Essay: Sir Wilfred Laurier

Sir Wilfred Laurier was a man who not only cherished all parts of his country, but a man who wanted more than anything else to unify it.  Nicknamed the “Great Conciliator”, Laurier approached everything with a fervent passion towards democracy.  “If there is anything to which I have given my political life,” he said in the House of Commons, “it is to try to promote unity, harmony, and amity between the diverse elements of this country.  I shall not deviate a line from the policy that I have traced out for myself.”  This was evident in his compromising efforts in the 1910 Naval Crisis and the Reciprocity Treaty attempted in 1911.
Up until 1911, Laurier had successfully maintained power by seeking compromise and a middle path.  It would be up to this election to see if he would get re-elected for Prime Minister of Canada.  He was running against Sir Robert Borden who was the Conservative candidate.  There were two issues that defined the campaign, the 1910 Naval Service Act and the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.  Laurier had heard two very distinct opinions about the Naval Crisis.  Imperialists wanted Canadians to establish a Canadian Navy to join the Imperial fleet, offering them both money and men.  The opposition, composed mainly of Liberals, wanted Canada to have no involvement whatsoever, in fear of losing control.  Fearing what would happen if he chose a side and upset the other, Laurier proposed that he would allow the Canadian Navy to be part of an Imperial Fleet, however, remain solely and firmly under Canada’s control. This compromise resulted in a loss of votes on both sides.
At this point, Laurier still wanted to believe that he could win the election, but then the Liberal Party suggested the re-enactment of the Reciprocity Treaty.  “The reciprocity agreement allowed for free trade of several natural products and reduced duty for a number of Canadian manufactured products entering the U.S. Laurier argued that the economy could only be improved by lowering tariffs and expanding markets. Initially Canadians embraced the deal. However, “the voices of opposition soon rang out.” (Chase, 2011) It was supposed to be a mutual benefit for both countries.  President William Taft along with the U.S. Congress had already agreed to their half of the treaty, but the Canadians refused.  They did not agree with Laurier’s views on the Naval Crisis and how the reciprocity might affect them, so they ousted the Liberals in the general election.  Robert Borden won the title of Prime Minister and Laurier suffered a bitter defeat.
Laurier may have lost the election, but he had changed Canada.  Under his leadership, Canada had grown with industrialization and the addition of 2 new provinces plus 2 million new inhabitants.  Laurier was “a clever and eloquent politician, a true legend in his own time,” (Bélanger & Marshall, 2012) that wanted the best for his country.  He made many attempts to compromise disputes between the French and English Canadians, in regard to the common good, which sometimes failed.  My question is, why are we so focused on thinking that attempts at compromise are something to avoid?  Lincoln said, “United we stand, divided we fall.”  I believe that a country must agree first with each other before making deals with other governments.  No one group can have everything their way; it is unrealistic and a path to war.  Without compromise, some integral parts of society would remain without a voice.
To conclude, I would have voted for Laurier in the 1911 election.  I believe that his 15 years in office was a good example of how he was a successful politician.  His views reflect mine, and I agree with his decisions to compromise.  It is debatable whether Laurier would be a good politician today, because compromising