Review of Susan Dodd and Neil Robertson, eds., Hegel and Canada. Unity of Opposites? University of Toronto Press, 2018. 408 pages

James Scott Johnston

As is the case with most western, liberal-democratic nations, Canada’s metanarratives are far from simple. Indeed, the overarching stories Canadians tell themselves are frequently qualified by the insistence (often from historians and political commentators) that there is no single narrative from which to proceed. For example, there is no straightforward story regarding the history of confederation leading up to the ratification of the British North America Act in 1867—the Act at the core of what is now the Canada Act (1982). Instead, there is a range of political viewpoints as to whether this or that policy and activity was ultimately beneficial to what was to become Canada. These viewpoints often result in opposed positions on this or that political legislation and/or practice. This goes for present day legislation and practices as much as it does for the past. For example, there is a range of viewpoints on the question of the role of the government in suppressing indigenous protest and rebellion in the new nation. This is very often associated with present treatment of indigenous populations. Indeed, one can be a proud Canadian and condone neither the historical treatment nor the present-day treatment of indigenous populations. The recent publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s findings (2015), particularly regarding indigenous children in residential schools, has brought together those that envision a strong Canada, distinct from other western liberal-democratic nations, andcommitted to democracy, pluralism, and multiculturalism. One can identify as a Canadian nationalist and profoundly regret the choices madein the enactment of constitutional laws and provisions in the BNA Actevery bit as much as one can be a nationalist and support them. One can bea pluralist about immigrants and refugees in contemporary debates aboutthe role of the government in limiting entry to certain individuals andgroups over others while advising caution and reflection in the particularchoices made.