Three Weeks in Quebec review

Three Weeks in Quebec review

Three weeks in Quebec City is a gracefully written story, which every Canadian should long to read. In 1864, five provincial legislatures came to Quebec City with a view of uniting the provinces of British North America. The colonies which were considered for the unity were poorly administered hence the call. The colonies consisted of Prince Edward Islands, New Brunswick, New Foundland, and Nova Scotia. The meeting was composed of thirty-three delegates considered this unity by mutual protection. Christopher Moore’s book “Three Weeks in Quebec City” sheds light on the Canadian history of democracy and how it started, and grew into today’s Canada. Moore begins his work by talking about this lengthy meeting, which ended in tension but the tension ensured democracy was achieved in Canada. The thirty-three men in the delegates’ conference had one common goal, and that is to forge a constitutional framework for their bold idea of uniting the poorly governed states. Plausible democratic structures always lay the required foundations for good governance for parties battling for power.

Moore’s Perspective

Moore believes that the democratic powers invested within the structures of the federal government, and parliament is key for the best services to the Canadian nation. The dedication of the parliamentary democracy could be witnessed when both the opposition and government members of the states arrived in Quebec. The narrative by Moore clings on small biographies, which usher in the reader’s interests on the formation of the alliances, and achieving democracy for the united colonies. According to Moore, the essential initiatives and decisions are not with public opinion, but with the representatives of the public interests. That is what informed what Moore termed as a parliamentary democracy. Democracy empowers the representatives to act on behalf of the citizens. The proposed unity was good for the Canadians who did not consider themselves as Canadians. “In 1864, the territories of St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system were to be merged into what is today known as Quebec and Ontario, so that the people could think of themselves as Canadians.” (Moore, 2)[1]

According to Moore, the arrival of the delegates both from the opposition. And the ruling government was nothing to be ignored in the quest for a democratic Canada. In this narrative, Moore asserts that the parliamentary representatives looked down upon the public opinions because they knew the powers vested within the parliamentary democracy system is good for the representation of the public. The idea of uniting the colonies had been in proposals for the last fifty years before it was revived in the conference of 1864 (Moore, 2)[2]. Moore asserts that the hostility emanating from the unfriendly United States was the central reason for the quest for unity among the five colonies. The union of the British North America provinces was first endorsed in September 1864 in Charlottetown (Moore, 3)[3]. At Charlottetown, the proposal for the first endorsement of the “confederation” occurred by the help of the Maritimers. According to Moore, this endorsement changed the whole chapters that led to the conglomeration of the colonies. For the delegates to deliberate on the proposed merger, Moore suggested that more interminable meetings of an actual constitutional conference would be necessary (Moore, 3)[4].

The deliberation required concerted efforts from the delegates and the political aides, railroad lobbyists, and journalists. Moore recognized the fact that there was a need to engage stakeholders from the transport sectors of the five colonies. Journalists would link the public to the leaders who represented citizens in the conference. Additionally, the expansion of the transport systems such as the railroads and the steamships sparkled the need for a well-developed and a Canada of mature democracy (Moore, 4)[5]. During the conference at Quebec, Moore in his narrative submits that the most interminable debates would involve the Senate as the law-making body for most of the colonies. The lengthy discussion mandated the Senate the powers to enjoy ceremonial advisory powers. The Senate in the same anticipation met their aim of aping bicameral parliament of Britain, and the locating the real power in the elected house. The long list of powers according to the central government ensured its dominance, and the ability to disallow the provincial laws.

Quebec accepted the quest for the division of power because it wanted to safeguard the French culture, and traditions. To this effect, the Maritimes avoided being swamped by the central Canadians who did not want the provinces. Moore mentions that the conference took place during the civil wars in America. The era of the civil wars facilitated the urge to have the confederation done in Quebec. The British, the Canadian, and a well-financed Canadian Confederate spy ring led the perceived threats of the American reprisals. In the narrative, Moore mentioned the Irish-American Fenians but did not take into account how their risks influenced the support the Maritimes put in the confederation[6]. Similarly, Moore gives the growing power of Britain’s Little Englander movement scant attention when it advocated for the end of colonialism. The call to the end of colonialism necessitated the urgent confederation conference, where the impatient Brits and angry Americans locked horns in the Quebec City conference rooms. The effect later hit parliament where the confederation as later debated for the formation of a peaceful Canada.

The Legacy of the Confederation

According to Moore, the legacy of the confederation was that it issued power that comprised of strong provincial rights. Through this confederation, Canada had an elected house of commons, a federal parliament, an appointed Senate and provincial legislatures that had now seen the system of checks and balance that did not work before the conference took place. The judicial system started giving more powers to the provinces after the confederation. Nevertheless, a lot of what had been created by the co-founders of Quebec for the three weeks remained an everlasting force. The confederation acted as a blueprint for the many sectors, which had been performing close to bad. The railroads were prone to accidents because the systems in these states did not support adequate infrastructural development; some of the reasons the United States became a stumbling block during the civil wars. Almost every day, people would hear of accidents on the railroads (Moore, 11)[7]. Nevertheless, the conference recognized the importance of these dangerous railroads despite its dangers (Moore, 12)[8]. The confederation was majorly centered on power. The ideal battle for this power being the stronger federal body and the provincial rights.

The conference also opened avenues for Canada to exploit all its resources. Canada is a well-known country for its comprehensive water transport networks in various channels such as the St. Lawrence Seaway (Moore, 5)[9]. The conference and the overall representation consisted of leaders who understood the actual problems in Canada. Moore records that places like Montreal were the main exchange points between the steamships and the American Continent. The city proliferated in the 1860s leading to high population in Quebec (Moore, 17)[10]. The Montrealers already began calling it the “Vieille Capitale” to mean a folkloric, and historic place that business had passed by (Moore, 17)[11]. The confederation was an awakening thing to have happened at the conference.

Lessons from the Confederation

The three weeks in Quebec focused on the sociopolitical aspects of the five states in Canada. In 1867, Canada came into being during a confederation, which exerted pressure on the colonies to form a union. The three weeks in Quebec is a story, which provided one of the most approaches to deal with the diplomatic, and boundary conflicts, and pressures. The confederation appeared to be the central problems of most of the colonies[12]. The views of different colonies where incorrigible to each other. Some colonies were doubtful of the confederation, while others had a belief of a better future. Trade was the most important thing for the development of the Maritimes. The trains and the steamship were, however, draining trade from Quebec City while bringing visitors (Moore, 19)[13]. The steamships such as the “QueenVictoria” made steam for the Quebec City offering passengers the best comfort every traveler could desire (Moore, 6). Many people would travel to Quebec City during the festive seasons from the United States. As a result, some colonies raised concerns over the possible union between the affiliate colonies, and the US.

The central government should be responsible for making laws that ensure “peace, order, and good government.” The status of Contemporary Canadian society underwent drastic changes during the confederation. The confederation shaped Canada as one of the most desired countries, and most potent both politically, and economically. Unity is and will always be a strength. The United Canada as it was known, was built by the Quebec Conference of 1864. The conference laid out the framework for the Canadian constitution, which has led into several political, and economic reforms[14]. Additionally, having a strong central government is key to virtually all developments. Having a central government means peace, and order for the good will of the citizens will be achieved. There also geographic lessons we learn from the confederation. The United Province of Canada would be split into Ontario and Quebec.

A strong central government that would handle economic development and national defence. During the conference, a series of events unfolded in Quebec, which led to the transformation of Canada. Circumstances such as the British encouragements in uniting the colonies in North America prevented the potential inhabitance by the United States either by persuasion or invasion. Other territories, which were reluctant were also persuaded to join the confederation. In the late 1770s, tension brew between the North American colonies, and the Yankees, which resulted in the American Revolution. When American finally achieved its independence from Britain, they revoked all the ties with the British government and all their colonies that existed in Canada. When the civil war broke in the later centuries, the US was already under a federal government. The laws that governed the US were, however, weak but ruled a strong state. Consequently, the other states in the south declared their self-independence, which elicited more wars.

The time of the civil wars brought tension among the builders of Canada. They were afraid of Canada tearing up just like the North and the Southern states were divided in the US. During the conference, McDonalds submitted by calling his fellow delegates to remain resilient and concentrate on the powers invested in the federal government. Additionally, there are lessons we learn from the confederation, is that all provinces in Canada should have specific powers to deal with the sociocultural issues. Even if the province of Canada is divided into two, each state will be entitled to managing its society according to the statutory laws. There is the need of the central government being structured in a way that it contains the upper and the lower houses. The lower states can present the grievances of the commons, and the house of senate, which would represent the interests of the citizens through the elected leaders.

Another lesson learned from the confederation was the powers that were not illustrated in the constitution were ceded to the federal government by the voting out of the New Brunswick. However, the voting affected Canada as it lost powers over some states such as Ottawa. To date, Atlantic Canada still struggles to have a voice in Ottawa although the provinces have not been washed away as it was the fear of some delegates. The Canadian federation has proved strong in withstanding regional protests and two votes calling for Quebec separation[15]. Canada celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2017, indicating that the frameworks for a mature democracy were properly laid during the three weeks in Quebec.

The “Three Weeks in Quebec” and Contemporary Canada

The factors which led to the birth of modern Canada can be significantly attributed to Moore’s story as mentioned earlier. Canada became a newborn country after the conference in Quebec where the delegates deliberated on several political issues. The creation of Canada was well-grounded on few delegates who were promising and had dreams of a better Canada. Through the confederation, Canada achieved independence through negotiations. The country became economically strong with the strong, and comprehensively networked transport system. The St. Lawrence seaways are now a harbor, which supports docking of ships from the United States shores. Due to the economic concerns of the early inhabitants of the colonies that formed Canada, the delegates took into consideration the need to develop an economically strong nation. Regarding the economy, agricultural becomes a fundamental tool. The provinces of Ottawa, Ontario, and Quebec today support the growth of agricultural products such as wheat.

In terms of democracy and governance, the Canada we have today is one of the most mature democracies ever. Moore unfolds events for the reader of the “Three Weeks in Quebec” that led to the independence of Canada. The federal government became aware that if Canada and its people were to be empowered economically, then most problems which attracted the interests of the United States would be solved. The delegates present at the Quebec conference understood why the merger of the colonies would mean a more significant economic advantage for Canada. Today Canada enjoys one of the best healthcare systems globally due to good governance and democratic society, which apprehends the corrupt before its judicial system[16].

Christopher Moore takes the reader into a fascinating world of a story about the Canadian progress in a day-to-day look at the three weeks activity. Just like the delegates put interests on the transport systems in Canada, the contemporary Canadian society comprises of some of the best transport means. Worth noting is that Moore developed the ideas behind the transport systems in the ancient colonies in an unclear manner. Though with a deeper insight, the reader can reveal that transport was one of the points of interests for the US because of its visitors who went to Canada on vacations. Today, there are modern transport networks such as roads, rail, water transport, and air transport, which has not been mentioned in “The Three Weeks in Quebec.”

To conclude, Moore’s Three Weeks in Quebec is a gracefully written account of how Canada came to be, which is informative, educative, and entertaining. Moore integrates ideas from both the political and the religious class in the ancient Canadian society to build on a narrative which gives detailed accounts of ancient Canada. The political class forged constitutional frameworks, which represented their own fundamental beliefs. Moore’s story about the Quebec Conference reveals the reasons why some of the political classes do not pay attention to the grievances of the citizens. They believe the power for legislation is vested within them and they do not need to seek the indulgence of the citizens. However, the current democracy we witness in Canada does things differently especially among the political class. The various resolutions from Quebec paved the way for modern democracy. Time had come when there were serious issues which required proper deliberations without considering personal interests. The delegates who took part in the conference such as the George Etienne, John MacDonald, Cartier, and George brown set their interests and were mostly guided by the quest to have a union of the colonies.

References

Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane,    2015.

Oklopcic, Zoran. “Independence Referendums and Democratic Theory in Quebec and      Montenegro.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18, no. 1 (2012): 22-42.

[1] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[2] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[3] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[4] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[5] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[6] Oklopcic, Zoran. “Independence Referendums and Democratic Theory in Quebec and Montenegro.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18, no. 1 (2012): 22-42.

[7] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[8] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[9] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[10] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[11] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[12] Oklopcic, Zoran. “Independence Referendums and Democratic Theory in Quebec and Montenegro.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18, no. 1 (2012): 22-42.

[13] Moore, Christopher. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada. Allan Lane, 2015.

[14] Oklopcic, Zoran. “Independence Referendums and Democratic Theory in Quebec and Montenegro.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18, no. 1 (2012): 22-42.

[15] Oklopcic, Zoran. “Independence Referendums and Democratic Theory in Quebec and Montenegro.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18, no. 1 (2012): 22-42.

[16] Oklopcic, Zoran. “Independence Referendums and Democratic Theory in Quebec and Montenegro.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 18, no. 1 (2012): 22-42.