“Some commentators have taken to calling Canada a nation of institutions, not ideas.” But they – whoever ‘they’ are – seem to have forgotten that these institutions were founded on ideas, unique, complex and profound ideas that perhaps have more relevance today than ever before.

Perhaps what makes remembering these ‘founding ideas’ so difficult is the fact that, as Barry Cooper points out, “the whole notion of founding a country is alien to Canadian experience.” Seated on an often uneasy triangular foundation of French, English and First Nations; devolved and downloaded from the historic British crown. There was no bloody revolution, no incendiary Declaration of Independence, no ringing promise of “liberty, equality, and sisterhood, or peace, bread and other people’s land.” Canada was not ‘founded,’ in 1867 with Confederation or 1774 with the Quebec Act, or any other time. If anything, Canada grew. And it grew on some basic but powerful ideas.

Basic, perhaps, but not simple. If anything, “Canada is a complicated place. Aggressively complicated," John Ralston Saul has said. The idea – ideas or principles – of Canada is aggressively complicated, so much so that even Barry Cooper and Bob Rae cannot quite agree on what exactly it is. Cooper is right when he notes that things have changed since the day of Simcoe, Durham and Macdonald, who are as close as Canadians get to ‘founding fathers.’ But he is mistaken if he believes that the principles espoused by these men “can still be detected without too much effort.” Great effort has been spent, and much ink spilled over who Canadians are, what Canada stands for, what its ‘founding principles’ say. If, as Cooper suggests, the ideas that constitute Canada grew from “a tradition the origins of which were discreetly shrouded in the mists of time,” then it is no wonder that they are so hard to discern.

Unlike our southern neighbours, we have no American Dream – when it comes to e pluribus unum, we’re stuck at the pluribus. Unlike the European nation, we have no historical tradition, language, race or religion that binds us as one. We can’t look to ‘the beginning’ because no one can confidently pinpoint where the beginning began, for, as Cooper notes, we tend to see Confederation not as a ‘founding moment’ but as an important instance in Canada’s evolution.

As a result, there is no one definite set of guiding principles upon which Canada was founded and Confederation built. Cooper identifies the principles of liberalism and responsible or parliamentary government. Bob Rae sees them as diversity and unity. And no matter what either says, he comes upon contradictions, exceptions, and “aggressive complexity.” Even when they disagree on how ‘liberal’ Lord Durham’s Report on responsible government and Franchophone assimilation is, they agree that liberal values help shape the Canada we want. Even when they disagree on what ‘cookie-cutter’ federalism is in relation to the provinces, they both mention the “variety that is both the foundation of liberal society and its fullest expression;” both recognize “there is not one magic definition of federalism” but rather “a range of constitutional possibilities.”

According to Barry Cooper, back in the aftermath of the American Revolution, the principles of Canada were informed by the principles of liberal parliamentary government. For Lord Durham, the only foundation on which to build a nation was that of a directly accountable government and a situation under which all were different but equal. The Canadian version of this liberal democracy then got a large dose of federalism following Confederation. Yet, Cooper concedes, pure parliamentary liberalism has never worked in Canada. From Quebec come “communitarian realities,” from the west, “extra-parliamentary populism.” They come to temper the waters of pure parliamentary liberalism, which has “never worked in Canada” anyway, and provide “the colour and flavour to Canadian politics, the leaven that makes federalism work,” in violation, however, of “not a few of the explicit intentions of the fathers of Confederation.” But that shouldn’t be a problem, given that Confederation was only a moment in the unique and complex evolution of Canada.

For Bob Rae, this evolution is as contradictory as it is complex. Canadian history is a paradox:

We pride ourselves on being a thoughtful, generous, tolerant people. Political bromides reinforce the image every day. The reality is a little different: at our best we have learned to appreciate harmony in diversity, but much of our story is about intolerance and conflict.

On one hand, the idea of Canada is the idea of Sir Edward Thurlow’s “humanity, justice and wisdom,” of Burke’s “right of human nature,” of Baldwin and Lafontaine’s creative partnership and Laurier and Pearson’s work to deal fairly with minorities. But opposite partnership and tolerance are Macdonald’s orders for Métis leader Louis Riel’s execution, the deep divides of World War conscription, and the murder of Pierre Laporte by FLQ radicals. The aboriginal, francophone and anglophone triangle has not always been fruitful, has never been easy. But it is a triangle of diversity, of ever-growing complexity, acceptant and acceptable to newcomers from all different walks of life. As Thomas D’Arcy McGee realized, “pure and simple ethnic or religious nationalism could not bring a lasting solution” – not in McGee’s Ireland, and certainly not today’s world.

Today’s Canada is a far cry from when the first Dominion census documented the existence of 125 Jews and 11 ‘Hindoos.’ As Canada absorbs immigrants at the rate of a quarter of a million per year, 42% of which represent visible minorities from the Asian, African and Arab world, the ideas of unity in diversity, acceptance but not assimilation, equality and inclusion are poised to further shape the idea of Canada. Rae states: “the recognition of the identity of nationalities within Canada and the concomitant spirit of partnership is about freedom itself. … Canada is a federation, not just a nation, and that says it all.” A federation: an association, a partnership, a complex amalgamation of differences into a harmonious whole.

A liberal-minded harmonious whole has never been a more important goal – or a more farfetched ideal. Since the Cold War, the global community has been launched headlong into the realm of two new kinds of volatile and devastating conflict. On one hand, the international landscape has erupted in intrastate fighting that sees populations divided along old and bitter religious and ethnic lines, engulfing innocent civilian populations in violation of all accepted codes of war. On the other hand, the Western world has been jolted from the comfortable shelter of wealth behind walls, awakened by the increasingly desperate and violent cries of the disenfranchised ‘Third World.’ Meanwhile, the world witnesses the proliferation of small arms and powerful nuclear weapons. The time to grow up is now.

Canada is much older than its ‘official’ 136 years. John Ralston Saul counts some “400 years – 150 as a democracy – of complex religious, linguistic, racial, social relationships.” Canada, in all its big ideas and contradictions, has weathered these problems and emerged, for the most part, unscathed by the cataclysms and pitfalls of civil strife, demeaning poverty, and national erosion.

Embracing diversity, Canada has flung its doors wide to newcomers. Its complex task will now be to make sure they are truly socially included, represented at the decision-making table, and meaningfully engaging in shaping Canadian life. In celebration of differences, from French and English, Aboriginal to Indian, Chinese to African, Canada has from the 1970’s adopted an official policy of multiculturalism. It must now move beyond the concept of ethnic foods and colourful festivals, to ensure Canadians are living together, not just side by side. In the post 9-11 world, Canada faces the challenge of fighting terrorism while protecting its Islamic citizens. In the fast new world of globalization, Canada must compete with outlet malls and music videos to engage its citizens in liberal democracy that is hip, modern, and efficient.

This, then, is the Canadian experiment. In our age of mobile capital and wireless connection, when the world’s poverty-stricken and dispossessed come knocking on the barred doors of the wealthy West, Canada is a petri dish in which its guiding principles – however they are defined – bubble and brew. The idea of bridges, not barriers, of not only tolerance but acceptance and inclusion. Canada is on the verge of something big and powerful, the key to a new world paradigm, if only it can make it work. To make it work, Canada will have to surmount the obstacle of regional clash, confrontation and resentment, none of which was intentionally embedded in the national character; but all of which are there nonetheless, as much founding principles as the ideas Bob Rae and Barry Cooper noted. Getting past what Rae calls “regional splits” is no small task. But whatever they are, Canada’s ideas are not small, either.

Victor Hugo wrote: “there is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.” Canada is an idea whose time has come. The time for Canada is now.