Now who speaks for Canada?
Not the greatest start to the new millennium, it seems….
It’s almost two years now since Pierre Trudeau died at the age of 80. It’s been slightly less than a year since Peter Gzowski passed away at age 67. Two men, scarcely of the same generation and certainly from different backgrounds, yet at the same time they each did so much to define the public face of modern Canada. Their departures were mourned deeply at the time. Now, however, sadness turns to alarm as it becomes ever more apparent that no one has stepped forward to assume the task of "speaking for Canada."
First, Trudeau. As prime minister from 1968-84 (minus Joe Clark’s pregnancy-length spell in office in 1979-80), he dragged Canada out of the 19th and into the 20th century. Official multiculturalism, re-patriation of the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were all Trudeau’s initiatives, and they have dramatically altered the way we see ourselves, if not how others see us. Beyond such singularities, however, lay his vision of Canada and Canadians. No "special status" or "distinct society" for Trudeau – instead, we were all equal and alike before the law, bound together by a single national identity that carried weight and dignity.
Second, Gzowski. As the youngest-ever editor of Maclean’s (even before Trudeau took office), as author of numerous books and, most famously, as host of various CBC morning radio shows (plus one disastrous foray into TV), Gzowski pursued and tried to articulate just what that elusive "single national identity" was for more than 40 years. Where Trudeau was, by nature and training, logical, formal and even cold in his defence of what it meant to be Canadian, Gzowski was gloriously sloppy, imprecise and deeply passionate. Each man on his own could be – and frequently was – massively exasperating and annoying. Looking back, however, it’s now clear (if it wasn’t at the time) that they complemented each other and together did manage to define the essence of what it was to be Canadian.
And now that they’re gone, what’s left? The current inhabitant of Canada’s top political job has never once, to my knowledge, offered a public definition of the nation he rules over or of the dreams of its inhabitants. Jean Chretien’s sabbatical memoir, Straight From the Heart, offers few clues (five bucks to anyone who can write in and prove otherwise). Since his election to prime minister in 1993, he’s largely satisfied himself by citing United Nations surveys that proclaim Canada to be "Number One" among the world’s nations, whatever that might mean. Not once has he said, in clear and unequivocal words, what it is that binds us together, distinguishes us from the other 200 or so countries around the world, or even what drives his seemingly endless desire to lead us wherever. Indeed, in the recent "Chretien-versus-Everyone" battles within the Liberal party, he all but suggested that our single unifying purpose was to return him to office – forever.
Gzowski quit his job as host of "Morningside" back in 1997, but like Trudeau, his shadow continued to loom over the institution he departed. For five years, CBC efforts to "replace" Gzowski were haunted by the inevitable comparisons his enduring popularity and manufactured sense of ease invited. His immediate successor, Michael Enright, is a fine journalist, but was transparently uncomfortable and impatient in discussing the finer points of Canadiana, such as pickling recipes or cold sore remedies. Current stand-in Sheilagh Rodgers, on the other hand, appears much more comfortable in this task, but it’s hard to dismiss the idea that she inherited the job largely due to her past associations with Gzowski. All very ghost-of-Hamlet. On top of which, while Gzowki’s bumbling style of questioning barely masked a furious desire to get at the truth, Rodgers’ trademark giggle is just plain annoying and hides little.
And so to John Manley. The current minister of finance and would-be prime minister recently caused a stir when he told Canadians to "grow up" and stop behaving like junior partners when it came to dealing with the U.S. Manley could have been more tactful in his choice of words, perhaps, but in the broader sense his criticism may be on to something. Perhaps, as a nation, we do look too much to others to think, speak and act on our behalf. Perhaps we should welcome the twin departure of Trudeau and Gzowski as the chance to draw a line under their undeniable impact and say, "Right, from now on we’ll take over." Perhaps we should grow up and stop letting the paternal Pierres and Peters of the world define who we are and what we want.
Perhaps. If so, then let’s start by telling all the Manleys, Martins and Chretiens currently serving the nation’s people to stop pissing around and get on with acting like a government. Summer’s over, fellas. |
