Canadian Imperialism and Nationalism on the Homefront during WWI
Everett Watters
200905164
Professor J. Cameron
Post Confederation Canadian History 215
Introduction:
The turn of the 20th Century, and leading up to the First World War saw a Canadian nation whose
people were at the height of their division between two factions contesting to dominate and control the
politics and decision making power of the country. These two influential opponents would mold and
determine Canadian politics as well as help to form a national identity for the country’s citizens to align
their morals and beliefs to for at least the next 20 years; these 2 associations had already fashioned the
countries political day to day life for about a century up to that point in 1900. Canada is a country that has
two parent nations, one being France and the other Great Britain. Since its founding in 1867 and even its
colonization in the many decades before that, these two parent nations have profoundly impacted the way
in which Canada was socially and politically formed, as well as providing the colonists and immigrants
whose children would later become the first Canadians. Thanks to this dualistic parenthood, Canada has
developed two very distinct cultures alongside that of the Fist Nations who were already present in the
country when it was colonized. These Francophone and Anglophone cultures brought along with them
their own unique language and tie to religion as well as their commitment to political ideologies that
would eventually, in 1867 and the years to come, be taken up by Canada’s political party system in the
forms of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada. In essence however, these
parties essentially acted as vessels for the two prominent theories on how the country should be governed.
One of these two theories, or sides, was that of Imperialism, which was supported by Anglophones, or
British Canadians and were voiced in parliament primarily by the Conservatives, while the other theory
was that of Nationalism (Anti-Imperialism) supported by the Quebecois francophone Canadians who
heralded from France, and represented in parliament mainly by the Liberals. When it came down to it, the
real cause of this divide between Imperialism and Nationalism was not just language and culture, or how
much loyalty citizens felt they owed to their mother country, which was considered to be and is Great
Britain, but was based on how Canadian politicians felt they could advance Canada’s status from
Confederation to Nation. French Canadians lost most of their ties to their homeland of France when they
immigrated here, most of them wanted to get away from their country and so no love was lost in leaving
their nation. Unlike British colonists who still reminisced dearly of their homeland, to whom they felt
they owed something and so these ties of devotion were carried along through their bloodlines in many
forms, the most important being political patronage. Imperialist believed that since Canada’s foreign
policy and external relations at the time were still controlled by the British Empire, they should remain
loyal to the Queen, by upholding British traditions and by mimicking their political advancement. The
Nationalists or Anti-Imperialists, took form prominently in that of French Canadians wanting to preserve
and protect the dominant role of the Catholic Church in Quebec culture and society from that of the
Imperialists more secular views. The Nationalists wanted to create a national identity with which
Canadians could associate separate from that of the British Colonist or Imperialist identities, which they
felt implied inferiority to Canada. Nationalists also had the support of many Anglophone Canadians who
felt that they owed no responsibility to assist the empire and bear its empirical burdens when they were
not Canada’s own. This powder keg reached its tipping point in the years leading up to, and finally during
the Great War. The First World War elevated the fight on the home-front between Imperialism and
Nationalism to its highest levels in the nation’s history, while at the same time it also eventually putting to
bed permanently the perception of Canadian Imperialism at the end of the war. The First World War
exponentially accelerated the debate between Imperialism and Nationalism in Canada and would
decisively determine which movement would better bring about Canada’s full freedom from the British
Empire by gaining control of our foreign relations and elevating our status from a hierarchical
paternalistic relationship with Britain to more of an equal brotherhood or sibling relationship in terms of
political power within the respective countries.
Background Section:
Contentions between Imperialists and Nationalists began to compound in 1900 with Canada’s
obligatory involvement in the Boer War, and would only get worse with the introduction of the Naval
Service Bill in 1910. During the Great War there was also one of the most pitted federal elections in 1917
over the issue of conscription in order to help support the war effort, which later lead to the Conscription
crisis that same year. All of these events were hard fought battles which had grand impacts on Canada’s
contribution to the British and Allied war effort overseas in Europe and eventually allowed for Canada to
gain its own political and social identity which stood distinct from its British past and elevated them to
political equality alongside Great Britain.
Key Figures:
Nationalists and Imperialists alike had many key Canadian political figures spearheading their
causes leading up to and during the Great War. Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden directed the
Imperialists’ cause which was also supported by spokesmen such as George Denison, George Parkin,
George Monroe Grant, Charles G.D. Roberts, Stephen Leacock, and the reverend C.W. Gordon.1 The
Nationalists faction had split leadership between ex Prime Minister’s Sir Wilfred Laurier (who wanted to
unite rather than divide French and English Canadians) in Parliament, and the Quebec Nationalist leader,
ex-Liberal Member of Parliament and lobbyist Henri Bourassa. Alongside these famed French Nationalist
politicians were also the Anglo-Canadian advocates of full Canadian sovereignty, the lawyer John S.
Ewart and Stephen Leacock, who found colonial status degrading, for “Colony implies inferiorityinferiority in culture, inferiority in wealth, inferiority in government, inferiority in foreign relations,
inferiority and subordination.”2
The Boer War:
The Boer War of 1900, also known as the South African War, was one fought between the Boer
Republics of South Africa (The Orange Free State & Transvaal) and Great Britain. It is a prime example
of an empire defending its expanding territory by calling upon its colonies for support. The main
contention between Nationalism an Imperialism here is that the British Empire was disappointed in
Canada’s lack of aid compared to the other colonies such as Australia and New Zealand who had already
sent troops to aid the war effort there. Imperialists felt that since the Empire had spent $55 million in
1
2
Bumsted, Politics & the National Question in Canada 1885-1914, 161
Ibid., 165
Canadian Defence up to that point in the Confederation’s history, that we had a moral obligation to help
in South Africa.3 Nationalists, like Bourassa on the other hand, believed that Canada owed nothing in
terms of sending troops to support a war that was not Canada’s to fight, but Britain’s alone. French
Nationalists had an even harder time supporting the decision to send troops to conquer the Boers because
symbolically the Boer War represented to Quebec the excess of British Imperialism over New France,
which reminded them of their own conquest by the British in 1759.4 After much delay and a lack of
decision in Parliament on whether or not to send troops, Prime Minister Laurier drafted a special order in
council, authorizing the raising, equipping and transporting to South Africa of 1000 Canadian
‘volunteers’, without summoning Parliament.5 This side-stepping infuriated many Nationalists, especially
Henri Bourassa who in 1899 resigned his seat in protest against Laurier’s decision to permit Canadian
volunteers to assist Britain in South Africa without parliamentary approval.6 Bourassa feared that by
sending troops like this half way around the world to South Africa, a place where Canada had no stake to
gain, it would set a costly precedent for Canada to send troops to future all future empirical conflicts; he
was correct which we shall see later with the onset of the Great War. The consequences in Canada for
aiding the motherland in the Boar War were both good and bad. Imperialists believed Canada had served
its loyal duty to the Empire by sending troops, and that the country had emerged on the world scene not as
a colony of Britain, but as a junior partner in the greatest Empire that the world had ever seen,7 in the
hopes of slowly approaching a truly equal status with Britain. Nationalists on the other hand saw this as
the beginning of a period of subservience to Britain, and were enraged by the fact that it is the
Parliament’s responsibility to declare war, not the executive branch of government’s. The lack of support
for the Imperialist cause by French Nationalists can be reflected by comments made in La Presse “We
Page, The Boer War & Canadian Imperialism , 13
Page, The Boer War & Canadian Imperialism , 22
5 Page, The Boer War & Canadian Imperialism , 12
6 Bumsted, Politics & the National Question in Canada 1885-1914, 169
7 Page, The Boer War & Canadian Imperialism , 22
3
4
French Canadians belong to one country, Canada; Canada is for us the whole world; but the English
Canadians have two countries, one here and one across the sea.”8
The Naval Service Bill:
Speaking of across the sea, in the time after the Boer War and leading up to the Great War, there
began a developing Naval Arms Race between Great Britain and Germany over the construction and
accumulation of the new, fear invoking class of ship aptly dubbed the dreadnaught. In the time after
confederation, the Empire provided Canada’s maritime and naval defense since we had no navy of our
own to defend our shores with. Part of the great amount of strength behind the British Empire was it’s a
massive navy and the superiority it held over the seas. Germany’s newfound militarization and the
conception of the dreadnaught put this supremacy of Britain’s Navy at risk. In a response to this arms
race, Britain called upon its colonies for support in the form of financial contributions, which many
Canadians felt to be an appropriate response, however this was not the route taken. Instead, Prime
Minister Laurier decided that Canada should commence the construction of its own navy so that we
would be able to defend our own coastline in the future and not depend so much on the aid of the Empire.
The Laurier government introduced its Naval Service Bill in January 1910, the results were predictable.
While English Canadians- especially Tories- sneered at this ‘tin-pot navy’ and complained that the
legislation did not go far enough to assist the British, in Quebec nationalists and the Conservatives joined
forces to fight for its repeal.9 Nobody was pleased with this decision. The British Empire would have
preferred a cash influx to fund the building of more powerful dreadnaughts, however in the end they were
pleased with any form of help at all. Nationalists believed that this bill did too much by allowing for our
navy to be put under the control of the Empire during times of war, further advancing the same issues that
arose from our involvement alongside the Empire in the Boer War; because of this, Henri Bourassa would
have preferred to have just given the British money. Either way it was a lose-lose scenario for French
8
9
Bumsted, Politics & the National Question in Canada 1885-1914, 169
Bumsted, Politics & the National Question in Canada 1885-1914, 171
Nationalists who feared that with the way things were going, conscription could soon be an issue as well.
The significance of the Naval Service Bill in the battle between Imperialists and Nationalists once again
demonstrated a few things; how far off the two sides were from compromise on issues which could
advance our country on a global scale, and Canada received two imperial ships from Britain to start our
navy. Most importantly, the dispute of the navy and the bill caused the defeat of Laurier’s Liberals in the
1911 federal election at the hands of Robert Borden’s Conservatives, who were much more sympathetic
to the Empire10 compared to Laurier who was split in between Nationalists and Imperialists, allowing for
a somewhat neutral executive government in Canada, which now would no longer be the case.
Onset of the Great War to the Conscription Crisis:
Canada officially went to war on 4 August 1914, as an automatic consequence of the British declaration
of war on Germany11 and soon after that, on 22 August Parliament passed ‘An Act to confer certain
powers upon the Governor in Council in the event of War, Invasion, or Insurrection’ – the famous War
Measures Act – enabling the government to act in the defense of the realm without consulting
Parliament.12 These two major actions (or in-action of the House of Commons on behalf of the Canadian
people) greatly raised tensions between the Nationalists and Imperialists. Nationalists, like they predicted
with the Boer War and the Naval Service Act, were enraged by how Canada had been automatically
involved in an Empirical war which did not directly impact them, and were also infuriated by the fact that
the War Measures Act could essentially turn Canada into a dictatorship of the executive branch of
Canadian government by allowing law to be passed without the approval of Parliament. In effect the Act
was an unprecedented blank cheque allowing the government not only to sensor writing and
communications but to arrest, detain, and even deport those deemed to be obstructing the war effort.13 A
prime example of this suppression of civil rights and censorship of free speech would be the speech by
Bumsted, Politics & the National Question in Canada 1885-1914, 171
Bumsted, The Great War and its Aftermath 1914-1918, 206
12 Bumsted, The Great War and its Aftermath 1914-1918, 207
13 Bumsted, The Great War and its Aftermath 1914-1918, 216
10
11
Henri Bourassa entitled ‘The Duty of Canada at the Present Hour’ which was ‘twice suppressed in the
Name of “Loyalty and Patriotism”.’ The speech was intended to unify the Canadian peoples on the homefront, French and English alike, but because it was never given, French Canada began to become socially
secluded from the rest of the country. Bourassa believed that Canada could better assist the war effort by
growing our agricultural sector, strengthening our economy as a whole (which it was weak at the time)
and giving aid in the form of supplies and equipment instead of sacrificing the lives of Canadian men in a
war not our own. However, after this initial outcry at the onset of the war, contention between
Nationalists and Imperialists began to subside for the most part due to that fact that not only was Great
Britain at War, but so to was France. Imperialistic ties to both the mother and father-land were running
rampant with the excitement of war buzzing through many if not all Canadians heads (however French
ties to France were nowhere near as strong as Imperialists devotion to Britain). This phase would not last
as most never do. Instead of the war being short and glorious as most tacticians predicted, it became dark,
deadly and strenuous upon all those involved. By the time 1917 rolled around, just as the Nationalists had
feared almost a decade earlier with the surfacing of the Naval Service Bill, whispers began to circulate for
the passing of conscription, or mandatory service in the armed forces due to the surmounting casualties,
lack of new volunteers and the need for manpower in order to defeat the Central Powers. From the
standpoint of Anglo Canadians, French Canadians had not borne their fare share of the war effort; fewer
than 5 per cent of the more than 432,000 Canadian volunteers had come from French Canada, which had
28 per cent of the total Canadian population. 14 French Nationalists felt that the aim of conscription was
not only to forcefully rally more soldiers to the cause, but to ensure that these soldiers were of a French
Canadian background; many francophones during the war were cast out and deemed to be lazy by the
government, media and their fellow Canadians for not initially volunteering for the cause at the beginning
of the war. Rioting and violence broke out in Montreal over the debate for conscription in the months
leading up to the bill’s finalization, and later on in August 1917, the Military Service Act became law;
French Canadian Nationalists were displeased by their portrayal by the Imperialist supporting media
14
Gordon, Canadas of the Mind,162
(thanks to the Wartime Measures Act in a way) for not doing their part. In Quebec, exemptions
outnumbered conscripts, and no more than 23 per cent of all conscripts were French Canadians. Even
more striking, some 19,000 Quebecers went into hiding rather than succumb to compulsion.15 Not only
did Military Service Act create an even larger divide between French Nationalists and Anglo Canadian
Imperialists, but the gap and tensions which it created amongst these Canadians may have been done for
nothing, since there is some dispute among military historians as to both the necessity and success of
conscription, only 24,000 of the promised 100,000 conscripts reached France.
Major Section:
Imperialists and Nationalists both wanted to achieve complete Canadian independence and full
political freedom from the British Empire, however they attempted to do so in different ways. Imperialists
supported Great Britain, theorizing that with commitment to the empire they would eventually gain
independence this way. These Imperialists believed that there was much inevitability in the movement
from colony to nation through the imperial alliance as the advocates of complete Canadian independence,
that Canadian political history was simply “the relation of our rise from complete subordination to almost
complete independence,” they believed that Canada’s development had reached, or would very soon
reach, a point when the final installment of liberty, the exercise of power in relation to other states, would
come.16 Imperialists believed that Canada, like any entity or organism, would naturally and eventually
grow and mutate over time to gain political freedom and governing powers equal to those of Britain.
Imperialists felt that they were riding the crest of the tidal wave of history that was social Darwinism, or
the belief that biological evolution also worked in human affairs and world politics; the organism
(Canada) must be adapted to the ever-changing environment.17 Nationalists on the other hand believed
that by supporting the Empire it would only lead to our further enslavement in servitude to them, and so
Gordon, Canadas of the Mind, 162
Berger, Sense of Power, 121
17 Berger, Sense of Power, 223
15
16
instead they decided the better route to take would be to develop our independence autonomously from
within Canada. John Ewart argued that the British connection had been, and continued to be, a baneful
influence in Canada; that whatever benefits Canadians derived from it were incidental and accidental; A
forthright declaration of independence, he urged, was justifiable and urgent. Separation from Britain
would not cut Canada away from a “mother”; it would free her from a “owner.”18 This divergence
between the methods in how to achieve our complete independence from the British Empire’s control is
what stems the conflict between Imperialism and Nationalism. Both sides wanted to evolve Canada from
its current hierarchical parent-child relationship to that of being equal siblings on the same level playing
field so to speak; there was a great sense in Imperialists and Nationalists alike of British class superiority
over Canadian citizens. Part of this may be due to the term ‘Colonist,’ which many interpreted as a
derogatory term applied to Canadians to show their inferiority to the rest of Britain, making them a lower
social class. Canadians have to have more confidence in themselves and stop looking up to Britain as a
superior country, the motherland should be held in reverence because of her history and because our
ancestors lay in that hallowed ground, but Englishmen were only our brothers, our equals.19 However
many people in Canada, whether they were Imperialists or Nationalists, had a hard time agreeing with this
sense of equality because Canada in many ways was still very reliant on Britain in order to function
sustainably; just before the Great War, there was economic hardships due to mass amounts of borrowing
and debt, there was no real means of effective maritime naval protection, and we did not even have a real
standing army. Canada, said George Ross in 1908, was still a “dependency”; she was virtually
independent in the control of internal affairs but possessed no influence in foreign relations, no voice at
all on the issues of peace and war.20 The Great War allowed for Canada to rise from this dependency in
many ways, moving away from Imperialistic and French Nationalist goals, but instead creating Canadian
achievements. On the home-front it created economic boom in many industries, such as agriculture and
Berger, Sense of Power, 123
Berger, Sense of Power, 53
20 Berger, Sense of Power, 119
18
19
manufacturing, which allowed the government to turn around its financial dependency upon the Empire’s
wealth. In terms of the aftermath of the war itself, Canada and the other British colonies played a large
role, just like they had done in the fighting itself in both the November armistice and the signing of Treaty
of Versailles in January of 1919. The dominions subsequently got the right to separate membership on
new international organizations coming out of the treaty, including the League of Nations, and a separate
signature on the treaty and conventions. Membership in the League, of course, implied liability for any
commitments undertaken by that organization.21 Because of Canada’s participation, and success in the
battlefield as storm troopers, such as in Vimy Ridge or Ypres, the Great War was a major victory in
Canadian history; it showcased Canada’s ability to defend not only itself, but the empire as well. Not for
Imperialists or Nationalists over each other but for Canada as a whole by taking its first steps to becoming
more independent from the British Empire, with its culmination taking effect in 1931 with the signing of
the Statute of Westminster, granting Canada full rights and political freedoms which they deserved and
had pitted Imperialists and Nationalists against each other for so long.
Conclusion:
The Great War was a major time of both political and social contention, marking the height of
outcry on the home-front between Imperialists and Nationalists who were both trying to advance the
independence of Canada in different ways. It was the catalytic event that would eventually propel Canada
to the equality in society and politics which it so badly craved from Britain. Canada’s entry into World
War 1 marked a triumph of sorts for Canadian imperialism. It also rejuvenated Canadian reformers.
Together the patriotic fervour of the war and the eventual political isolation of French Canada, sealed by
the Conscription Crisis of 1917, made possible a sweeping program of reform, much of which French
Canadians had opposed. Reform has always required an active state, and wartime conditions encouraged
21
Bumsted, The Great War and its Aftermath 1914-1918, 222
the Canadian government to intervene in almost all areas of life and work.22 This reform allowed social
Darwinism to do its work and would see Canada evolve fully in 1931, and reach the maturity of a stoic
nation that it is today. Ties to imperialism and nationalism, which technically died out just after the war,
can still be seen in Canadian social and political life today. Their legacy has transformed into today’s
battle between the provinces of English Canada (descendants of Imperialists and Canadian nationalists)
against the Quebecois and French Canada, (their ancestors being French nationalists) who now debate
over Quebec’s status of Nationhood, and possible succession from the Great White North that is Canada.
BY: EVERETT WATTERS
200905164
22
Bumsted, The Great War and its Aftermath 1914-1918, 206
WORKS CITED/BIBLEOGRAPHY:
Berger, Carl. Sense of Power, Studies in the Ideas of Canadian Imperialism 1867-1914.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970.
Borden, Robert Laird. “Canada Will Answer the Call: Sir Robert Borden’s Inspiring War
Message to the Canadian People: A Speech Delivered at Toronto, December 5th.” in
Interpreting Canada’s Past: A Post Confederation Reader (2012): 181-185
Bourassa, Henri. “The Duty of Canada at the Present Hour: An Address Meant to be
Delivered in Ottawa in November and December 1919, but Twice Suppressed in the
name of ‘Loyalty & Patriotism.’” in Interpreting Canada’s Past: A Post Confederation
Reader (2012): 175-181
Bumsted, J.M. “Politics & the National Question, 1885-1914,” in The Peoples of Canada
a Post Confederation History. edited by J.M. Bumsted, 156-175. Canada: Oxford
University Press, 2008.
Bumsted, J.M. “The Great War & its Aftermath, 1914-1919,” in The Peoples of Canada a
Post Confederation History. edited by J.M. Bumsted, 206-227. Canada: Oxford
University Press, 2008.
Gordon, Alan. Canadas of the Mind, The Making and Unmaking of Canadian
Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Quebec City: McGill-Queens Univeristy Press,
2007
Page, Robert. The Boer War and Canadian Imperialism. Ottawa: The Canadian Historical
Association, 1987.