The Golden Age of Liberalism: A Portrait of Roméo LeBlanc
Naomi E.S. Griffiths
James Lorimer
360 pages, hardcover
ISBN: 9781552778968
The office of governor general is a curious one. It is a historical anomaly, a relic of colonial times, a surrogate for a foreign head of state and a constitutional irrelevancy, which it has mostly been since Mackenzie King won the 1926 election on the back of the GG of the day, Baron Byng of Vimy.
That the office endures is less a testament to its authority or its utility and more an admission that no one can figure out what, if anything, to do with it. (In that sense, it is a bit like the Senate of Canada.) Canadians know they do not want a powerful, elected American-style president. Nor, it seems, are they entirely content with an appointed figurehead whose legitimacy rests on a tenuous connection with a hereditary monarch across the Atlantic.
Be that as it may, the purpose of this small essay is not to call for the abolition of the governor general (or even the Senate, tempted though I am). My purpose is a more modest one: to comment on The Golden Age of Liberalism: A Portrait of Roméo LeBlanc, a new book by Carleton University historian Naomi Griffiths about one of the 28 individuals who have served as the monarch’s representative in Ottawa. Griffiths’s subject is number 25, who was the first Acadian to become governor general and presided at Rideau Hall from 1995 to 1999. He came after Ray Hnatyshyn, whom most Canadians probably do not remember, and before Adrienne Clarkson, Michaëlle Jean (whom the Harper Conservatives will not soon forget) and David Johnston, the incumbent.
Let me declare my bias. I liked Roméo LeBlanc, who died in 2009. I knew him in my days in the press gallery in Ottawa. He was a first-rate television journalist with Radio Canada in London and Washington, a helpful and honest press secretary to prime ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau (honesty being a less universal quality among press secretaries than one might desire), and an effective, and probably undervalued, minister of fisheries in Trudeau’s Cabinet.
The title of Griffiths’s book is somewhat misleading. It does not tell readers much about the “golden age of Liberalism,” whenever that was, although the author’s admiration for the progressive policies of the Pearson and Trudeau governments does shine through. It is much more what she calls “a portrait of a very dear friend”; it is not a conventional biography.
Read as a portrait, the book works. It paints a picture of how Roméo, the youngest of eight children in a French-speaking family of subsistence farmers from the tiny village of Memramcook in southeastern New Brunswick, pulled himself up by his bootstraps. In a speech at Mount Allison University, he reflected on his roots: “[I] learned to speak English in primary school because I had to … In my daily life there was no French radio, no magazines, few books in my native tongue … I was French. I was also poor, and rural.”
Starting as a school teacher in rural New Brunswick, Roméo pulled himself up: to scholarship winner and promising scholar at the Sorbonne in Paris, to foreign correspondent, to press secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, to member of Parliament and Cabinet minister, then speaker of the Senate and, finally, governor general.
It was quite a ladder. Roméo did not climb it effortlessly. But climb it he did—with brains, determination, loyalty, perfect fluency in both French and English, and an open, friendly personality that treated other people with respect and consideration; if Roméo had any enemies, I never heard of them. Although it is rare for a politician to avoid making at least a few devoted enemies along the way, LeBlanc seemed to manage it.
Where the book falls short, in my view, is that it does not get close enough to its subject to present a full portrait. It does not reveal enough of the fabric of his life—his challenges as a television correspondent, his struggles (and there were some) in the high-pressure job as prime ministerial press secretary, the battles he won (and lost) in Cabinet or how he felt about the mind-numbing ceremonial side of life as governor general. The book also slides over the disintegration of LeBlanc’s first marriage, although the circumstances were not without political significance in Ottawa.
A biographer would have to grapple with issues like these. Where a portraitist can get away with a measure of superficiality, a biographer does not have that luxury.
Such caveats aside, The Golden Age of Liberalism succeeds in two important particulars. It reveals the deep and abiding love that LeBlanc, a francophone, felt for Canada in an age when Quebec nationalism, even separatism, was fashionable among the chattering classes. It also shows his lifelong commitment to his Acadian people, whom he cherished as an identifiable and important, if often overlooked, minority in Canada.
As Naomi Griffiths concludes: “The service he offered as governor general was no more and no less than the service he had given throughout his life to the people among whom … he lived and worked.”
In the final analysis, in whatever position he occupied, Roméo LeBlanc was a dedicated public servant, and a good one. He was a governor general worth remembering.
Geoffrey Stevens was a former Ottawa columnist for The Globe and Mail, a former managing editor of both the Globe and Maclean’s, and the author of several books.
Related Letters and Responses
Kim KieransHalifax, Nova Scotia
When you strip away the rhetoric of bubblegum forests, lollipops and aging hippies from Christopher Dornan’s critique of the Senate Final Report on Canadian News Media, what’s left is a polemic in praise of big media and the “full flowering of liberal democracy” as found on the Internet.
The Internet is not a replacement for an independent and diverse media—not in Vancouver, Newfoundland or New Brunswick where print media corporations enjoy monopoly power. Nor is it the place to find local and regional news. Many parts of rural Canada are still waiting for high-speed Internet.
Dornan seems to think there’s not much difference between a monopoly public bus service and a media corporation. As long as they’re well run, they’re fine, he trills. It’s easy to see where that idea came from. We get most of the news about our media on the business pages.
The reality is that publishers would not accept the levels of regulations that guide public utilities. Cross-owned media corporations are constantly lobbying against broadcast regulations. Public dialogue is taking a back seat to a profit-driven business model. It has been happening with the approval of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the federal regulator that licenses use of the public airwaves, airwaves that belong to you and me.
That’s the point Dornan misses in his attack on the Senate report.
The Senate report bluntly states that concentration of media ownership in Canada has reached “levels that few other countries would consider acceptable.” Just as bluntly, it blames the CRTC and the Competition Bureau for not using “the processes available to them to limit concentration.”
In their Final Report on the Canadian News Media (216 pages) and its accompanying 2004 Interim Report (100 pages), the senators offer an accurate snapshot of big media and Canada’s regulatory openness to cross-media ownership. Senators don’t want to turn back the clock. They want to see some leadership.
The Senate report calls on Ottawa to do the right thing and develop public policy to curb further mergers. The recommendations echo the Davey Committee, the Kent Commission and two other more recent studies Dornan failed to mention—the 1986 Task Force on Public Broadcasting and the 2003 Heritage Committee 872-page study of the Canadian broadcasting system.
Like these earlier studies, the Senate final report generated little media coverage and virtually no debate. Big media have little interest in reporting these issues and politicians seem to have no interest in protecting our interests.
If you believe the business pages, more media mergers are on the way. It may be cause for champagne in the boardrooms as the full flowering of corporate oligarchy sets the public agenda.
Peter DesbaratsLondon, Ontario
I’m assuming that Professor Christopher Dornan has never worked for a significant length of time on a daily newspaper in a highly competitive market. If he had, he could never have written the essay that appeared in the December 2006 issue: “Big Media Bad Thing.”
My own experience at competitive newspapers in Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto from the 1950s through the 1970s, and that of the majority of my colleagues, convinced us that competition was the sine qua non of a responsive and responsible press. And as competition lessened, more and more journalists found themselves muzzled. I gave a small personal example of this last month in my LRC review of Barry Zwicker’s latest book, when I noted that an invitation for me to comment in the media about a recent media merger was suddenly withdrawn with no reason given.
Professor Dornan apparently lives in another world. In the 1970–80 period, he saw “a steady expansion of traditional mass media” at a time when large newspapers were faltering and in a few instances disappearing. From 1980 to 2000, he saw “an unprecedented proliferation of the media.” And this was true if you looked only at our few elite newspapers and a proliferation of TV channels. Apart from The Globe and Mail and the National Post, most of our daily newspapers in those decades were losing thousands of readers and millions of potential advertising dollars.
And now the decline is accelerating. Leading newspapers in the U.S. as well as Canada are in deep trouble. The Toronto Star fires its publisher and editor and tries to bolster its own prospects by investing in the Globe. A desperate Toronto Sun seems to grow suicidal as it launches its own free newspaper to compete with all the other freebies that are eating away at its revenues. And in a closely related development, the Harper government muzzles the Press Gallery in Ottawa by cutting off information at the source and, after a few squawks last spring, the media accept this!
“What is happening, right in front of our eyes,” according to Professor Dornan, “is the full flowering of liberal democracy.”
What is he talking about? Well, the Internet of course—this marvellous world where people “can mouth off all they want and listen to one another to their hearts’ content.” Some of us may find this confusing and even troublesome but Professor Dornan finds it “exhilarating.”
Yes, I know, I sometimes tell my journalism students the same thing. They worry about the decreasing number of jobs in their field. They don’t see writing blogs as much of a substitute. But don’t worry, I tell them, times of change are always challenging. And as Professor Dornan tells us, “We are privileged to witness the birth of an entirely new echelon of public communication.”
Perhaps. Easy enough for a tenured academic like Professor Dornan to say. But the Internet is still in its infancy and none of us know how it will develop in decades to come. The best you can say at the moment is that the Internet seems more and more to resemble society itself and that isn’t very comforting unless you happen to be a gambler, a religious fanatic or a sexual predator.