, but I grew up in northern Minnesota. We hide it a bit better.

Posted by MNPundit | July 1, 2008 5:10 PM

I thought moving to Canada is a common sentiment amongs discontent liberals, with harsh climate being the only obstacle to massive migration.

Minneapolis is actually north of Toronto.

In that the Alberta tar sands are providing a substantial percentage of oil for US consumption, what would happen if the provincial and federal governments decided that the huge ecological costs involved in the production of that oil required that the production be curtailed or even stopped?

I believe Canada is actually the largest supplier of foreign oil to the US.

Posted by Edward the mad shirt grinder pretending to be a hopeless pedant | July 1, 2008 5:22 PM

By the way, the fact the US had only recently (as of then) invaded Mexico and seized half its territory would certainly have given credence to those Canadians who may have feared invasion from the south.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | July 1, 2008 5:30 PM

Minneapolis is actually north of Toronto.

And Windsor is south of Detroit.

Posted by McKingford | July 1, 2008 5:39 PM

Those of you asking about the state of Canadian democracy might be interested in Jeffrey Simpson's column in today's Globe & Mail (Canada's "national newspaper"):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080630.wcosimpson01/BNStory/specialComment/home

Simpson is an earnest centrist scold -- like Tom Friedman with a smaller travel budget -- but he asks some good questions, e.g.

"Is it boredom, political correctness, entrenched self-interest, self-satisfaction or moral superiority that creates so many no-fly zones for debate in this curious country?"

Mostly we're all about politeness and tolerance. With two very notable exceptions: the absurd shouting match that passes for Question Period in the House of Commons, and hockey fights. Both of those blow off some steam, and hardly anyone gets really hurt.

Off the ice and outside the House, it's easy to identify a Canadian: someone who can get sorry, excuse me, please and thank you into the same sentence -- especially if it's not his or her fault in the first place.

Posted by bobskis | July 1, 2008 5:40 PM

Kolohe:

This is simply god-awful history. The US/Canadian border was drawn peacefully and permanantly 2 decades earlier during the polk adminstration; neither side had designs on the other after that.

Not quite true, as it happens. There was considerable tension between the USA and Britain over the Alabama claims (Confederate commerce raider, built in England and responsible for many sunk US merchant ships), and at one point Senator Charles Sumner actually demanded that Britain either pay the USA $2 billion, or cede all of Canada. One of Seward's arguments for the purchase of Alaska in 1867 was that it would provide a useful springboard for an invasion of ... well, the Yukon, I guess.

However serious this foot-stomping actually was is open to some debate. The USA was not in any real position to go to war against the British Empire after the Civil War (The French were still in Mexico, too), and the British were not in any mood for war with us. But threats made by the leading Republican Senator, the Secretary of State, and the tension over British behavior during the war, were all very real.

Obligatory, if somewhat thin, Wikipedia source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_claims

Posted by stickler | July 1, 2008 6:36 PM

Thanks for the recognition Matt. We Canadians generally don't receive too much of that - and we like it that way. For those who expressed interest in immigration, you might want to take a look at the blog - wemovetocanada - which explores the adventures of some New Yorkers who move successfully to Toronto. There's also a bunch of links there to other Americans who have, or are in the process, of moving North.

On the topic, have we all forgiven Obama for referring to the President of Canada?

Posted by NA Patriot | July 1, 2008 6:39 PM

Thanks, Stickler. Wasn't there also some unpleasantness from the Cleveland administration over the British Guiana/Venezuela border?

Posted by Huntington | July 1, 2008 7:25 PM

Not to rain on Obama's parade, but Canada also had a black head of state before the US did.

Posted by sunsin | July 1, 2008 7:54 PM

And she's a babe too! :-)

Posted by stonetools | July 1, 2008 8:39 PM

Once Quebec secedes, we will make a move on everything east of the St. Lawrence.

Posted by Chéticamp will be mine | July 1, 2008 8:55 PM

Some things for "Americans" to consider on their Canadian cousins' birthday:

We're your biggest trading partner.

We have the world's longest undefended border.

We're your biggest supplier of oil. We supply close to 1/2 million barrels more than your next biggest supplier (Saudi Arabia).

We're your biggest supplier of petroleum surpassing your next biggest supplier (again, Saudi Arabi) by close to a million barrels a day.

We have the world's second largest oil reserves (Saudi Arabia is first at 24%, Canada second at 16%. The US has less than 3%).

We give almost all of our available oil the to US (over 99%). Pretty big of us, all things considered.

We have vast natural resources (land, forestry, fresh water, etc.).

We're more like you that any other nation on the planet. Stereotypes of Canucks saying "oot & aboot" or "eh?" are aboot as representative of Canadians in general as judging the whole of the US on its redneck population (which, honestly, we sometimes do).

Posted by raff | July 1, 2008 9:26 PM

As the Day ends, the fireworks all fired and the annual parade once more made it through the Town Square....and despite the fact that those Brits who negotiated for Canada back-when lost the Alaskan Panhandle and Washington State (all part of the various border/sovereignty issues mentioned above...Thank, Yanks, for the various kind words mixed into all of the above!

Posted by gsk+ | July 1, 2008 10:44 PM

Sorry, the fourth line in my previous post should have read "We supply close to 1/2 million barrels a day more than your next biggest supplier (Saudi Arabia)". Apologies for any confusion.

Posted by raff | July 1, 2008 10:52 PM

Points to Jim Gardner for bringing up the Fenians.

And Matt obviously learned somewhere along the line that nothing surprises a Canadian more than an American who actually knows something about our country.

And here's one more fun Canada Day fact:

Pamela Anderson - one of our biggest exports to America - is the "Centennial Baby". Which is to say that she was the first baby born on July 1, 1967 the hundredth anniversary of Confederation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Anderson

She's THAT special. Which means she is somewhere today celebrating her 41st. Unfortunately, probably back to banging Tommy Lee. But whatever:

Happy Birthday Pam Baby! Happy Birthday Canada!

They are one and the same.

Posted by Wu Tang | July 1, 2008 11:40 PM

Huntington:

Thanks, Stickler. Wasn't there also some unpleasantness from the Cleveland administration over the British Guiana/Venezuela border?

Yes, but that was 1893, so not relevant for explaining "reasons why Britain suddenly decided Canadian confederation might be a good idea in 1867."

And in any case, the Orinoco crisis also exposed the fact that the USA had -- rather inconveniently -- relied upon the naval power of Britain for upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Thus spurring another bout of battleship-building, which would prove somewhat useful in 1898. It also proved an issue in the 1896 election which returned big Republican ("More Battleships! The Democrats are weak on Defense!") majorities.

Posted by stickler | July 1, 2008 11:48 PM

Raff:

We give almost all of our available oil the to US (over 99%). Pretty big of us, all things considered.

Well, thanks for all that oil. But unless I'm mistaken (I am an American, educated in public schools, so it's not unlikely), you're not actually "giving" us the oil.

I'm willing to hazard a guess that we're actually "buying" it from you. Using deflated greenbacks, I guess, but we're still buying it.

Canadians may be polite, but they're not stupid. Certainly not stupid enough to give away oil to Uncle Sam.

Posted by stickler | July 1, 2008 11:54 PM

re: what would happen if the provincial and federal governments decided that the huge ecological costs involved in the production of that oil required that the production be curtailed or even stopped?

They would speedily lose their jobs because large numbers of Canadians employed in this industry would lose theirs, and Canadian rich people would suffer losses in their investments. Canada isn't utopia: money talks just as loudly north of the border.

Re: And it is because of fear of US hegemony that 141 years later Canada maintains the Queen of England as its head of state - they still want to have a counterbalance (understandably) to us.

The Queen of England may be a doughty old bat, but the notion that she counterbalances the United States when she can't even keep her aging children in line is a bit bizarre.

Re: Not enough millions to be decisive, I'd bet.

Given that tghe US is very finely balanced between the Left and the Right, even a few million liberals would tip the balance. And while there are some bona fide Canadian rigtwingers out in Alberta, for the most part, Canadian "conservatives" would find quite nicely into today's Democratic party.

Re: The invasion, when it comes, will be over fresh water.

The US shares the Great Lakes with Canada. And the states around the Lakes plus ontario have a compact governing the use of that water. We'd have to invade Michigan and New York before we could invade Canada in order to abrogate that compact.

Re: The US/Canadian border was drawn peacefully and permanantly 2 decades earlier during the polk adminstration; neither side had designs on the other after that.

Britain had tilted toward the Confederacy during the Civil War and there were some remaining issues between the US and the UK afterwards. The Grant administration eventually put these to rest, but in 1867 the British had some real concerns with the US.

Posted by JonF | July 2, 2008 6:49 AM

Thanks for the shout out, Matt!

If anyone's interested in a good history of Confederation, read "John A.: The Man Who Made Us, Vol. 1", the first volume in a two-part biography of our first prime minister. Much of it is a thorough look at the motivations and negotiations that led to the British North America Act.

Oh, and not to rain on sunsin's parade, but the Governor General is not in fact the Canadian head of state, but rather represents the head of state, who is Queen Elizabeth II. On the other hand, we did beat the U.S. in having the first female prime minister (the P.M. in Canada being most akin to the president in the U.S.): Kim Campbell.

(I know, I know: she barely lasted a few months and only became P.M. in order to take the fall for her predecessor, but she still counts!)

Posted by Khaled | July 2, 2008 10:46 AM

Maybe I should also mention the author of "John A.": Richard Gwynn.

I believe Volume 2 is due to be published later this year.

Posted by Khaled | July 2, 2008 10:53 AM

In light of Matt's (reasonable) analysis of our National Founding as American Imperial Resistance, here's a light-hearted historical anecdote that's been making the rounds via e-mail up here.

In 1776 American Colonist Benjamin Franklin, along with Samuel Chase and the Jesuit Priest Charles Carroll, arrived in Montreal to try to convince Canadians to become the 14th colony and support the American Revolution against the British. Franklin brought a printer and press to distribute a newspaper "to mould public opinion", and Caroll's task was to try to convince Canadian Catholics to rise against the Protestant British Rulers. Fortunately, Canadians see through Franklin's ruse and he is considered an unwelcome blowhard, and the Canadian Catholic Priests remind Father Carroll that Britain tolerates the Romish Church just fine, thank you very much.

Interestingly, it was, perhaps, this event that set the precedent for the shoot-first/talk-later American Foreign Policy that we have all grown to love. Only 5 months earlier, on November 13th, the Colonial Army led by General Richard Montgomery (and later joined by Benedict Arnold) had invaded Montreal and appropriated the Royal Stores. Sadly for General Montgomery, just like Napoleon in Russia, the long, cold, dark northern Winter kicked his ass, and the colonial invaders were overcome by the British only a month after Franklin's delegation arrived.

Amusingly, this is what Jared Sparks, biographer of Benjamin Franklin and President of Harvard wrote in 1893 about Canadians in his monumental "The Life of Benjamin Franklin"

" . . . The badness of the roads at that season of the year, and the obstruction to navigation in Lake Champlain, occasioned by the broken ice, retarded their progress, and made their journey tedious and toilsome. And, after all, the commission produced very little effect. The American army had already begun its retreat from Quebec, pursued by an enemy superior in numbers, well disciplined, and amply supplied. In this state of affairs it was not to be expected, that the Canadians would venture upon the hazardous experiment of setting up a new government, and joining the colonies, even if they had been previously inclined to take such a step. But in reality, a few individuals excepted, they never had been thus inclined. Intelligence, a knowledge of their rights, love of freedom, liberal sentiments, and a spirit of enterprise, were elements requisite for a political change, which they did not possess." -- Sparks 1883:404

So, there you have it. American Foreign Policy as originated in 1776

Step 1: Attack the sons of bitches
Step 2: When Step 1 Fails, send a commission to win the Hearts and Minds (make sure to include a token priest and a newspaper)
Step 3: When Step 2 Fails, blame it on the local imbeciles' lack of intelligence, liberal sentiments, lack of "spirit of enterprise", hatred of freedom, and the fact that they don't understand their own rights.

Posted by Geoff | July 2, 2008 12:08 PM

Thanks Matt!

Canada has The Tragically Hip and that's enough to beat any nation including the United States.

Happy Canada Day!

Posted by Farid Mashhadi | July 2, 2008 2:02 PM

Re: In 1776 American Colonist Benjamin Franklin, along with Samuel Chase and the Jesuit Priest Charles Carroll, arrived in Montreal to try to convince Canadians to become the 14th colony and support the American Revolution against the British.

The English Canadians would have done so-- There was really no cultural or political split between them and their southern neighbors back then, in fact a lot of families had members on both sides of the border. However Anglo-Canadians were rather few in number in those days, and they were mostly concentrated around Halifax where the British based their New World navy and which kept hold of with an iron fist. The French Canadians on the hand knew they had gotten a good deal out of British rule, better in fact than they had had from France, and they were well aware that their southern neighbors were a bunch of anti-Catholic bigots among whose chief complaints with Britain was the favor shown to the Catholic Church in Quebec. So the Quebecois had zero interest in joining the American move for independence. After the war large numbers of pro-British Americans emigrated to Canada, and a much smaller trickle of pro-indepedence Canadian emigrated south, so the populations sorted themselves out. Still, had things played out differently, the Atlantic provinces of Canada might have ended up in the American union instead.

Posted by JonF | July 2, 2008 10:11 PM