>in order to lament the death of a nation it must first have lived, but Grant suggests that it was in fact stillborn. In which case it is not American control and Liberal perfidy that destroyed Canada but the age of progress.
>In the introduction to the 1970 Carleton library edition of Lament, he repeated the assertion that British conservatism was itself largely beaten in Britain by the time it was inherited by Canadians, and "The twentieth century was not a period in which it was wise to rely on British traditions as counter-attractions to the American dream. Yet these were what we had." (Lxxiv)
>In chapter 6 of Lament, Grant muses about what might keep Canada independent from the United States: "The Laurentian Shield and the Eskimos? British Tradition has provided us with certain political and legal institutions, some of which are better that their American counterparts." (72)
>What is curious about this is that a significant element of the Loyalist motivation for coming to Canada in the first place was a preference for the parliamentary form of government. The Loyalists saw republicanism and its reliance on popular sovereignty as a genuine threat to the liberties enshrined in the British form of constitional monarchy. Furthermore, it has been widely argued that the differences in political cultures of Canada and the United States are, to a large extent, the result of the operation of, and socialization under, different institutions. This is why the journalist David Warren β a self described "disciple" of Grant's β suggests that a Canadian nationalist should be concerned primarily with the preservation of Canadian political institutions, especially the fusion of the executive and the legislative branches.
>the American congressional system has a genuine separation of powers, in which the head of the executive branch (the president) and the members of the bicameral legislature are elected separately, with each having a share of the executive and legislative power. In Canada, only the members of the House of Commons are elected, and it is from this body that the members of the executive (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) are chosen. The Canadian senate is appointed and wields relatively little political power. This fusion of the executive and legislative powers is known as government through "the Crown-in-Parliament." When the government enjoys the support of the majority of the House of Commons, it allows for much for effective and decisive action by the executive without the vote-buying and "horse trading" that characterizes much of American federal politics. According to Warren, "More than anything in the attic, this is what distinguishes us from Republicans to the south: the essentially unicameral nature of our (ceremonial bicameral) parliament."
>In the introduction to the 1970 Carleton library edition of Lament, he repeated the assertion that British conservatism was itself largely beaten in Britain by the time it was inherited by Canadians, and "The twentieth century was not a period in which it was wise to rely on British traditions as counter-attractions to the American dream. Yet these were what we had." (Lxxiv)
>In chapter 6 of Lament, Grant muses about what might keep Canada independent from the United States: "The Laurentian Shield and the Eskimos? British Tradition has provided us with certain political and legal institutions, some of which are better that their American counterparts." (72)
>What is curious about this is that a significant element of the Loyalist motivation for coming to Canada in the first place was a preference for the parliamentary form of government. The Loyalists saw republicanism and its reliance on popular sovereignty as a genuine threat to the liberties enshrined in the British form of constitional monarchy. Furthermore, it has been widely argued that the differences in political cultures of Canada and the United States are, to a large extent, the result of the operation of, and socialization under, different institutions. This is why the journalist David Warren β a self described "disciple" of Grant's β suggests that a Canadian nationalist should be concerned primarily with the preservation of Canadian political institutions, especially the fusion of the executive and the legislative branches.
>the American congressional system has a genuine separation of powers, in which the head of the executive branch (the president) and the members of the bicameral legislature are elected separately, with each having a share of the executive and legislative power. In Canada, only the members of the House of Commons are elected, and it is from this body that the members of the executive (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) are chosen. The Canadian senate is appointed and wields relatively little political power. This fusion of the executive and legislative powers is known as government through "the Crown-in-Parliament." When the government enjoys the support of the majority of the House of Commons, it allows for much for effective and decisive action by the executive without the vote-buying and "horse trading" that characterizes much of American federal politics. According to Warren, "More than anything in the attic, this is what distinguishes us from Republicans to the south: the essentially unicameral nature of our (ceremonial bicameral) parliament."
Loading suggestions...