Nation in progress

AN EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT FROM MICHAEL IGNATIEFF’S NEW BOOK

by Michael Ignatieff on Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:20pm - 9 Comments

Nation in progressMichael Ignatieff, 61, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, is also an eminent writer. His family memoir, The Russian Album, won the Governor General’s non-fiction award in 1987, and his 1993 novel Scar Tissue was shortlisted for the Booker prize. In 2000, Ignatieff and his wife, Zsuzsanna, retraced the journey his great-grandfather George Monro Grant undertook with Sandford Fleming in 1872. Grant and Fleming were mapping out the railway line that would link Canada from ocean to ocean. Ignatieff’s aim was to see the country through his ancestor’s optimistic eyes and trace how four generations of his prominent family—including his uncle George Parkin Grant, author of Lament for a Nation (1965)—had grappled with the idea of Canada. Grant’s despairing view of Canada’s fate, that the nation was destined to dissolve into the American orbit, has made his book an icon of Canadian nationalism. His nephew’s view of our future, as set out in True Patriot Love (Penguin), is far more confident.

The Canada of the Grants was a small-town nation of modest brick houses with white verandas, Protestant and Catholic churches on wide, leafy streets and the railway station within walking distance. George Parkin Grant’s Lament for a Nation was a cry of grief and rage at its passing. But that Canada is still there. Just go to Richmond, Que., or London, Ont., or Halifax, N.S. There are beautiful streets in each of these towns where this Canada still remains. But there is a palpable sense that time is passing this Canada by.

A new Canada has been built up around it—condominium towers, suburban tract housing, shopping plazas, 16-lane highways and the multicultural bazaar of downtown. This is now our home and native land.

ALSO AT MACLEANS.CA: A review of True Patriot Love

The Canada of the Grants may be slipping away, but their way of thinking about the country still offers enduring lessons. They believed in the country’s future with an enthusiasm that can still inspire. They thought the country was unfinished, that there was a great nation still to be built. They thought that it ought to have a purpose and a meaning. They were romantics.

But there is more to their inheritance than romance.

They also understood the deeper logic of the country.

My great-grandfather and his generation—John A. Macdonald, Sandford Fleming and Donald Smith—were nation builders. They understood that Canada was called into being by an act of choice and that it could only be sustained by continual acts of political faith and willpower.

They understood that the political ties that bound the country together ran east and west but the economic ties that kept Canada going ran north and south. The political task in Canada, these ancestors understood, was to build steel rails and bonds of citizenship from east to west to hold the country together in the face of the economic and geographic ties running north and south. If the east-west links of steel and citizenship were strong enough, then the country could survive and prosper. This remains the logic of Canada to this day. If we want a country to hand on to the next generation, we will have to strengthen those east-west linkages—of citizenship and common life together—to offset the north-south drift that fragments us.

Are the east-west linkages strong enough to sustain us today? We have had free trade with the United States for 20 years, yet we still do not have free trade in labour and capital among Canadian provinces. We still do not maintain a single economic space from ocean to ocean. We still maintain barriers that prevent Canadians from doing business with each other or from pulling up stakes and moving where the work is. Our forefathers would not understand why we lack the will to pull them down.

The ribbon of steel that used to tie us together is almost gone. Now we have the airlines and the bus companies and we pretend to have a national highway. In many places—northern Ontario or the interior of British Columbia—it dwindles down to two-lane blacktop, and the local residents will tell you these narrow sections make our national highway a death trap. We could do better. The Americans completed a four-lane national highway system 50 years ago. We are still awaiting ours.

The Europeans have used high-speed railways to tie Europe together. After 50 years of studies, we are still considering a high-speed rail link to connect Windsor to Quebec City, Vancouver to Calgary and Calgary to Edmonton. If we want to tie Canadians together, if we want to be nation builders, we would start on them right now. Here the 19th-century buccaneers—Fleming, Van Horne, Rogers, John A. himself—offer an example of the political grit and daredevil entrepreneurship that Canada has always called upon when it truly wants to achieve great things.

Those ancestors would look at our incredible panoply of resources in energy and say to us our work of nation building is not yet done.

Bookmark and Share
  • Anon

    “The Europeans have used high-speed railways to tie Europe together.”

    Is that right? So, I guess the Balkan conflict existed (and exists today) because the TGV does not run through Sarajevo.

    On the other hand, I guess the Americans are a nation divided because they do not have these high-speed rail links.

    The economics of rail networks are such that they only work in high-population density high-usage corridors. In a country like Canada, they’re more likely to become white elephants.

    • John.K

      Do you know of any studies on just how high-density, high usage a corridor must be to support a high speed rail system? I’ve been hearing this assertion for decades now, but I don’t know if anyone has done any studies.

      Obviously, if no high speed rail lines have been built in “low” density corridors, we can’t point to their subsequent failure. However low(er) speed rail in high density corridors has been a notable failure in several countries.

      • Anon

        According to this article in The Economist:

        “High-speed rail is most viable, reports the Government Accountability Office, when it runs through a crowded corridor for distances of 100-500 miles. Trains must compete with cars and planes for speed, reliability and cost-effectiveness.”

        The original GAO study can be downloaded at => http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf

        • John.K

          Thank you.

  • Critical Reasoning

    A valid question. Presumably, Finance Minister McCallum would help keep Iggy grounded in sober reality.

  • Critical Reasoning

    I will probably buy a copy of Iggy’s new book. Though I am still skeptical, I must say that I find him impressive in many ways. He is certainly the most impressive Liberal leader in the past quarter-century.

    • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

      I’m on the waiting list at the library- I was one of the people who were royally ticked off at Iggy’s acclimation, but having since read a large part of his body of work… he’s certainly a very smart man.

  • Jan

    Having read the review of Ignatieff’s book, one must say it is impressive, but it also left the uneasy impression that what the man writes is entirely different with reality. One would draw the conclusion that Ignatieff is a Conservative through and through. And that would be a bad fit in the Liberal Party of Canada.
    It also indicates that the Ignatieff vision is no different than the one espoused by PM Harper who is acting out his vision if only seen by the Liberal blindness of the general population aided and abetted by a Liberal symphatetic media for whatever reason.

  • p.v.

    Forget about the call for some grand public works projects for a minute and even the fact that the writer is the current leader of the Liberal party. He is asking some really important questions that every politician in this country should be able to answer:

    1) What is your national vision for Canada and how does it incorporate regionalism, immigration and our aboriginal, French and English past.

    2) How do we master globalization instead of getting swept away by it?

    3) How are we going to achieve energy independence without a national grid? Without a national strategy?

    4) Do we really believe in a Canada or do we simply take it for granted as a state of convenience where we defer to being a U.S. satellite state with allegiance to wherever your or your ancestors came from?

From Macleans