Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

"Those willing to follow"

by Paul Wells on Monday, July 19, 2010 12:46pm - 0 Comments

I’m happy to second Colby Cosh’s “even stronger than usual recommendation” of Andrew Coyne’s column this week, in which he dwells on David Johnston’s prolonged reference to Samuel de Champlain in his remarks upon being named Canada’s next governor general. Johnston made it clear he believes his lineage to extend back to Champlain. It’s all quite deliciously subversive, Andrew says. Worth a read.

But is it new? No. (Indeed, Andrew does write that “Harper is not the first to have taken this line.”) Adrienne Clarkson’s installation speech in 1998 used, as its central connecting thread, the notion that the ancestor of all Canada’s governors, general and otherwise, was Champlain:

I take on the responsibility of becoming Canada’s 26^th Governor General since Confederation, fully conscious of the deep roots of this office, stretching back, to the Governors of New France and to the first of them, Samuel de Champlain. In our beloved Georgian Bay, which lies on the great water route he took from the French River to Huronia, there is a cairn, placed on a small island, between a tennis court and Champlain’s Gas Bar & Marina, which commemorates his passage and quotes from his journal:

Samuel de Champlain
by canoe
1615

“As for me, I labour always to prepare a way for those willing to follow”.

Those willing to follow have embodied the institution of the Governor General in ways which have demonstrated the evolution and constant reaffirmation of this country.

In concluding lines that would have given Marci McDonald a spot of trouble if she had mentioned them in her recent book, Clarkson said:

I pray that with God’s help, we, as Canadians, will trace with our own lives, what Stan Rogers called “one warm line through this land, so wild and savage”.

And in the footsteps of Samuel de Champlain, I am willing to follow.

Anyone else? Sure. Roméo LeBlanc:

Today I accept the responsibility of being Her Majesty’s representative with humility and with pride. Pride as the first Atlantic Canadian, and the first Acadian, to be called to this office and humility as I trace its history back to the one who is seen as the first Governor of this land, Samuel de Champlain. It was Champlain who explored the waters of the Bay of Fundy and established there the Acadian presence in the new world. Isle St. Croix in 1603. And Port Royale in 1604. We Acadians have been around for quite some time!

From there the trail grows cold, I’m afraid. Michaëlle Jean made no mention of Champlain in her own installation, but if I had to bet, I’d say LeBlanc wasn’t the first. This can be an odd country. Not only is the date of its founding open to dispute, but the nature of the dispute isn’t even widely understood.

Tags: governors general

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/colbycosh colbycosh

Maybe this Stan Rogers thing is the real story.
CAPS

Paul, I am almost positive I heard Michaëlle Jean refer to Samuel de Champlain, if not in her official installation, then certainly at another speech or address she made soon after being named to the post.

Dig a little deeper if possible. I do recall having heard her say it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Not only is the date of its founding open to dispute…

…but a scholarly fringe believes that Canada was never founded at all. Professor Barry Cooper, for one—he of the non-venerable Calgary School—has said that Canada was never founded. Whether he speaks for the Calgary School as a whole (and its acolytes, such as our current prime minister) on this issue is difficult to say.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

In brief, what is his argument for never having been founded?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Cooper contends that Canada was not established according to a foundational ideal but was, rather, stitched together merely in order to satisfy a set of pragmatic (mainly fiscal) objectives.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Seriously? What bunk.

So by "never founded", he really means never founded on an ideal that he recognizes as such?

Surely the preservation of and strengthening of monarchical rule and the Empire is just as much a foundational ideal as the elimination of monarchical rule. Sounds to me like he hasn't read much of MacDonald and Cartier (and Brown and Mowat and Tupper and especially McGee, etc etc) were saying at the time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

…he really means never founded on an ideal that he recognizes as such?

Exactly. The only way to found a nation properly is to do it the Jefferson/Madison way (or the Robespierre/Danton way), and the only legitimate way to administer a federation is the American way, despite the slight unpleasantness of the Civil War’s internecine slaughter and the post-bellum institutionalization of Southern white supremacy for a century thereafter.

It’s an excellent example of the kind of tendentious analysis that characterizes the Calgary School and conditions their hallucinatory view of Canada.
matt

I haven't read Cooper's stuff. But I'd bet my BMW there's a bit of a strawman in your analysis here.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

I'd bet my BMW there's a bit of a strawman in your analysis here.

Gee. It must be nice to have a BMW to bet, not that I would want to win it—mileage sucks. ;)

I'm not sure where you see the potential straw man, but I'll try to find a relevant link to some Cooper within the next hour or so and let you judge for yourself.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Here's Dr. Cooper outlining his views on the nature of Canada's founding. There's even some video, if you care to see/hear the good doctor "in the flesh", so to speak.

Wascally Wabbit

Well – at least they are doing their homework before they take the job!
http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

I enjoyed Coyne's column but it was not what I was expecting when I first read article's title. I assumed Coyne was going to write about how Canada has become very French since Trudeau was in power and fundamentally changed the nature of the State.

Loraine Lamontagne

Being old enough to remember the pre-Trudeau era, I can assure you that Canada has become less French. The small communities that used to link French-Canadians have all but disappeared. However, the services of the government of Canada are provided in French, if you ask for them and are willing to wait a while, everywhere in Canada.

What I have seen as a fundamental change in Canada in my lifetime is massive immigration from non-European countries. The Toronto I had moved to in the seventies is not the Toronto I returned to live in in 1990.

Question?

Does anybody else find this whole Champlain "governing" thing offensive to the Aboriginal Nations that were here before Europeans?

My ancestors are Scots-Irish and it's pretty well-established that before "Canada" this land was governed by non-white people.

These Champlain comments make me cringe. They erase the reality that other sovreign nations were here first (and in some cases remain here).

This is a big punch in the mouth to ye olde "Truth and Reconcilation Commission." The Queen's representative, eh?

matt

Interesting point.

But, to chew on this a little, wouldn't it be more offensive to include those sovereign nations as part of the Champlain-through-to-Johnston narrative, suggesting that their sovereignty has been subsumed (despite the fact that, strictly speaking legally, that's the case), and was subsumed at the point of colonial contact?

To phrase the point in the positive, isn't the better view of Canada a vision of a federation, of unifying people (arguably beginning with Champlain), and a federation that sovereign aboriginal nations formally joined, with legal treaties and following serious deliberation?