CANADA AND THE PACIFIC
The existence, side by side, of two races and two languages in Canada
makes it a matter of some doubt as to what the future Canadian nation
will be. The French race, so far proving more stubborn in its
characteristics than the British race in Canada, has been the
predominant influence up to recently, though its influence has sought
the impossible aim of a French-Canadian nation rather than a Canadian
nation. Thus it was at once a bulwark of national spirit and yet an
obstacle to a genuinely progressive nationalism. Patriotic in its
resistance to all external influences which threatened Canadian
independence, it yet failed in its duty to promote an internal progress
towards a homogeneous people.
Canada, it is perhaps needless to recall to mind, was originally a
French colony. In the sixteenth century, when the British settlements in
America were scattered along the Atlantic seaboard of what is now the
United States, the French colonised in the valley of the Mississippi and
along the course of the great river known as the St Lawrence. Their
design of founding an Empire in America, a "New France," took the bold
form of isolating the seaboard colonies of the British, and effectively
occupying all of what is now the Middle-West of the United States,
together with Canada and the country bordering on the Gulf of Mexico. It
is not possible to imagine greater courage, more patient endurance, more
strenuous enterprise, than was shown by the early founders of New
France. If they did not achieve, they at least fully deserved an Empire.
French colonists in Canada occupied at first the province of Acadia, now
known as Nova Scotia, and the province of Quebec on the River St
Lawrence. Jacques Cartier, a sailor of St Malo, was the first explorer
of the St Lawrence. Acadia was colonised in 1604 by an expedition from
the Huguenot town of La Rochelle, under the command of Champlain, De
Monts, and Poutrincourt. Then a tardy English rivalry was aroused. In
1614 the Governor of Virginia, Sir Thomas Dale, sent an expedition to
Acadia, and took possession of the French fort. That was the first blow
in a long struggle between English and French for supremacy in North
America. In 1629, the date of Richelieu's supremacy in France, an
incident of a somewhat irregular war between England and France was the
capture, by David Kirk, an English Admiral, of Quebec, the newly-founded
capital of "New France"; and the English Flag floated over Fort St
Louis. But it was discovered that this capture had been effected after
peace had been declared between the two European Powers, and, by the
treaty of St Germain-en-Laye, Quebec was restored to France.
But the French colonies in America were still inconsiderable and were
always threatened by the Red Indians, until Colbert, the great Minister
of Louis XIV., made them a royal province, and, with Jean Baptiste Talon
as Governor, Monseigneur Laval as Bishop, and the Marquis de Tracy as
soldier, French Canada was organised under a system of theocratic
despotism. The new régime was strictly paternal. The colonists were
allowed no self-governing rights; a feudal system was set up, and the
land divided into seignories, whose vassals were known as "habitants," a
name which still survives. In all things the Governor and the Bishop
exercised a sway. Wives were brought from France for the habitants,
early marriages and large families encouraged, and religious orthodoxy
carefully safeguarded.
The French Canada of to-day shows the enduring nature of the lessons
which Talon and Laval then inculcated. With the growth of modern thought
the feudal system has passed away, and the habitants are independent
farmers instead of vassals to a seigneur. But in most other things they
are the same as their forefathers of the seventeenth century. When
Canada passed into the hands of the English, it had to be recognised
that there was no hope of holding the country on any terms antagonistic
to the habitants and their firmly fixed principles of life. In regard
to religion, to education, to marriage and many other things, the old
Roman Catholic ecclesiastical influence was preserved, and continues
almost undiminished to this day.
The French-Canadian is a Frenchman of the era before the Revolution--a
Frenchman without scepticism, and with a belief in large families. He is
the Breton peasant of a century ago, who has come to a new land,
increased and multiplied. He is devoutly attached to the Roman Catholic
Church, and follows its guidance in all things.
A somewhat frigid and calculating "loyalty" to Great Britain; a deep
sentimental attachment to France as "the Mother Country"; a rooted
dislike to the United States, founded on the conviction that if Canada
joined the great Republic he would lose his language and religious
privileges--these are the elements which go to the making of the
French-Canadian's national character.
Very jealously the French-Canadian priesthood preserves the ideas of the
ancient order. Marriage of French-Canadians with Protestants, or even
with Roman Catholics of other than French-Canadian blood, is
discouraged. The education of the children--the numerous children of
this race which counts a family not of respectable size until it has
reached a dozen--is kept in the hands of the Church in schools where the
French tongue alone is taught. Thus the French-Canadian influence,
instead of permeating through the whole nation, aims at a people within
a people. The aim cannot be realised; and already the theocratic idea,
on which French-Canadian nationalism is largely based, shows signs of
weakening. There are to be found French-Canadians who are confessedly
"anti-clerical." That marks the beginning of the end. One may foresee in
the near future the French-Canadian element merging in the general mass
of the community to the great benefit of all--of the French-Canadian,
who needs to be somewhat modernised; of the British-Canadian, who will
be all the better for a mingling of a measure of the exalted idealism
and spiritual strength of the French element; and of the nation at
large, for a complete merging of the two races, French and British, in
Canada would produce a people from which might be expected any degree of
greatness.
Canada, facing to-day both the Atlantic and the Pacific, has the
possibilities of greatness on either ocean, or indeed on both; I do not
think it a wild forecast to say that ultimately her Pacific provinces
may be greater than those bordering the Atlantic, and may draw to their
port a large share of the trade of the Middle-West. Entering Canada by
her Pacific gate, and passing through the coastal region over the
Selkirks and Rockies to the prairie, one sees all the material for the
making of a mighty nation. The coastal waters, and the rivers flowing
into them, teem with fish, and here are the possibilities of a huge
fishing population. At present those possibilities are, in the main,
neglected, or allowed to be exploited by Asiatics. But a movement is
already afoot to organise their control for the benefit of a British
population. The coastal strip and the valleys running into the ranges
are mild of climate and rich of soil. An agricultural population of
10,000,000 could here find sustenance, first levying toll on the great
forests, and later growing grain and fruit. Within the ranges are great
stores of minerals, from gold down to coal and iron. Everywhere are
rushing rivers and rapids to provide electrical power. Fishermen,
lumbermen, farmers, mountain graziers, miners, manufacturers--for all
these there is golden opportunity. The rigours of the Eastern Canadian
climate are missing: but there is no enervating heat. The somewhat
old-fashioned traditions of the Eastern provinces are also missing, and
the people facing the Pacific have the lusty confidence of youth.
At present the balance of political power in Canada is with the east.
But each year sees it move farther west. The Pacific provinces count for
more and more, partly from their increasing population, partly from
their increasing influence over the prairie farmers and ranchers. The
last General Election in Canada showed clearly this tendency. In every
part of the nation there was a revulsion from the political ideals
represented by Sir Wilfrid Laurier: and that revulsion was most complete
in the west, where as a movement it had had its birth.
It would be outside of the scope of this book to discuss the domestic
politics of Canada, but the Canadian General Election of 1911 was so
significant in its bearing on the future of the Pacific, that some
reference to its issues and decisions is necessary. Sir Wilfrid Laurier
up to 1911 had held the balance even between the British and the French
elements in Canada without working for their amalgamation. His aim
always was to pursue a programme of peaceful material development. With
the ideals of British Imperialism he had but little real sympathy, and
his conception of the duty of the Canadian nation was that it should
grow prosperous quickly, push forward with its railways, and avoid
entangling participation in matters outside the boundaries of Canada. He
was not blind to the existence of the United States Monroe doctrine as a
safeguard to Canadian territory against European invasion, and was not
disposed to waste money on armaments which, to his mind, were
unnecessary. The Canadian militia, which from the character of the
people might have been the finest in the world, was allowed to become a
mostly ornamental institution.[6]
At the Imperial Defence Conference in 1909, Sir Wilfrid refused to
follow the lead of other self-governing Dominions in organising Fleet
units, and the Canadian attitude was recorded officially as this:
"As regards Canada, it was recognised that while on naval strategical
considerations a Fleet unit on the Pacific might in the future form an
acceptable system of naval defence, Canada's double seaboard rendered
the provision of such a Fleet unit unsuitable for the present. Two
alternative plans, based upon annual expenditures respectively of
£600,000 and £400,000, were considered, the former contemplating the
provision of four cruisers of the 'Bristol' class, one cruiser of the
'Boadicea' class, and six destroyers of the improved 'River' class, the
'Boadicea' and destroyers to be placed on the Atlantic side and the
'Bristol' cruisers to be divided between the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans." Yet it had been expected that Canada would at least have
followed the Australian offer of a Pacific Fleet unit at a cost of
£3,000,000 a year.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier's fall came when, in the natural development of his
ideals of a peaceful and prosperous Canada, sharing none of the
responsibilities of the British Empire, but reckoning for her safety
partly on its power, partly on the power of the United States, he
proposed to enter into a Trade Reciprocity Treaty with the United
States. The proposal was fiercely attacked, not only on the ground that
it represented a partial surrender of Canadian nationalist ideals, but
also on the charge that it was against the interests of British
Imperialism. At the General Election which followed, Sir Wilfrid Laurier
was decisively defeated. As an indication of the issues affecting the
result, there is the anecdote that one of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's
supporters ascribed the defeat chiefly to "the chap who wrote 'Rule
Britannia.'"
Canada to-day faces the future with a purpose made clear, of cherishing
her separate nationalism and her partnership in the British Empire. She
will cultivate friendship with the United States, but she will not
tolerate anything leading to absorption with the great Republic: and she
will take a more active part in the defence of the Empire. The Laurier
naval policy, which was to spend a little money uselessly, has been set
aside, and Canada's share in the naval defence of the Empire is to be
discussed afresh with the British Admiralty. A military reorganisation,
of which the full details are not available yet, is also projected. It
is known that the Defence Minister, Colonel Hughes, intends to
strengthen the rural regiments, to establish local in addition to
central armouries, and to stimulate recruiting by increasing the pay of
the volunteers. He also contemplates a vigorous movement for the
organisation of cadet corps throughout the whole country. It is a
reasonable forecast that Canada, in the near future, will contribute to
the defence of the Pacific a Fleet unit based on a "Dreadnought" cruiser
and a militia force capable of holding her western coast against any but
a most powerful invader. Her ultimate power in the Pacific can hardly be
over-estimated. The wheat lands of the Middle-West and the cattle lands
of the West will probably find an outlet west as well as east, when the
growing industrial populations of Asia begin to come as customers into
the world's food markets. Electric power developed in the great mountain
ranges will make her also a great manufacturing nation: and she will
suffer less in the future than in the past from the draining away of the
most ambitious of her young men to the United States. The tide of
migration has turned, and it is Canada now which draws away young blood
from the Southern Republic.
FOOTNOTES:
[6] It can be at least said on behalf of the Canadian militia that their
condition was no worse than that of the militia of the United States. In
1906 Mr President Taft (then Secretary for War) contributed a preface to
a pamphlet by Mr Huidekoper on the United States Army. Mr Taft then
wrote:--
"Our confidence in ourselves and in our power of quickly adapting
circumstances to meet any national emergency so far has carried away
some of our public men so that they have been deliberately blind to the
commonest and most generally accepted military principles, and they have
been misled by the general success or good luck which has attended us in
most of our wars. The awful sacrifice of life and money which we had to
undergo during the four years in order to train our civil war veterans
and to produce that army is entirely forgotten, and the country is
lulled into the utterly unfounded assurance that a volunteer enlisted
to-day, or a militiaman enrolled to-morrow, can in a week or month be
made an effective soldier. The people of this country and the Government
of this country, down to the time of the Spanish War, had pursued a
policy which seemed utterly to ignore the lessons of the past."
Mr Huidekoper (an acknowledged expert) maintained:--
"Judged by purely military standards, the invasion of Cuba was a trivial
affair; but never in modern times has there been an expedition which
contained so many elements of weakness; that it succeeded at all is,
indeed, a marvel. The disorders of demoralisation and incapacity which
attended the opening operations were nothing but the logical outcome of
the unwillingness of Congress to prepare for war until the last possible
moment, and merely demonstrated once again the utterly vicious system to
which our legislators have persistently bound us, by neglecting to
provide a force of thoroughly trained soldiers either large enough or
elastic enough to meet the requirements of war as well as peace,
supported by a militia which has previously had sufficient training to
make it, when called out as volunteers, fairly dependable against the
regular forces of other nations."
Then in 1911, Mr Dickinson, U.S. Secretary for War, in an official
report, condemned absolutely the U.S. militia on the grounds that: "It
is lacking in proper proportions of cavalry, field artillery, engineer,
signal corps and sanitary troops; it is not fully or properly organised
into the higher units, brigades and divisions; it has no reserve
supplies of arms and field equipment to raise its units from a peace to
a war footing; it is so widely scattered throughout the country as to
make its prompt concentration impossible; its personnel is deficient in
training; it is to a degree deficient in physical stamina, and has upon
its rolls a large number of men who by reason of their family relations
and business responsibilities cannot be counted upon for service during
any long period of war."
It will thus be seen that not only in Canada, but also in the United
States, the militia has become "mostly ornamental." But the United
States is now awakening to the possibility of having to defend the
Pacific coast against an Asiatic Power or combination of Powers holding
command of the ocean, and promises to reorganise her militia. It is
perhaps interesting to note that whilst to-day the British Imperial
Defence authorities discourage Canada from any militia dispositions or
manoeuvres founded on the idea of an invasion from the United States,
the militia of the Republic, when it takes the field for mimic warfare,
often presumes "an invasion by the British forces."