Liberal View of Canada: PM, GG speak

[August1991]

I'll take a leaf from Wells' blog and be unoriginal.

Theodore White said about Kennedy that his speeches avoided the hackneyed phrase and standard kitsch and this made Kennedy fresh and more potently, direct. Trudeau, too, rarely fell back on trite phrases and even Levesque had his own way of communicating.

So what to make of Martin's and Jean's speeches? To me, they are a strange derivative of the Trudeau-slash-Liberal view of Canada with some inadvertent nonsense thrown in. They are weird kitsch.

I'm still trying to decide whether this question matters. They're just speeches, after all. Maybe English-Canadians don't care anymore, expecting so little.

Martin said:

We are a young nation, a nation built by Aboriginal peoples, by pioneers and their descendents, by immigrants – people who have come here in search of safety, in pursuit of opportunity.

Wells noted this and I too am tired of reading that Canada is a "young" country. People have been peacefully living here for thousands of years - which is far more than you can say about almost any other place on this earth. By my count, France has had a dictatorship or two and several republics in the time we have had a democratic constitution. I don't believe Europeans even imagined Belgium when they first started their version of Canada. This matters because - as Mulroney frequently said - we have no excuse to make for our place at the world's table.

During a rich and varied working life – as a social activist, a writer and lecturer, a public broadcaster – she has often been the voice of those who must struggle to be heard.  She has been much more than an observer. She has defined herself as a woman of action, committed to social justice, to raising up those who need help most.

A social activist committed to social justice, that is how Martin describes our new GG. (He didn't use the word "progressive", a mistake I think.)

You represent Canada at its very best: a nation that is determined to assure equality of opportunity, a nation that embraces difference and is capable of growth and change.

I am always bothered by contradictory glib references to "equality" and "difference".

Look into the face of Canada, and you will see the world.

Now, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Is Canada a 1980s Michael Jackson video?

----

As to Jean's speech, she first made a supposed comparison between herself and Queen Elizabeth:

During the 22nd visit to Canada by Queen Elizabeth II last May, Her Majesty reminded us that we can “make a difference” for those who will come after us. “If we make an effort in our own lives and in our way of improving the world around us,” she said, “we will have every reason to be proud of what we have accomplished.” That observation is a perfect reflection of the woman who is deeply concerned about the fate of humanity, whom I had the honour of meeting at Balmoral. It is an expression of hope that parallels my own.

The comparison doesn't work. The Queen is all about making the world a better place through maintaining traditions. Jean is all about making the world a better place through "social activism".

Then there's this bizarre reference to Canada's "five" regions (with aboriginals now a virtual sixth and maybe French-Canadians outside Quebec a seventh.) Jean plays to 1970s stereotypes: Ontario is smart with money, Alberta is stupid with money, Quebec has a fluorishing culture, Newfies are a joke and BC has mountains.

I already have some sense of the wisdom of the First Nations; of the legendary hospitality and humour of people in the Atlantic provinces; of the flourishing culture and the generosity of spirit of Quebeckers, of the resilience of Francophones outside Quebec; of the impressive economic vitality of Ontario; of the sense of honour of residents of the West where, I’m told, it is still possible to conclude a business deal with a handshake; and of the spectacular geography of British Columbia.

More than four centuries ago that spirit of adventure drove women and men to cross the ocean and discover a new world elsewhere.

I suspect it was not adventure that motivated Jean's ancestors to cross that ocean to a new world. (She noted that fact earlier in her speech so maybe she was being sarcastic, or ironic.)

Every one of us rekindles in his own way the sense of belonging to this space that we all share, a space that contains the world. Never has it been so urgent to ensure the ethical and ecological integrity of this world for the generations to come.  It is a moral obligation.

What? Does the Liberal Party now want to remake the world? It has been singularly unable to remake Canada.

Other changes have come, changes that sometimes leave us perplexed. Redefining national boundaries and the violent upheavals that sometimes accompany it, the opening of markets, the speed and convergence of our systems of communication, mean that the map of the world is changing day by day, before our eyes, and that some countries may be wondering about where they fit in.

WTF? Is this a PMO message in weird code to the BQ?

----

I don't want to sound cranky - Paul Martin and Michaelle Jean after all are just two human beings going about life as best they can. And who am I to complain about people with possibly good intentions.

Except, we have been fed these good intentions endlessly for the past few decades and I wonder what they have accomplished. At this point, they seem to be meaningless rhetoric.

When Trudeau arrived in Ottawa, he had a well thought out scheme of a federal state including French-Canadians. Forty some-odd years later, we have this strange derivative version of that scheme that means "We are the world."

I am particularly irritated by the "we must work to take care of people" angle. Many, many missionaries went to Haiti to take care of people and the results have been disastrous. The Liberals spent billions on "wise" aboriginals with similar results. Sorry, appeals to my "generosity of spirit" just won't get me onside anymore.

To be intellectual, these two speeches show that the Trudeau-slash-Liberal view of Canada has developed some serious inconsistencies. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is using the broomstick. And Trudeau's not around to give a speech in a Montreal Chinese restaurant.

To be literary, these two speeches are Canadian Liberal kitsch.

And to be thoughtful, these two speeches demonstrate so much that is wrong with Canada. Rich Canadians smugly saying they care about the poor in the world when they honestly care more about themselves, and even when the Rich Canadians act with good intentions, they cause the poor more grief.

[Bakunin]

Maybe im old school but i think that a country must be built on a consensus to survive. What is a country if it isn't a consensus of people that agree to share their works and vision of the world ?

The problem with canada is that the consensus have never been strong, ive heard that michael jean said that its no more the case, well i don't know where she have been lately but the consensus have never been weaker. Now the west is also starting to get tired of the trudeau centralist vision of canada.

I don't know many country that where forced to agree against their will a constitution. One i know was the soviet union, i hope ppl at ottawa are brilliant enough to understand that one day or another canadian will have to sit down and find a strong consensus because if we don't, then the canadian society is in danger and may end split up like the soviet union.

[BHS]

Good post, August.

[Guest eureka]

Not cranky, August. Just confused, as always. And just like Bakunin.

[tml12]

Maybe im old school but i think that a country must be built on a consensus to survive. What is a country if it isn't a consensus of people that agree to share their works and vision of the world ?

The problem with canada is that the consensus have never been strong, ive heard that michael jean said that its no more the case, well i don't know where she have been lately but the consensus have never been weaker. Now the west is also starting to get tired of the trudeau centralist vision of canada.

I don't know many country that where forced to agree against their will a constitution. One i know was the soviet union, i hope ppl at ottawa are brilliant enough to understand that one day or another canadian will have to sit down and find a strong consensus because if we don't, then the canadian society is in danger and may end split up like the soviet union.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jean initially needs to do the following as Governor General is she wants to make a real attempt to end Canada's "two solitudes:"

She is currently being seen as a polarizing figure, even while she elicits "the two solitudes are over." 71% of Quebecers approve of Jean's nomination, but a clear majority also want to dump the position of the Governor General. 38% of the rest of Canada supports Jean's nomination, but a majority nonetheless support the position of the Governor General.

Thus, with the eye on Jean for expecially the first six months, I propose:

1) She tours English Canada, but ESPECIALLY western Canada, and makes it EXTREMELY clear with her ardent humility that she is pro-Canada.

2) Affirms support from her constituents in Quebec, even in separatist regions...reassuring moderate separatists that they have a stronger voice in Canada because "she is one of them" (hardcore separatists aren't going to give a shit anyway and probably would question her "frenchness" given she's Haitian.)

For the record, I think she will make a fine Governor General and will be a strong voice for Canadians of all nationalities.

[Canuck E Stan]

Affirms support from her constituents in Quebec,

You make it sound like she was an elected MP.

She would probably made an good one for the Liberals in Quebec, but then again the separatist issue would have kept her from being nominated by the Liberals.

[tml12]

Affirms support from her constituents in Quebec,

You make it sound like she was an elected MP.

She would probably made an good one for the Liberals in Quebec, but then again the separatist issue would have kept her from being nominated by the Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HAHAHA...well, let's put it this way. She better do whatever she does for the sake of her own position.

[August1991]

The time of the “two solitudes” that for too long described the character of this country is past.

A colleague today made a reference to that sentence and said, "She may mean well but it is completely false." She should have referred to "bridging three solitudes" instead, since I think that is what she meant. Well, the speech was badly written.

The narrow notion of “every person for himself” does not belong in today’s world, which demands that we learn to see beyond our wounds, beyond our differences for the good of all.

So, of course. Paul Martin is going to give away his big farmhouse in the Eastern Townships and Michaelle Jean is going to renounce her six-figure lifetime pension - to go beyond "every person for himself" for the good of all. Ils nous prennent pour les caves.

Not cranky, August. Just confused, as always. And just like Bakunin.

What's there to be confused about? Pierre Trudeau hijacked the Liberal Party dogma and now, without the maître around to interpret, the Liberals are struggling to get back to the "dogma" of Mackenzie King. It is a struggle that is embarrassing to watch - and in this millenia, destructive to this "young" country and its people.

You make it sound like she was an elected MP. She would probably made an good one for the Liberals in Quebec, but then again the separatist issue would have kept her from being nominated by the Liberals.

Mr. Stan, you make a good point. The GG is just another left-wing Liberal. She represents well the typical, urban NDP voter. She does not represent Canada.

1) She tours English Canada, but ESPECIALLY western Canada, and makes it EXTREMELY clear with her ardent humility that she is pro-Canada.

I don't even live in the West but I feel insulted by that idea. "We'll go down to Quebec, speak French to those people and there'll be no problem once they know us." tml, are you American?

2) Affirms support from her constituents in Quebec, even in separatist regions...reassuring moderate separatists that they have a stronger voice in Canada because "she is one of them" (hardcore separatists aren't going to give a shit anyway and probably would question her "frenchness" given she's Haitian.)

Of course. "Hard core" separatists are ignorant racists. "Moderate" separatists have an open mind.

Well, rather than be upset, I'll take that as an improvement, tml. eureka would have argued that all separatists are ignorant racists.

----

Since eureka said I was confused, or my post was confused, let me try to be clear.

Paul Martin and Jean Lapierre want to appear to lead (English) Canada in a new direction: to follow Trudeau's ideals, but combine them with an acceptance of Quebec's specificity in the broader multicultural world.

WTF?

Well, Martin and Lapierre are raw pragmatists. They are as ideological as a coffee cup.

[tml12]

August,

I don't disagree with your arguments regarding Martin and Lapierre, and I also believe that moderate separatists are well-intentioned, open-minded people. However, what would you like Jean to do? If she truly wants to bridge the "two solitudes" and not make that some kind of searing-in ceremony BS than she needs to (or at least Martin would love her to) attempt to attract moderate separatists and seem more open to the West.

[Guest eureka]

I most definitely would not say that all Separatists are ignorant racists, August. I would possibly say that all moderate separatists are ignorant: just as I have tried to show in the past with Bakunin's entrenched beliefs, Beliefs that are actually taught in Quebec and reinforced daily be its media and iis literary culture.

Perhaps you should remember that the notion of "two solitudes" refers to Quebec, not to Canada. One of those solitudes, using its superiority of numbers and the continuing threat of violence or secession, has submerged the other and has spread a dense intellectual fog over the province.

Your ststements about the GG would be pathetic except that I know you better now. The choice, in my opinion, was inspired. I really don't care that it will not really make very much difference to Quebec. You know my view on that: the view that eventually there will be showdown; that it will be a bloody one; and that it will likely put an end to the ideal of accommodation for French in Canada.

[tml12]

I don't even live in the West but I feel insulted by that idea. "We'll go down to Quebec, speak French to those people and there'll be no problem once they know us." tml, are you American?

One More Thing: No I am not but I think you missed my point. I am not saying that this is what she should do because this is my opinion. I am saying that it is clear Martin appointed Jean for two reasons:

1) To increase Liberal fortunes in Quebec.

2) To show that the Liberal Party is pro-immigrants and can live the "American dream" in Canada.

As Governor General, one of her main roles in unity. She needs to visit the West and defend our tradition of monarchy. I am not saying the West is so ignorant that they would buy into it just because of that (it was poorly worded, as I read it again I realized the ambiguity of what I was saying).

[August1991]

Perhaps you should remember that the notion of "two solitudes" refers to Quebec, not to Canada.

This term in the GG's speech has attracted attention, perhaps because of its ambiguous use. At this point in Canadian history, the term to me is hackneyed. For gawdsakes, Stacey Keach played in a movie with the same title.

It wasn't so before, and its first use is rather beautiful:

"Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other"

Rainer Maria Rilke

Hugh Maclennan then took the term and used it as a title in his 1945 novelTwo Solitudes. (Note the opening Amazon blurb: "Since its publication in 1945, Hugh MacLennan's novel Two Solitudes has been eclipsed by "Two Solitudes" the cliché, a political ready-made used to deflect Canada's aspirations to national unity.... " Cliché, exactly.)

Maclennan's novel is about the divisions in society caused by language and so much else. And yes, eureka, the story is primarily set in Quebec.

----

For the record, here is what the GG's speech indicates in French:

Il est fini le temps des “deux solitudes” qui a trop longtemps défini notre approche de ce pays.

It seems there are two interpretations of this.

One, Quebec separatists should get on board and stop quarreling. We should all become one big happy family. (The Toronto Star has apparently chosen this interpretation:

In blunt, forceful French, Jean insisted: "Il est fini le temps des `deux solitudes' qui a trop longtemps défini notre approche de ce pays." Students of French will note the power in those words. The roundabout English rendition — "The time of the `two solitudes' that for too long described the character of this country is past" — fails to convey the same urgency. Get over it, Jean seemed to be advising Quebec nationalists. Canada has changed, and for the better. Be part of it.

)

Two, she meant that modern Canada is much more complicated than a mere linguistic duality. Since she's from Haiti, I'll go with the second interpretation - although maybe the ambiguity was intentional.

----

BTW, Andrew Coyne loved the speech. The first sentence of his coumn was "I surrender." Indeed.

[Canuck E Stan]

Looks like our former GG left on a high note for her aides.

Clarkson's aides get green light to jump job queue

Like cabinet ministers, governor generals typically hire their own staff of advisors and aides, who are considered exempt from the employment rules governing the rest of the public service.

The priority hiring rule has already proved problematic in the public service, as a change in political regimes can bring dozens of exempt staff from cabinet offices seeking top jobs in government all at once.

In 2003-04, when Prime Minister Paul Martin took over from Jean Chretien and shuffled his cabinet, 90 political aides came seeking work in the public service, nearly as many sought employment when Kim Campbell's Progressive Conservative government fell.

Critics say the appointments can politicize the public service. A report for the federal Canadian Centre for Management Development in 2002 recommended scrapping the priority hiring rule altogether.

So even though they were hired outside the government and were exempt from employment rules governing the rest of the public service, they now get to jump the job queue for government jobs.Now that's job security.

Nice work if you can get it.

[August1991]

David Frum:

Just possibly you missed the swearing in of Canada's new governor general, the underwhelming Michaelle Jean. I wrote a number of columns for the National Post about the new vicereine, and those interested can see them in the 2005 archive at www.davidfrum.com. She was installed this morning. Her inaugural address was appropriately bland, for the most part. But those who wonder whether she has outgrown the left-wing milieu from which she came will find the answer in this paragraph of her installation speech:

"I know that our planet is fragile, and that natural disasters like the one that recently assailed our American neighbours, are a brutal reminder of that fragility. And we have seen so many lose their possessions. And as is universally the case in such circumstances, we have seen emerge entire segments of a population, among the most destitute, men and women who had nowhere to go. Dispossessed, with no points of reference, facing sheer devastation, even utter dismay. Such images we have seen before – from Darfur, from Haiti, from Niger. And this time they came from New Orleans, from the margins of an affluent society."

Except of course that the New Orleans evacuees will benefit from some $200,000 in federal spending per person and are not being hacked to death by enraged jihadists.

[newbie]

David Frum? Now there's a bastion of objectivity.

[tml12]

David Frum? Now there's a bastion of objectivity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assume we are talking about the David Frum who wrote speeches for Bush???

[Canuck E Stan]

Former GG upset at Chretien Government

Adrienne Clarkson is taking a shot at the federal government. The former governor general says she's upset the government didn't defend her when she was accused of lavish spending.

A trip Clarkson led two years ago through Russia, Finland, and Iceland cost taxpayers about $5 million.

Clarkson said she was asked to make the trip by the Foreign Affairs Department, and that Jean Chrétien's government should have come to her defence.

   

Clarkson said it's the government's duty to defend the office of the governor general.

When have the Federal Liberals ever admitted to anything that they have done?

[August1991]

This will be a shock. Michel Vastel strikes again.

Link

«Mon pays, c'est le monde»

«Des exilés, des métèques, des nomades, le monde n'est fait que de ça, dit-elle. Regardez-moi!»

«Je me suis sentie très esseulée. Jean-Daniel s'est senti largué. Il y a eu un moment où j'ai eu l'impression que certains avaient vraiment envie de nous bannir du Québec. Nous étions devenus des personnages à abattre.»

«Moi, je sais pourquoi j'ai dit oui à ce qui m'était proposé. Jean-Daniel sait pourquoi il a dit oui à ce qui nous attendait. Mon rapport au Québec, à la culture québécoise, est très net. Je suis québécoise, je suis francophone, j'ai toujours cru à l'importance que le Québec affirme ce qu'il est, son identité, sa culture.»

«il y a aussi mon pays plus vaste, ma citoyenneté plus vaste, qui est canadienne. Est-ce que je deviens moins québécoise parce que j'ai ce sentiment-là? Ça, c'est un truc qui doit être réglé au Québec, ce regard-là qu'ont certains, cette exclusivité de la québécitude dans le nationalisme.»

«Marchez dans la rue, partout, le Canada est un pays qui contient le monde, qui se réinvente au fur et à mesure de l'arrivée d'immigrants qui s'y installent, y mettent de leur couleur, de leur savoir-faire, de leur sensibilité, de leurs préoccupations.»

We are the world?

----

Trudeau is dead. Chretien is no longer PM. And, under the tutelage of Jean Lapierre, PM PM has chosen a new direction for Canada.

In practice though, if Martin succeeds in English-Canada with this, it is Stanfield's two Canadas, or Mulroney's and Bourassa's distinct society.

----

Last point. I am beginning to think that our new GG and her hubbie are flakes. I should have known. Foreigners with fine accents in R-C and ONF? Of course.

[August1991]

I'll add:

Alain Bernard Marchand's life took an exciting turn after he penned what he remembers as a simple message in August telling his writing staff at Canadian Heritage that Michaelle Jean was named as Canada's next governor general.

Edmonton Sun

The Department of Canadian Heritage used to be called the Secretary of State. Among other things, this bureaucracy is responsible for visits of the British Monarch to Canada and our GG.

The Department of Canadian Heritage has about 10 or so civil servants in its speech-writing division. Alain Bernard Marchand was their director. He is now at Rideau Hall because Michaelle Jean apparently liked the "inaugural" speech prepared for her.

Ordinary Canadians pay high taxes so that people like Michaelle Jean can have many people to prepare speeches for them.

[August1991]

"You want to know how I vote in '95?'' Ms. Jean begins, then pausing and looking away for a moment.

"In the voting booth, like every Quebecer, this is how I voted. As a citizen, with clear ideas about where she belongs and who she is and what she wants. That's all. And there was no way that I was going to just break that fundamental principle of secrecy of vote. It's something that's very personal to everyone. And it's a civic responsibility.''

Ottawa Citizen

Imagine, for a moment, the Head of State of any other country in the world answering such a question in such a manner. The Head of State cannot have secrets on such a question that touches the very heart of a country.

If she voted Yes, she should say so and then say that she has since changed her mind.

[Riverwind]

Imagine, for a moment, the Head of State of any other country in the world answering such a question in such a manner.  The Head of State cannot have secrets on such a question that touches the very heart of a country.

Other countries would have thrown Duceppe and the rest of the BQ in prison. What is your point?

[g_bambino]

Among other things, this bureaucracy is responsible for visits of the British Monarch to Canada and our GG.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the Canadian Monarch's travels on behalf of Canada. I've never heard of Can Her paying for Elizabeth II to travel on behalf of Britain.

Ordinary Canadians pay high taxes so that people like Michaelle Jean can have many people to prepare speeches for them.

Canadians pay taxes so our Governor General can have speech writers, yes. But that's certainly not the reason our taxes are high. Besides, if we had a president of the Federal Republic of Canada (which you so avidly promoted before), who do you think would pay for his speech writers? Or is it only a waste of tax money because the GG is not part of the republican system you espouse so rabidly?

[g_bambino]

Imagine, for a moment, the Head of State of any other country in the world answering such a question in such a manner.  The Head of State cannot have secrets on such a question that touches the very heart of a country.

If she voted Yes, she should say so and then say that she has since changed her mind.

She's meant to be apolitical. She now can't voice personal opinions, whether current or previous, on political matters like Quebec sovereignty.

What she thought in the past is now irrelevant anyway, and I'd suspect that her accepting the job of representative of the Queen at the federal level would be enough to convince people that her feelings on Canadian unity are quite obviously pro, not against.

[August1991]

She's meant to be apolitical.

As GG, she's apolitical with respect to political parties, but certainly not with respect to Quebec independance.

What she thought in the past is now irrelevant anyway, and I'd suspect that her accepting the job of representative of the Queen at the federal level would be enough to convince people that her feelings on Canadian unity are quite obviously pro, not against.

Is what she thought in the past irrelevant? And her current thoughts on Canada and Canadian unity are not irrelevant at all. Even the British Queen surely stands for something.

[bTW bambino, I thought you'd note that Jean is not technically our HoS but only her rep.]

Other countries would have thrown Duceppe and the rest of the BQ in prison. What is your point?

What kind of argument is that? Straw man? I say Tokyo is in Japan and you answer by saying Berlin is in Germany. So?

In any case, Duceppe is just another MP. (Jean is now GG.) And putting people like Duceppe in prison would not "solve" the "Quebec problem". It would just drive it underground.

----

My main point here is that I find English-Canadians remarkably blase about this GG, her past and her pronouncements.

Even if we take her at face-value, she's obviously a distinct-society type federalist, which Jean Lapierre is too, as well as Paul Martin - if we could ever corner him and get him to speak in concrete terms.

I just finished watching Point de rupture which a friend kindly recorded. I was not in Canada during the 1995 referendum but I watched the news via satellite and TV5.

From this documentary, I now understand the frustration in English Canada about being left out of a decision that concerns them. It is as if a daughter and mother are discussing a possible abortion while the father listens, and is told that "this decision is none of your business".

I wonder, do English-Canadians feel they cannot question this GG because to do so would somehow interfere in Quebec affairs?

[Riverwind]

In any case, Duceppe is just another MP.  (Jean is now GG.)  And putting people like Duceppe in prison would not "solve" the "Quebec problem".  It would just drive it underground.

I partially agree, however, I wonder whether Quebec sovereignty would have progressed as far as it had if it had not been ignored outside of Quebec for so many years. The separatists have indoctrinated nearly two generations of Quebequers in the mythology that it is not possible to be both a Quebequer and a Canadian. It is difficult to change this view now.

Even if we take her at face-value, she's obviously a distinct-society type federalist, which Jean Lapierre is too, as well as Paul Martin - if we could ever corner him and get him to speak in concrete terms.

Distinct society is old news and accepted as fact by the supreme court as well as by most English Canadians. Just like Quebec has a de facto veto over changes to a constitution it technically did not sign.

From this documentary, I now understand the frustration in English Canada about being left out of a decision that concerns them.  It is as if a daughter and mother are discussing a possible abortion while the father listens, and is told that "this decision is none of your business".

I think the biggest issue in the next referendum will be 'financing'. The PQ is trying to rig to rules to prevent the rest of Canada from participating in the debate and there are a lot of people in Canada who feel the PQ has no right to shut them out of a debate which will profoundly affect their lives.

I wonder, do English-Canadians feel they cannot question this GG because to do so would somehow interfere in Quebec affairs?

Separatists are masters at fabricating insult and injury. Remember how Quebequers reacted years a go when a small group of bigots stamped on a Quebec flag. Canadians know that going after the GG for 'soft-nationalist sentiments' would hand the separatists a big propaganda tool.