Canada's Beauty in Stillness (Part 1): These Very Walls which Shelter Us Now (Canada Day 2022)

Peace, order, and good government.

This may not be a slogan you've heard before, but it's one that is, surprisingly, quite significant to Canadian history. Versions of it have appeared in Acts of Parliament affecting Canada's administration as a British colony since the mid-18th century and its current iteration was included in the British North America Act of 1867 (a.k.a. the Constitution Act, 1867) that established Canada as an independent nation - the very point in history that we now celebrate, understandably, as Canada Day.

Now, in its original context, "Peace, order and good government" was an expression of political authority. It was initially a formal concession from the British government allowing colonial governments to enact their own laws, then became an authorization for the federal government to do so for the newly-independent nation as a whole. However, when I hear that statement, federal parliamentary politics...really isn't what comes to mind.

Instead, I can't help noticing that there's a certain ring to the phrase, not all that different from other triple-slogans that play major roles in other countries' national consciousnesses. Think of, for example, the United States' "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; or France's "Liberté, égalitié, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity); or Germany's "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" (unity and justice and freedom).

Rule of three aside - because, yes, that actually is a thing - I think that the reason why "Peace, order and good government" jumps out at me, particularly around times like Canada Day, is that, well, it really does feel like it defines Canadian identity, doesn't it. Especially considering some of my recent posts commenting on images like the "humble Canadian". It makes me think of a country - and a people - that prefers cooperation and compromise over continuous self-assertion; and one that prefers stability (namely, one generated by peace and goodwill) over the inevitable conflict that arises when one prioritizes individual freedoms over the common good. 

And while I am not so naïve as to think that any of Canada's "Peace, order and good government" was ever entirely true to its name - it was, after all, accomplished via more than its fair share of historical and present wrongs and repression (some of which I will discuss below) - I also think that this is at least partially why, as an introvert who desires to be peace-loving, humble and law-abiding myself, Canada has not only been the place I've lived almost my entirely life, but also one of my favourite places in which to travel.

Last year, for Canada Day, I focused on our official motto (A mari usque ad mare) and its modern-day iteration, "From coast to coast to coast", to share with you the immense diversity of Canada's Indigenous peoples during this time of Truth and Reconciliation. This year, in combination with my ongoing "Beauty in Stillness" series, I'm looking at places I've been to across Canada as a whole, highlighting running themes and patterns that remind me of the ways "Peace, order and good government" has influenced our culture.

This first post will be about what is probably the one type of historical site I've seen and visited the most all these years: forts. 

Model of Champlain's Habitation de Québec as it appeared in the 1620s
(c) Charny; found via Wikimedia Commons

Historically, forts were among Canada's earliest settlements. European colonizers, upon first arriving to an unfamiliar area, would build a small base camp: a collection of essential buildings sheltered by natural features, a wooden palisade or both. This was, for instance, what the earliest version of what is now Québec City looked like: while the model above shows a later version, it is essentially just a more permanent counterpart the first settlement Samuel de Champlain built n 1608, at the site of what is now the Place Royale. Some of these shelters remained small; some grew to the point of being rebuilt as larger, more elaborate stone forts; and some, like Québec, became entire cities, sheltered - in part or in whole - by massive fortifications. 

Thus, whether they were for military or trade use, forts were ubiquitous forerunners of expanding settlement during Canada's colonial history and a number of them have survived to this day, under the care of the government or smaller historical societies and associations. I will focus on a few notable ones that I've visited in my own home province of Ontario - both alone (for once!) and with family - over the years and my experiences with each. But then, after all of this, I want to take a moment to consider the purpose behind all of these forts and fortifications and what, if anything, they say about Canadian culture and identity.

Fort York, Ontario: What are We Fighting For?

For the most part, outside of actual work/volunteering purposes, if I go somewhere, it's with family. In these cases, I usually go in with a desire to travel and see the sights like any tourist, but will also keep my own eyes and ears open for anything that I could learn of the history and culture there. Travel, for me, has always had something to do with education - and I don't think that will change anytime soon.

Which is why my visit to Toronto's own Fort York, back in June 2014, is unique: because, for once, I went there alone. At the time, the site was opened to the public for free as the location for the Indigenous Arts Festival held annually to commemorate National Indigenous People's Day (then called National Aboriginal Day - the name was changed, for good reason, in 2017). I don't remember how I got wind of this at the time. All I know is that, as someone who was already aware of Fort York's history in the context of the War of 1812, I had wanted to visit the fort for a while, but the opportunity had never presented itself. So, that weekend, I decided to finally go for it: heading downtown on my own as I was the only one in the family free that day.

Just to clarify: I did actually choose to go on that specific day because I wanted to visit the Indigenous Arts Festival, so no, I wasn't piggybacking off our Indigenous Peoples to satisfy my own curiosity. However, I did time my visit to be a few hours before any of the actual scheduled events, so I had plenty of time to explore the site on my own.

As a fort near the original shore of Lake Ontario - and now in the middle of downtown Toronto - Fort York is not that large. I also suspect that at least some of its 1815 buildings - built after the first Fort was destroyed during the War of 1812 - have not survived the test of time. 

However, enough is intact for visitors to be able to see at least representations of all the major infrastructure that would have been present even in a small garrison-sized fort of the period: blockhouses (i.e. barracks) for the soldiers with separate buildings for senior and junior officers, respectively; storehouses and magazines; earthwork and timber defensive walls; et cetera. And, as is usual for historical sites in Canada, some buildings' interiors have been reconstructed to look as they might have during the period, while others have been converted into spaces for museum exhibits. 

For me, one of the most interesting things about visiting - and photographing - Fort York was the sheer contrast between the older buildings and fortifications (which, by the way, looked quite modest compared to other places I'd visited) with the ultra-modern skyscrapers and condominiums in the background. While I didn't really notice it at the time, in hindsight, there is this sense that the fort feels oddly strange and out of place - and for someone who visits historical sites in hopes of being able to access a world different from my own, that does pull me out from the immersion a bit.

(However, I will admit that the resulting photographs wound up looking really interesting and cool - such as the header image for this post.)

Given that, then, I do have to commend whoever among the curators or docents decided to set up the recreated rooms within the officers' quarters, at least, to actually look lived-in. Small details like a uniform jacket draped over a chair by the bed (perhaps after changing into civilian dress, as officers were wont to do); a small collection of cartoon prints displayed on a bedroom wall; or a card game in progress in the mess's anteroom made it feel like everyone had just stepped out and I was peering unnoticed into their reality. Just for a moment.

(Note the bear pelt on the wall. "Decorations" like this were not
uncommon in 19th century artwork depicting British
officers' daily lives in Canada, so it's interesting to see it re-enacted here as well.)

As for the museum exhibit space, there seem to be two key running themes: the first was daily life in the 19th century British/Canadian military in general; and the second, because my visit was in the midst of the 2012-2014 bicentennial, was the War of 1812.

Realistically, there is no way for me to do the War of 1812 any real justice in a blog post where it isn't the main focus. However, what matters for our purposes here is what it tells us about Canada's position in the broader social, cultural and political forces at that time - and a possible root for "Peace, order, and good government" as a counterpoint to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". 

See, at its heart, the War of 1812 was a conflict between the United States and Britain, sparked by continuing tensions after the American Revolutionary War that came to a head on account of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe. Long story short, the British government, despite granting independence to its former colonies, persisted in dictating the United States' international policy: whom it could trade with; its involvement in Britain's wars against France; et cetera. Thus, from an American perspective, the War of 1812 was a fight for liberty: a second war of independence geared to force Britain into negotiations that would allow it the greater international autonomy that was rightfully theirs. 

However, Canada - and Canadians - saw things differently. The crux here lies in the specific strategy the Americans adopted: since Britain itself was preoccupied by fighting in Europe (i.e. the Napoleonic Wars), a catalyst was needed in order to draw its attention back to North America...and the best way to do that was to invade the closest British colonies: Upper and Lower Canada, corresponding to modern-day southern Ontario and Québec, respectively. There was even a more radical set who believed that this would be a good opportunity to conquer or annex Canada altogether, but - contrary to how I was taught about this growing up at school - this was only a fringe minority. 

Still, when it comes to history, "It's not what really happened that matters; it's what people think happened", and it certainly didn't take long for rumours of a potential American conquest to spread at the time. Thus, when the invasion actually was launched, it was seen as an act of unprovoked aggression by many Canadian colonists who simply wished to remain neutral in a broader diplomatic struggle that had little to do with them. 

Hence, from a Canadian perspective, this was a fight for survival, where the ultimate goal was simply to drive out the invaders and restore peace to our lands. A peace that, just as the Americans thought with their liberty, we believed was rightfully ours and should never have been messed with.

Fort Henry and Fort Wellington, Ontario: Defence from Enemies Without - and Within

These are two 19th century forts that I visited with family on two separate occasions - in 2013 and 2015, respectively - but I have decided to group them together for a few reasons. The first is that, quite simply, these were the most "intact" military forts I've visited, at least by appearance. Unlike Fort York, which appears more like an open field in the middle of downtown Toronto some two hundred years after its heyday, Forts Henry and Wellington are both clearly distinct sites. The former, in fact, is arguably one of the largest forts I've visited in Canada - not counting, of course, the fortifications of Québec as they technically encompass the entire historical city centre.

Images from Fort Henry (top) and For Wellington (bottom)

showing the stone and earthwork ramparts, respectively

Secondly, my visits to both of these forts were definitely more interactive than my visit to Fort York, courtesy of some of the amazing staff and volunteer re-enactors there. Now, this is not to say that Fort York didn't have any present - because yes, they did - or that said staff were standoffish - because no, they weren't - but I guess I was simply...shyer then? It's hard to say in hindsight, exactly, but I do remember that since I literally only came across the Fort York re-enactors whilst they walked past me on drill (see image above), I guess it was just simply not the right time for conversation. (Instead, that happened with one of the Indigenous representatives there that day - and it was from that interaction that I first learned the exact nation whose land Toronto was built upon: the Mississaugas of the Credit.)

However, at both Forts Henry and Wellington, my family and I managed to have some great moments with the staff - but for seemingly opposite reasons. In the case of Fort Henry, it's because the site is one of the key tourist attractions in Kingston, where it is currently located. Thus, there was a host of different activities and demonstrations for visitors, and the re-enactment staff in particular really had things down to a well-practiced routine, whether teaching drill to children (with toy guns, of course) or demonstrating the actual drilling and firing procedures themselves. I got a chance to watch both and, with the latter, although I cannot remember exactly how it came about, one of the "soldiers" allowed me to hold his gun for a moment - not actually shouldering it (as that would be a liability for safety) but just to get a feel for its weight in my hands.

As for Fort Wellington, my particularly enjoyable experience came from the fact that it was so quiet during my family's visit. In hindsight, I don't remember if it literally was just us or if there were just few enough others that it managed to feel that way, but more often than not, we had whichever room or building we were in entirely to ourselves and our interactions with the staff seemed almost tailor-made for us. For instance, there was one particular docent whom we ran into several times while we were there, and each time, he had some very interesting tidbits to share with us. The first time we met him, we had just arrived and discovered that the main entrance to the fort was closed. But then, just when we were wondering what to do next, the docent helped us out by opening a hidden smaller door cut into the massive wooden gate - which, in hindsight, must have been how soldiers from the garrison got in and out themselves. Later, as we were in the Visitors Centre on our way out, the same docent appeared again: this time in full kit as a mid-19th century soldier from the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment.

In addition to this, I wish to discuss these two forts together because there are some interesting parallels in their histories that, I think, can lead us to question just what exactly a fort's purpose is - or, to be frank, what it ought to be. 

As I mentioned at the beginning of this segment, both Forts Henry and Wellington were constructed in the 19th century. Like Fort York, they were originally meant to be part of the broader military infrastructure of Upper Canada (what is now southern Ontario) against possible American invasions. From the War of 1812, we know that this was an actual legitimate threat - intentions aside, an invasion is still an invasion and should be dealt with as such - but ultimately, of these three, only York was seriously attacked. Still, Forts Henry and Wellington still had their defensive purposes, and both were rebuilt (and significantly strengthened) in the 1830s.

And for Fort Wellington, at least, this intervention came just in time - just...not quite as planned.

I will confess that my knowledge of the events of the Upper and Lower Canada Rebellions during 1837 and 1838 is fuzzy. But suffice it to say that while the initial Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837, an armed rebellion against a small elite oligarchy (the Family Compact) that ran Upper Canada's government, was rather disorganized and short-lived, the subsequent Patriot War of 1838 was a lot tougher to handle. This was spurred by those survivors from the Rebellion who had fled down to the United States and found sympathy from a number of Americans (but not, I should make clear, the US government itself). This new joint force, the Hunters' Lodge, attempted to invade Upper Canada in attempts to "liberate" it, but was defeated by a joint force of British and American soldiers and Canadian militia during an attempt to attack Fort Wellington.

Thus, Fort Wellington's one time seeing action came to an end. The site remained garrisoned by first British military and then Canadian militia units until the 1920s - more because of the supplies it contained than because of any possible threat - and also served as a mustering point for Canadian soldiers during World War One. However, its key historical significance - and the reason for its preservation as a historic site - is due to the defensive role it served in 1838: not so much from a threat from without, but one from within Canada's own population.

As for Fort Henry, it, too, served a similar defensive purpose - but in a way that, in my opinion at least, is far darker.

Looking at the photographs, I think it's clear that Fort Henry is, well, far more fortified than either Forts York or Wellington, what with its massive stone ramparts (as opposed to earthwork). And while this was initially because Kingston, where it is located, was seen as a strategically valuable position as the meeting point of several major waterways - the Cataraqui River, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River - it also meant that, after the War of 1812, Fort Henry quickly took on a secondary purpose: as a prison.

This, by the way, is where the the two forts' histories overlap as members of the Hunters' Lodge captured near For Wellington were held in Fort Henry while waiting to stand trial for their actions. However, it's a later point in Fort Henry's history that I wish to focus on: its use as a POW/internment camp during WWI and WWII.

Now, we do need to make a distinction here as "internment camps" and "POW camps" are two different things - and Fort Henry gets messy since, from what I've gathered thus far, it appears to have served both functions simultaneously. However, generally speaking, a POW camp was where captured enemy soldiers (i.e. prisoners of war) were kept to prevent them from rejoining the fight; and an internment camp was where civilians from Canada's own population, who were deemed threats to national security, were kept to prevent them from acting as enemy spies and saboteurs. While the former was definitely understandable under a wartime situation - and fair treatment of POWs is required under international military and humanitarian law - the latter was a lot more problematic, particularly given the times during which it took place.

See, the whole concept of internment camps raises a rather thorny question. Since known spies and saboteurs would simply be prosecuted under criminal law anyway, the internment camp system is purely a preventative measure. But then, how does a government decide that someone could potentially be a threat to national security...when they haven't actually done anything yet? I suppose, nowadays, we would go by their comments and discourse (e.g. social media posts), but that wasn't a possibility during the World Wars - nor, to be frank, would actual spies be careless enough to let themselves slip if they were working for the enemy. Instead, the Canadian government chose preemptively to cast as wide a net as possible - by considering all Canadian residents of particular ethnic groups (and even some wartime refugees from Europe) to be "enemy aliens", regardless of their actual individual citizenship status or political views.

Immigrants from a variety of different ethnic groups were affected by this, and the specific rules (e.g. interning only men, only foreign-born residents, entire families, etc.) varied significantly by context. However, in the case of Fort Henry, it appears that, while it was used mostly as a POW camp during WWII, it primarily served as an internment camp during WWI. And among the detainees, many were "Galicians", "Ruthenians" or "Bukovinians" - or, to use the modern term for all of these groups, Ukrainians. 

(And, yes, I recognize the irony here given where we are now 100+ years later.) 

Why Ukrainians? Because the western part of what is now Ukraine was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during WWI, many immigrants from the region were documented as having Austro-Hungarian citizenship - never mind that at least some of them had historically left their places of origin during the late 19th century specifically to avoid conscription into the Austrian army. Therefore, when war broke out, they were ironically suspected of - and detained for - being disloyal to their chosen country they were loyal to and maintaining allegiance towards the "enemy" they were trying to escape in the first place.

And herein lies the crux of the problem. See, just as Fort York, in its ties to the War of 1812, speak to me of Canadians' desire for peace, I can see in the histories of Forts Henry and Wellington the desire for order and good government. After all, that is, from a government's perspective, what allegiance - whether to empire, colony, or country - is about: demanding loyalty from citizens in order to maintain rule of law and political stability. However, where Fort Wellington's story offers an instance where fighting to preserve said allegiance and order was successful - as we are referring to an official resistance to a foreign-backed insurrection - Fort Henry's shows us just how much this drive could go disastrously wrong when it ends up discriminating against and penalizing Canadians not for what they've done, but for who they are.

Protect Us from...What, Exactly?: The Canadian Thirst for Stability and the "Garrison Mentality"

Part of the Fortifications of Québec
(While I have not discussed them in detail in this blog post,
it is impossible to think about fortifications in Canada
and not have them come to mind.)

Right now, I have only scratched the surface of the forts and fortified spaces I've visited, and already, I think we can see that they served a variety of purposes. Military forts, of course, would have been designed to house a garrison of soldiers, along with their arms and supplies, but they could serve other, more nefarious, purposes as well. And although I have not discussed non-military forts in this post, even trade posts and Christian missions were fortified to at least some extent, courtesy of their often-remote locations. 

The reason behind all of this is quite simple, really: at its heart, a fort is meant to be shelter - a place where those living within or close to it could seek protection from danger outside. And while there is no denying that there were actual threats - and more than a few imagined ones - I also can't help noticing that, in some ways, this continual desire to seek shelter behind closed doors and solid walls was a state of mind, running like an undercurrent through Canada's history and cultural values.

This is an idea I first came across as a student, when I read Northrop Frye's "Conclusion to Literary History of Canada". Here, he argued that this mindset was a key driving force - albeit a subtle one - of Canada's unique national identity:

"Small and isolated communities surrounded with a physical or psychological "frontier," separated from one another and from their American and British cultural sources: communities that provide all that their members have in the way of distinctively human values, and that are compelled to feel a great respect for the law and order that holds them together, yet confronted with a huge, unthinking, menacing, and formidable setting - such communities are bound to develop what we may provisionally call a garrison mentality." (emphasis mine)

Now, to be fair, Frye's point here is not without its faults - not least of which being that his article's perspective of Canadian culture is a distinctly colonialist - specifically, British colonialist - one. For instance, highlighting "America and Britain" as the sources for Canadian culture conspicuously leaves out the massive influence of both Indigenous and French cultures. Not only that, but, as it was written during the 1960s, the analysis as a whole predates both Canadian multiculturalist policy and the current movement towards Truth and Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples by a long shot. 

In other words, the "garrison mentality" as initially conceptualized - that idea that Canadians have tended to hole themselves up in tight-knit and relatively homogenous communities against a hostile "Other" that has included both Indigenous peoples and, as seen with Fort Henry, racialized immigrants - doesn't really work for our 21st century context anymore.

However, be that as it may, I do think there is still some merit to the "garrison mentality" and the use of forts and fortifications as a metaphor for Canada. It's just that, for me, it's not about who Canadians might have sought protection from - being from a group that was one such "Other" historically (and, perhaps, not so historically), that's not really a thought I want to dwell upon for long. It's not even about the way that, to look at it more positively, this has led to the many small pockets of hyphenated Canadian identities - little mini cultural "garrisons", if you will - that have made our multiculturalism possible.

Instead, what stands out to me is the ways in which the "garrison mentality" has led to the creation of Canada as...well, if not a nation of introverts, then an introverted nation. One that is reserved, guarded, and more interested in maintaining the stability promised by "Peace, order and good government" than pursuing the potential rewards of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - lest it fall victim to the associated risks.

In his article, Frye attributes these traits to Canada's history:

"It has often been remarked that Canadian expansion westward had a tight grip of authority over it that American expansion, with its outlaws and sheriffs and vigilantes and the like, did not have in the same measure. America moved from the back country to the wild west; Canada moved from a New France held down by British military occupation to a northwest patrolled by mounted police."

Personally, I think there's even more to it than that. From what's been discussed both in this and previous posts, it seems that for most of Canada's colonial and national history, it's been, through forces of empire or alliance, wedged between two major superpowers: France and Britain; Britain and the United States; the United States and the Soviet Union; the United States and China. In this situation, we have, in some way, shape or form, constantly walked a tightrope between proving our loyalty to whichever empire or alliance partner is in charge and not being so overt about it as to make ourselves targets of said empire or partner's rival. 

And this does not even include all the myriad ways in which Canada, as first a mish-mashed orphan child of a colony (for what else are we to call the French colony that was not so much taken by force, but cast aside as a financial burden?) and then an equally mish-mashed nation, could fall apart entirely on its own. French vs. English; Catholic vs. Protestant; East vs. West; province vs. province; long-time settlers vs. new immigrants...the possible ethnic, cultural and political fractures are endless. 

It is little wonder then, that in the name of "Peace, order, and good government", Canada's first decades as a nation were marked by an attempt to guard itself from anything - and anyone - they saw as a potential threat from the "outside"...to the detriment of their own citizens. 

And now, now that we know just how misguided that was, it is little wonder that our focus has swung as far the other way as possible: becoming a country that has tried so hard to lay claim to the "Peace, order and good government" that comes from inclusion, acceptance and harmony that we have, until recently, been willfully blind to how much farther we still need to go. Or, alternately, one that tries so hard to become welcoming and accommodating that the motto itself fractures: gaining "peace" at the price of "order" and "good government".

Hopefully, someday, we will be able to find that perfect balanced point in the middle. But until then, I will say this much at least:

Part of the Fortifications of Québec

Honestly, all things considered, I don't mind the "garrison" all that much. After all, I, too, prefer caution over impulse: taking things slowly, one at a time, over pushing boundaries and chasing distant horizons on the open frontier. 

And, honestly, I don't think it's just me. After all, there is even argument now that the stringency of some of Canada's public health measures and social distancing restrictions led to a more positive outcome during this COVID-19 pandemic compared to several other developed countries. In fact, "cautious" was probably one of the most common words I heard used when describing our pandemic response, particularly in regards to travel/border restrictions...and in contrast with the United States, with all that that implies.

As for "Peace, order, and good government" itself...that's harder to say. After all, I cannot deny that while some Canadians have come to trust government institutions more over the course of this pandemic, that has not been the case for everyone. Nor can I deny the fact that, for a few short weeks this past winter, a desire for freedom - for liberty - shook our nation's government to the core and its attempt to restore peace and order has not been particularly well-received by the public. 

As a nation, we do not yet know what the long-term implications of last February's protests will be. However, I, for one, will always stand by those three words: "Peace, order and good government". Or, more specifically, I will stand by the interpretation of the motto I have come to adopt over the years: a "peace" and "order" that comes from a "good government". One that, as I've discussed in a previous post, has learned the lesson that "a government's honour is only as good as its ability to protect its people." 

Forts and garrisons - literal or figurative - cannot and will not offer much in terms of liberty. With their walls and their gates, they're simply not designed that way. But within the confines of those walls, those gates...there is order. And where there is order, there is peace. And, somewhere deep inside, I hope there will be life and happiness as well - just of a softer variety.

Recreation of soldiers' barracks at Fort Wellington
(Here, soldiers and their families - those who had wives and children,
anyway - lived, worked and ate together: safe in the knowledge that
they were within the garrison's walls.)

What's Next?

Good question. Normally, with a Beauty in Stillness series, I already have some sense of how many installments I'll include and what each one will be about. Right now, though, I do not have a long-term plan, so there's no guarantee that this will be a three-part series like the ones on Seoul and Québec have been.

However, what I do know is what will be next. Where this post, I think, looked at a very rigid - and, yes, military - interpretation of "Peace, order and good government", the next one will look at it through a more Romantic, pastoral lens by visiting Prince Edward Island: the land of Anne of Green Gables and the rural idyll so many people associate with it.

That's right: we're talking about cottagecore. Or mori kei. Or whatever else you wish to call it.

So that will be next time - but until then, à bientôt!

The above blog post is part of the ongoing series, Beauty in Stillness, which analyzes and reflects on quieter locations and moments from my travels. It is also part of the ongoing series, Memorializing History, which focuses on the different ways history is remembered and discussed in the present day. To access a master list of this and other series, click here.

Image Credits

All images, unless otherwise indicated in captions, (c) Kitty Na

Further Reading and References

Websites for the Forts Featured:

Fort York (own site)

Fort Henry (site run by Parks Canada)

Fort Wellington (site run by Parks Canada)

Other resources:

"Canada’s response to the initial 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison with peer countries" by Fahad Razak, Saeha Shin, C. David Naylor and Arthur S. Slutsky for CMAJ (full text)

"Conclusion to Literary History of Canada" by Northrop Frye (full text)

"Peace, Order and Good Government" by Gerald L. Gall and A. Anne McLellan for The Canadian Encyclopedia (This page mostly discusses the history and significance of the phrase in constitutional law, rather than in popular interpretation, but it's good background context.)

"Thematic Guides - Internment Camps in Canada during the First and Second World Wars" by Library and Archives Canada