Is Sir Wilfrid Laurier the next prime minister in line to have his reputation distorted by the crowd of well-meaning but misguided and misinformed historians? That would seem to be the case if the conclusion of a report commissioned by Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) is to be believed.
The so-called “Laurier Legacy Project” began in 2022 when the eponymous post-secondary institution in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, decided to conduct a “scholarly examination of the legacy and times” of Canada’s seventh prime minister (1896-1911). The academic investigation was launched in the wake of the murder of George Floyd in the U.S. and the suspected but unconfirmed discovery of unknown graves near the site of a former residential school in Kamloops, B.C. Institutions were facing pressure to publicly demonstrate they were taking immediate action against colonial legacies.
But was the school really committed to “conducting a scholarly examination” of Laurier? One that would weigh evidence, consider context, and arrive at a conclusion? Spoiler alert: of course not.
The university’s own website is a dead giveaway. A page titled “Who was Wilfrid Laurier?” begins with a single paragraph summarizing the former prime minister’s accomplishments, noting his ability to forge compromise, his participation in the construction of a second transcontinental railway, and the addition of two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The rest of the answer to the question “Who is Wilfrid Laurier?” is four negative paragraphs detailing his record on Indigenous relations, restrictive immigration policies, and his role in “actively support[ing] the expansion of British imperialism on the African continent through his involvement in the South African War.” The page offers no hint of balance or objectivity. Perhaps this is what we have come to expect when institutions engage in historical investigations: the judgement has already been made. It’s just the path to get there that remains.
While the Laurier Legacy Project began in 2022, it is relevant today because the university quietly published its conclusion last fall. The report, written by post-doctoral fellow Katelyn Arac, called for 17 recommendations, most of which relate to the university and its extensive DEI policies. These included creating scholarships for communities “marginalized by Laurier” as well as building “artistic displays…in equity-deserving communities.” But few of the recommendations had to do with the actual legacy of the former prime minister.
Much like the school’s website, however, the language of the report made its bias known. Dr. Arac admitted her focus was on policy decisions related to “immigration and relations with Indigenous peoples.” She went on: “These policies were designed with two objectives in mind—assimilation and/or erasure; in other words, the eradication of Indigenous peoples in the land we now call Canada through policies of settler-colonialism.”
The report is part of an unfortunate trend in history today: measuring historical figures by a process of selective evidence. Rather than look objectively at the legacy of Canada’s first francophone prime minister, the project set out to investigate only where Laurier could be seen to have failed. And there were failures. That is part of history and governing.
The Laurier government imposed policies at the turn of the 20th century that no government would implement today. It raised the head tax on Chinese immigration from $50 to $100 and then in 1903 raised it again to $500. His Department of Indian Affairs turned “into a machine for expropriating reserves, in whole or in part,” according to the 2023 book by Bill Waiser and Jennie Hansen, Cheated: The Laurier Liberals and the Theft of First Nations Reserve Land. It even revoked the franchise that had been given to some First Nations east of Manitoba in 1885 by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald.
While there is a record to criticize, the treatment of the Laurier government from the university named after him is reminiscent of what happened when the City of Toronto “investigated” the legacy of Henry Dundas or when Egerton Ryerson was cancelled to make way for Toronto Metropolitan University. Not all the facts were put on the table when drawing a conclusion.
Last month, revered historian Margaret MacMillan talked about this problem in her Hub Dialogues conversation with managing editor Harrison Lowman.
“If we’re doing the case for the prosecution, that’s not what history should be, nor [should it be the case] for the defence. We should be trying to see history in the round,” she said.
But that is not what happened at WLU. The project would have had significantly more credibility had it sought to present a balanced portrayal of Laurier’s legacy. To focus on select areas rather than “history in the round” is tantamount to historical malpractice. But the university through its researcher, Dr. Arac, staked its claim:
“To really understand the legacy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier,” the report stated, “we need a more in-depth examination and discussion about the exclusionary policies put in place by Laurier’s Liberal government and the policies he enforced and extended to further entrench settler-colonialism and restrict and assimilate Indigenous Peoples.”
No. To truly understand Laurier we need to see him and his government in full. We know he implemented policies that Canadians would not support today. That is called progress. But we also know that he was a leader who marched Canada along to a more confident nationhood, forging the country together through force of personality, policy, and thoughtfulness.
It is more than passing strange that the Kitchener-Waterloo school would choose to distance itself from one of our country’s greatest statesmen. No single man, woman, or government is perfect. Laurier, despite regrettable policies on issues that at the time were low on his list of priorities (they are today’s preoccupations, not his), still merits a place in the pantheon of Canadian leaders.
J.D.M. Stewart taught history for 30 years and is the author of Being Prime Minister. He now leads JDM Policy and Communications.
