Ted Barris

I remember as if it were yesterday.

It was coming down to the wire in the Quebec referendum that fall of 1995. “Oui” supporters campaigned for the latest version of Quebec separation, called “sovereignty association.” Meanwhile, “Non” supporters seemed equally strong, preferring to keep Quebec within Confederation.

Suddenly that autumn, however, it seemed the “Oui” forces had pulled into the lead. A pro-Canada rally (four days before the referendum on Oct. 30) invited citizens from across the country to come to Montreal’s Place du Canada to show their support. Our younger daughter asked if we would drive her to Montreal to be part of the rally.

“I want to be part of history,” Whitney told us.

We went. We rallied. We cheered for unity. Fortunately for Canada, the “Non” side won in a squeaker with just 50.6 per cent of the Quebec vote. For a few days that fall of 1995, at least, it seemed that the future governance of Canada had become our national passion. Then, after the vote, we all went home and promptly let our interest in Canadian politics slip into its usual condition – a state of hibernation and apathy.

Well, it appears that’s about to change.

For whatever reason, this past week, I’ve fielded a number of calls about the so-called crisis in Parliament. People seem captivated by reaction to the Conservatives “economic statement” and the potential for an Opposition group of Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs to throw out the sitting government in a non-confidence vote and form a coalition government as early as next Monday. People have called, e-mailed and approached me with concern in their voices.

“What’s going to happen up there?” they ask. One man even called to ask me if there was a public gallery in the House of Commons; he’s so angry with federal politicians, he plans to drive to Ottawa when the Conservatives’ economic package comes to a vote, to see what happens first-hand.

Most agree the whole mess seems unnecessary. Meeting with Opposition leaders after the Oct. 14 federal election, the prime minister seemed to suggest a kinder, gentler Parliament. Then, the global economic crisis began worrying Canadians and undermining the prime minister’s confidence in so-called “sound fundamentals.”

For whatever reason, the finance minister’s announcement to axe federal party subsidies, federal civil servants’ right to strike and pay equity commitments for women, seemed to undo that political truce in Ottawa. Whatever your political stripe, Jim Flaherty’s words in the House of Commons last week struck a nerve. And by Monday, Messieurs Dion, Layton and Duceppe had signed a coalition agreement for Governor General Michaelle Jean the moment the Conservatives next lose a vote of confidence.

So, how radical is this Opposition proposal? How precedent-setting? Not at all.

In the Great Coalition of 1864, a Liberal-Conservative détente overcame the deadlock between forces in the province of Canada (Quebec and Ontario) and led to Confederation three years later. During the First World War, the federal Union government brought together Liberals, Conservatives and independents to deal with wartime conscription; the coalition lasted from 1917-20. In 1941, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (later the NDP) co-operated with the Liberals in B.C. and the resulting coalition survived a decade. And following a virtual tie in the 1985 provincial election, Bob Rae’s New Democrats and David Peterson’s Liberals formed a coalition which served the people of Ontario for two years.

Whether the federal Conservatives put Flaherty’s economic statement to a vote in the House next Monday or (if the prime minister prorogues Parliament) shut down the House until January, it seems the entire affair will grab our collective attention.

It will also catapult an unlikely Canadian into the limelight. With an otherwise uneventful term as Governor General behind her, next week Michaelle Jean could face three historic choices: accept the prime minister’s decision to prorogue the session; dissolve Parliament and call a new federal election; or, accept the signed agreement of Dion, Layton and Duceppe to govern in a coalition until at least the summer of 2010.

“In any case,” a Canadian Press reporter said on CBC radio, “she is condemned to make history.”

If nothing else the GG and federal politicians have now rocketed onto the public’s collective radar screen. People are either furious or consumed by curiosity. Whether we like it or not – either next week or next month – Canadians are going to witness history. Where a multi-million-dollar federal election campaign, just two months ago, failed to get more than 59.1 per cent of the eligible population to go to the polls, it seems today the whole country is buzzing about “those politicians up in Ottawa.”

They now have our undivided attention.

It proved to be one of those rare moments of enlightenment.

Some time ago, a woman friend, who had no real concept of adult recreational hockey, wondered why I chose to play such a violent sport. She said she considered it ostensibly a game for young people. I agreed, since that’s when must of us learned to play it, but I insisted our brand of the game was gentlemanly and perfectly safe. She said the game was inherently violent. Well, I suggested, for those of us who really loved the game, the real attraction was the skating and stick-handling.

“Oh,” she said, “A game with two blades on your feet and a piece of wood in your hands, doesn’t suggest violence.”

(more…)

I lost one of my closest veteran friends, recently. When the Second World War began, Charley Fox left Guelph, Ont., and enlisted in the RCAF. At age 20, he got his wings and then instructed in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan until 1943.

Overseas, he served as a Spitfire pilot from D-Day to V-E Day. He was twice decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross. Then, in his retirement years, he quietly fought to have fellow veterans recognized for their service. Last month, he died in a car crash. He was 88.

“Canada and its veterans,” I wrote then, “had no greater friend than Charley Fox.”

(more…)

Ninety-one years ago this week, the men of Zephyr, Sandford, Sunderland and Uxbridge came away from Passchendaele, Belgium.

In three and a half months of fighting that fall of 1917, Canadian troops – including members of the 116th Battalion from Ontario County – had managed to seize about six kilometres of ground from the occupying German army. Before the battle, the Canadian Corps commander, General Arthur Currie, had forecast to his British superiors that taking Passchendaele would cost 16,000 Canadian casualties. He was almost exactly correct; 15,654 Canadians died, were wounded or captured there.

“Passchendaele!” Currie had exclaimed before the battle. “What’s the good of it? Let the Germans have it – keep it – rot in the mud.”

(more…)

Normally, I wouldn’t have to encourage them. Under regular circumstances they would be at each other’s throats. In fact, the conditions of their workplace would have insisted upon it. Their philosophical and political differences would certainly have dictated it. And yet, there I sat among four people so diametrically opposed to each other’s views, I couldn’t believe what wasn’t happening. At one point, I even encouraged their wrath.

“Would you please debate each other?” I asked.

(more…)

It was about 8 o’clock last Thursday night, when I made my way to the microphone to begin festivities at this year’s Books and Authors Night in Uxbridge. It was the 23rd edition of interviews with, and readings from, Canadian authors. It is, of course, a cornerstone of the annual Celebration of the Arts festival in our community. Like the Studio Tour, the Art Show, the Gala and countless other Celebration events, the Books and Authors Night was nearly at capacity. The lights dimmed slightly in the Music Hall as I prepared to speak.

“Would anybody, who’s been subsidized to be here, please identify himself?” I asked.

(more…)

Returning from a family gathering in the U.S. on Monday morning, I flew into Pearson International Airport, gathered my baggage and headed for the parking facility to pick up my car. As we approached the lot, I was the only person left in the mini-bus. I was refocusing on being back home and asked the bus driver who she thought was winning the federal election.

“I don’t like any of them,” she said.

“OK, but what would you like to see from them?”

“I just want things to be the way they used to be,” she said. “No crime. No high gas prices. No problems. No fear.”

(more…)

About a week before Stephen Harper went to visit the Governor General, television stations began running the Conservative Party’s campaign advertisements.

As I recall, the TV ads showed a farmer, a student, a veteran, a homemaker and others. They all had comments about this “straight ahead” guy, who “looked out for our interests.” One said he was “approachable.” And they all seemed to agree on one important asset he possessed above all else.

They told viewers the Prime Minister is a “real family man.”

(more…)