1967 — A busy day for Lester Pearson’s government. His Justice minister, Pierre Trudeau, announces changes to Canada’s Criminal Code in the areas of homosexuality, abortion, lotteries and weapons possession. In particular, capital punishment is to be abolished for the next five years, except for the murders of police and prison guards.

Pearson’s Minister Without Portfolio, John Turner, becomes Canada’s first Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

1846 — John A. Macdonald, a 31-year-old Kingston lawyer and member of the Canadian Legislative Assembly, is named a Queen’s Counsel. The designation is a status — some say a patronage — appointment made by Queen Victoria to lawyers of distinction with at least a decade in the profession.

Other Prime Ministers to become Queen’s Counsel include Sir John Abbott, Sir John Thompson, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, Kim Campbell and Jean Chrétien. Those designated King’s Counsel were Sir Robert Borden, Arthur Meighen, R.B. Bennett, Louis St. Laurent and John Diefenbaker.

1979 — Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau has changed his mind about resigning as Liberal party leader and it’s not surprising.

When he announced last month he intended to retire, he’d just lost a federal election to Joe Clark. But last week, Prime Minister Clark’s government lost a no-confidence vote and the Liberals immediately urged Trudeau not to leave on the eve of another election campaign. The change of mind pays dividends when Trudeau again becomes Prime Minister — for another four years.

Over the past couple of days at Special Services we’ve been getting chocolates from our Print Handicapped patrons. The people who call us and we select boxes full of audiobooks to send to their branches so they have stuff to read. It’s a lot of work, especially for the patrons who’ve read almost the entire collection (you have to check the file of what they’ve read compared with what is available compared with what they hate and will not read, all on software that sucks donkey balls).

My favourite Print Handicapped patron came in on Friday to drop off her “rather dubious card.” She’s so British and subdued deadpan funny. She told me how she’d watched a movie last week that she was surprised to discover she owned. It was David Lynch’s Blue Velvet. She didn’t like it very much. But she watched it. We tried to find her a couple of DAISYbooks, and she went off (in a subdued deadpan kind of way) when I suggested she try a Michael Ignatieff biography. Last time I helped her, she’d very conspiratorially borrowed a Trudeau biography, on the condition that I wouldn’t tell anyone. So yeah, good times with the little old ladies.

As a result of this goodwill, I’m eating way too much chocolate at work. One lady sent us a giant bag of those Lindt chocolate balls. I’m pretty sure I’m responsible for at least half of them disappearing.

In what will surely be greeted by the good people at FOX News as yet further proof that America is spiralling towards a socialist dystopia, the Obama Administration announced today that employees of firms receiving extensive government aid will face caps on their pay. Kenneth Feinberg, the administration’s pay czar – everyone, apparently, gets to be a czar these days – told top earning workers at Citigroup, AIG, General Motors, and GMAC that their cash compensation for 2009 will be limited to a paltry $500,000. Because it paid back $45 billion of the money it received from the American Treasury Department’s bank rescue fund, Bank of America’s cadre of senior executives and managers will still be able to cash their obscene bonuses this year.

These pay caps come as governments in France and the United Kingdom weight the possibility of imposing heavy taxes on the bonuses paid out to its banksters, and in the wake of a joint editorial written by President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown that called for a global effort to tax financial compensation. Even Goldman Sachs, ground zero for obscene executive compensation measures, recently decided to voluntarily scale back the bonuses in cash paid to its big kahunas.

These are important steps, given the profane packages paid out to bankers and senior executives in recent years. But it skirts a much more important underlying issue, one that hasn’t been properly addressed in mainstream circles. While the global economy has witnessed impressive overall growth since the early 1970s, the middle class, broadly writ, has seen its quality of life stay essentially the same. It’s no great secret that the rich have gotten much, much richer in that period, but it’s less widely known that everyone else has paid for that prosperity. To reiterate: trillions of dollars of wealth have been created in the last thirty years, yet the average citizen is lucky if they’ve seen a dollar of it enter their lives, whether in the form of wealth or programs and services paid for by the taxes on that wealth.

Obscene bonus packages are just a symptom of this economic dysfunction, one that serves – seeks, even – to make the rich ever richer at the expense of just about everybody else. It begs an important question: why do we continue to support policies that promote economic growth, particularly ones that impoverish our social safety net, when the benefits of that growth only accrue to a tiny elite? Why do we agree to cutting corporate taxes, slashing social programs, and cutting program funding when those measures are beneficial to a small minority of the population?

Pierre Trudeau once questioned the west’s slavish dependence upon GDP as the gold standard measurement of economic growth, given what it counts and what it excludes. Rather than simply calculating if the economy expands, he wondered, shouldn’t we be asking how that expansion takes place, and who it benefits? It’s time we asked those questions again. Our refusal to, after all, has produced a culture in which million-dollar bonus packages are routinely paid out to underperforming executives while the employees of their company are laid off by the thousands. If that’s what economic growth means, I don’t want any part of it.

1970 — The Royal Commission on the Status of Women, launched in 1967 by Prime Minister Lester Pearson, presents its report. The commissioners call for abortion on demand, more birth control information, day care centres for children and the relaxation of divorce laws.

The current Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, recognizes the importance of the status of women as a social issue and by the 1980s many of the commission’s 167 recommendations have been addressed.

I’ve been nuturing a hope that Obama would turn out to be a liberal Reagan (if not our Pierre Trudeau) for almost two years now. Tonight Pollster.com checks in on his progress and finds Obama tracking Reagan fairly closely.

Both replaced deeply unpopular predecessors. Both enjoyed significant gains for their party in both houses of Congress. Both faced “worst since the depression” economic circumstances. And each in his own very different ways attempted to reshape government in the early months in office.

With a bit more than 10 months of approval data on Obama, we can now make a more meaningful comparison than was possible at the first 100 days look.

The similarity of approval trajectories is striking for Reagan and Obama. Reagan started lower, but since the 3rd month of office the two have moved along quite similar paths.

Via that quintessential Obama Republican, Andrew Sullivan.

The Walrus Magazine has been alive and in print for over six years now, and while there have been a few difficult moments along the way, from its quest for charitable tax status to the rocky editorial tenure of founder Ken Alexander, the most recent issue demonstrates why it’s an important and necessary publication. Newspapers struggle at the best of times to produce thoughtful long-form journalism that takes the time needed to explain both the issue at hand and the context in which it exists, and it’s all the more difficult now that they’re all fighting for their lives. Maclean’s Magazine, despite the substantial improvements that it has enjoyed under Ken Whyte’s leadership, rarely takes up that challenge either, instead restricting itself to short, snappy pieces and the occasional investigative report. Only a magazine like the Walus, one with national scope, talented writers, and a politically and culturally literate readership, is capable of tackling the big issues of our time with the seriousness and sophistication necessary to give them the coverage that they need.

Ron Graham’s piece on Michael Ignatieff in the latest issue of the Walrus is a testament to the kind of high-quality journalism the magazine is capable – uniquely capable, in Canada – of producing. Graham begins the piece by paraphrasing composer Kurt Weill in asking, in reference to Michael Ignatieff’s well-documented struggles as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, “is it him or is it us?” That’s a bit of a set-up, though, because for the rest of the piece Graham describes in exquisite detail exactly why it’s clearly him.

He begins by discussing the thirty-year long civil war within the Liberal Party of Canada, and describing the often overlooked role of the backroom operators who wield just as much power as the politicians that they promote. Graham pays particular attention to the career of Alf Apps, a particularly ambitious mercenary who began his career working on the guerrilla campaign waged by John Turner against Prime Minister Trudeau before moving on to Paul Martin and eventually Michael Ignatieff. Graham argues that Ignatieff and Apps saw each other in a similar light, as horses that could carry them to where they wanted to go. For Ignatieff, that was 24 Sussex, while for Apps and his crew it was the offices of the Langevin Bloc in Ottawa and the power of the Prime Minister’s Office. Ignatieff, though, ought to have more closely inspected the teeth of the horses he intended to ride to the Prime Minister’s chair, Graham suggests. “They were secondary players,” Graham writes, “political venture capitalists looking for the next big thing, with an unbroken record of backing losers and duds.”

For those political venture capitalists, Ignatieff “had all the benefits of a fresh face, a dazzling background, and an empty vessel.” Ignatieff’s fealty to those advisors was demonstrated, Graham writes, by the content of his latest book, True Patriot Love. “True Patriot Love was the canary in the coal mine,” Graham writes. “Hastily written, a patchwork of rhetorical platitudes and logical contradictions, it signalled that the celebrated author and public intellectual had put himself into the hands of advisers and publicists for whom the content mattered less than the cover.”

More important, Graham suggests, is the fact that these operatives to whom Ignatieff fell so willingly captive saw the possibility in him of another Trudeau, and perhaps another ten years enjoying the comforts of government and power. “They were looking for Trudeau’s panache as an intellectual cosmopolitan, his marketability, his sex appeal, his magic. They thought they had found it – and, just as important, found it first – in Michael Ignatieff.” This is the heart of Graham’s argument, and his attack on Ignatieff. While he describes Ignatieff as a “nincompoop,” and “oddly irritating,” and describes him as “a Vincent Massey Liberal, traditional in values, superior by nature, imperialist at heart, proud, ambitious, and entrenched…the pet of Rosedale matrons and the York Club,” his problem with the current Liberal leader is the idea – one encouraged by Ignatieff’s own people – that he was the heir to Trudeau’s crown.

But that crown doesn’t fit the oversized head of the man he calls the heir presumptive. Unlike Trudeau, Graham argues, Ignatieff doesn’t appear to believe in anything with any sense of conviction. There is no evidence, Graham writes, that “Ignatieff himself had anything like Trudeau’s overarching sense of purpose and principle in entering public life. Trudeau could sum up his in one sentence; Ignatieff couldn’t sum up his in a dozen books.”

He cites Ignatieff’s support of a resolution tabled by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada that called for the recognition of “the Quebec nation” as evidence that he didn’t understand the Liberal Party’s mission, its history, or his place in it. “Here you have the biographer of Isaiah Berlin arguing on behalf of ethnic nationalism, the heir presumptive of Pierre Trudeau twisting the Charter into an ode to collective rights, the champion of national unity promoting the concept of Canada as three nations. To top it off, you had Alf Apps, of all people, declare that Trudeau himself, were he alive, would have agreed with Ignatieff’s stance, when in truth Trudeau fought with his dying breath against this inaccurate, retrograde, and dangerous idea.”

Trudeau’s vision, for better or worse, defined his tenure as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and his success in that role. Ignatieff’s lack of one, Graham writes, may have already defined his, given his inability to connect in any meaningful way with the Canadian public. “If a political leader isn’t exceptionally clear and courageous about what he wants to accomplish in the face of the demands and wrath of the elites, he has to have a transcending connection to the people. Ignatieff has demonstrated neither.”

There’s more, of course, but a blog like this can’t do it justice. Pick up a copy of the magazine and read the entire piece, because it’s well worth the cover price.

BECOME A FAN OF THE LIBERAL MINUTE:

http://facebook.com/LiberalMinute

A Liberal Minute with Jason Lamarche.

In this episode I speak with Betty-Anne Juba who is the policy chair for the federal riding of Vancouver Island North.

Betty-Anne has some great ideas on why the Liberal Party should engage the not-for-profit sector. Starting a dialogue with this community is beneficial because it will allow both the politicians and the volunteers to exchange their concerns, ideas, and solutions for how to build a stronger, more compassionate Canada. I think there is a lot of common ground between the Liberal Party and Volunteers since Pierre Trudeau defined the Canadian vision as a pursuit of a “Just Society”!

Enjoy!

NO PEOPLE LIKE SHOW PEOPLE: Bad news was, Ben Heppner had to cancel his appearance at the Canadian Opera Company’s 60th anniversary

HEPPNER: concert-to-come

concert earlier this month due to the viral infection he caught in October while singing at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden. Good news is, Heppner will perform a special solo recital with piano, on stage of the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, at a date to be announced soon. And, his songfest will be free for all ticket purchasers of the Nov. 7 COC Diamond Anniversary concert … the Stratford festival memorial celebration of stage lion Douglas Campbell is set for this Monday at 3 pm on the Festival Stage and is open to the public … National Ballet chief Karen Kain has wooed and won dancer Jirí Jelinek, who will join her merry NBOC band as a Principal Dancer in January. Previously a Principal Dancer for both the National Theatre in Prague and the Stuttgart Ballet, Jelinek has blazed a trail dancing through Europe, and was most recently invited by the

WILLIAMS: going ape?

Hamburg Ballet to dance the role of Stanley Kowalski in John Neumeier’s version of Tennessee Williams‘ A Streetcar Named Desire … and guess who went on an African Gorilla safari, following in the footsteps of Dian Fossey? Would it surprise you to learn that I’m talking about Canuck ex-pat Harland Williams? Oh sure, it can get a bit dicey on The Jay Leno Show, but go to Rwanda, man — it’s a jungle out there. To see Harland and the Gorillas he almost Mist, uuuh, missed, click here.

SHARPS ‘N’ FLATS: As indicated in that extravagant recent photo spread in Hello magazine, Liona Boyd continues to live a fascinating life. From  her eight-

BOYD: it's her year

year romance with Pierre Trudeau — “Pierre asked me to come and live with him and have a child by him” — to her ongoing relationship with HRH Prince Philip (“He’s still my best pen pal”) to her hush-hush performance for the sequestered jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial, the world’s first female guitar virtuoso has blazed her own unique trail in show business. This fall she has two, count ‘em, two new albums – Liona Boyd Sings Songs of Love, a collection of duets with Croatian singer-guitarist Srdjan Givoje, and Seven Journeys , a CD of new-age, atmospheric music. And as if that wasn’t enough, her back catalogue is also

JOLIE: no sharp edges

being reissued by Universal on iTunes. Which by my reckoning has gotta make 2009 the Year Of The Lion(a.)

OH, STOP GRIPING: Wonder why my hero, Manhattan gossip girl Liz Smith, can always make me laugh? Here’s an item from one of her recent, eminently readable columns on the frankly fabulous femme website, wowOwow.com.

“Brad and Angie spent a recent weekend personally baby-proofing their French chateau. (Oh, stop griping. They have a chateau, that’s just the way life is. I’m sure you have something they don’t have.) Not only did the parents of six toddlers put plugs over the electrical outlets and all that, they even moved out some of Brad’s art pieces and furniture, objects too sharp, too hard, too high, too appealing to curious tykes. So, for the time being, interesting stuff like Brad’s metal woven rug are in the chateau’s garage. Which is probably a smaller chateau. Life isn’t fair, deal with it.”

Funny lady, our Liz. Truthful, too.

DOUBLE OR NOTHING: Vladimir Putin puttin’ out a rap song? Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton meeting for a cup of coffee at Starbucks? Michael Ignatieff introducing the new Liberal theme song? And Quebec’s favourite game show is “Le Whack Job”? Yes, Linda Cullen & Bob Robertson have gone AWOL again. For another crazy episode of Double Exposure Radio. click here — but do so at your own risk!

AND NOW, MY FAVOURITE POSTER-OF-THE-WEEK:

9th JEWISH FILM FESTIVAL: This poster makes me smile.

Happy weekend!

-/-

1983 — Margaret Trudeau files for divorce from Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau six years after their separation. Explaining the original split, she cited the stress of notoriety and raising Justin, Sacha and Michel mostly on her own while her husband ran the country.

Following the divorce in 1984, the Prime Minister gains custody of their three sons and Margaret does not receive spousal payments. That same year, she marries Fried Kemper of Ottawa and they have two children: Kyle and Alicia.

1965 — Although the Liberals win more seats in Canada’s 27th federal election, it’s still not enough to give Prime Minister Lester Pearson a majority. Facing his second minority government, Pearson will depend on Tommy Douglas’s New Democratic Party to help keep the Liberals in power. The promise of a national medicare program within two years should help make that happen.

Pearson is re-elected in Algoma East, as are Conservative leader John Diefenbaker in Prince Albert and Liberal MPs John Turner in St. Laurent/St. Georges and Jean Chrétien in Saint Maurice/Lafleche. Newly elected is Pierre Trudeau in Mount Royal.

Trudeau Speaking in Montreal, 1980

Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 1968-2000, the second volume of Professor John English’s authoritative biography of the great Prime Minister, has been published. The book’s revelations about Trudeau’s personal life have gotten a great deal of attention in the Canadian media. See here, here, here, and here.

The Quebec newspapers have had little to say about this book. Perhaps this will change next month, when the French translation appears. For a rare newspaper article in French about the book see here.

Paul Wells of Maclean’s Magazine thinks that Canadian historians pay too much attention to Trudeau.

Their relationship is on the rocks, and Maggie is with the Stones. By their sixth anniversary, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and wife Margaret Trudeau had decided to go their separate ways. Thirty years younger than the PM and a hippie free spirit, Maggie Trudeau was unhappy about her husband’s constant work-related absences and was forced to raise her three young sons largely by herself.

Bipolar and depressed, Margaret smuggled drugs in the prime minister’s luggage and tore apart a tapestry in the prime minister’s official residence in Ottawa, but the public learnt about this dramatic fashion, when Maggie is spotted at a Rolling Stones concert at Toronto’s El Mocambo club. She later invites them back to her hotel room. Even before she finally separated from her allegedly gay husband in 1977, she frequented Studio 54 nightclub in New York City and the photos like the one above were  featured on many front pages. She was also associated with Rolling Stone’s Mick Jagger and U.S. Senator, Ted Kennedy.

]]> http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/23/deleted-scenes-v/ Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:16:22 +0000 Aaron Wherry http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/23/deleted-scenes-v/ http://canadianprimeministers.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/trudeau-receives-five-christian-names/ Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:01:03 +0000 Gary Schlee http://canadianprimeministers.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/trudeau-receives-five-christian-names/

1919 — Joseph-Philippe-Pierre-Yves-Elliott Trudeau is born in Montreal, son of a French-Canadian businessman, Joseph-Charles-Émile Trudeau and his Scottish wife, Grace Elliott. Although his parents immediately settle on ‘Pierre’ as a first name, it takes Trudeau awhile to decide which one of his five names he likes best.

In later years, Trudeau prefers to have people believe he was actually born in the early 1920s.

1878 — Sir John A. Macdonald becomes the first Prime Minister to return for a second term. His government resigned in 1873, but won the recent election to return to power. Macdonald also assumes duties as the fourth Interior minister and the seventh Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs.

Other PMs to return for second terms are Arthur Meighen, William Lyon Mackenzie King (who also comes back for a third term) and Pierre Trudeau.

1970 — “I am speaking to you at a moment of grave crisis, when violent and fanatical men are attempting to destroy the freedom and the unity of Canada.” With these words, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau ushers in the War Measures Act to deal with two kidnappings in Quebec.

Montreal and the province of Quebec have both asked for special emergency powers giving them the ability to detain suspicious individuals. The next day, kidnapped provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte is found murdered, while British trade commissioner James Cross is released a month and a half later.

On July 24, 1967, French President Charles de Gaulle was one of many world leaders invited to Expo 67 to help celebrate Canada’s 100th birthday. The relations between two countries were not at their best: earlier that year, the French government had not sent a representative to the funeral service for Governor General Georges Vanier. General de Gaulle held a grudge against Canada for its objection to France’s military position in the Suez crisis.

De Gaulle refused to land in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, as par with proper political protocol. Instead, he flew to the French colony of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, off Newfoundland, and sailed on a French frigate to Quebec City. There, de Gaulle was cheered enthusiastically, while the new Governor General was booed. The next day de Gaulle arrived in Montreal; although he was not scheduled to speak that evening, but the crowd chanted for him; de Gaulle stepped out onto the balcony of the Hôtel de Ville and gave a short address. [It was later said that his address was preplanned and he used it when the opportunity presented itself.

In his address he commented that his drive down the banks of the St. Lawrence River, lined as it had been with cheering crowds, reminded him of his triumphant return to Paris after the liberation from Nazi Germany. The speech appeared to conclude with the words “Vive Montréal! Vive le Québec!” (Long live Montreal! Long live Quebec!), but he then added, “Vive le Québec libre! Vive le Canada français! Et vive la France!” (“Long live free Quebec! Long live French Canada! And long live France!”). The speech was broadcast live on radio.

This statement, coming from a head of state, was considered a serious breach of diplomatic protocol. Standing inside, Pauline Vanier, the widow of the Governor General Vanier pressed a note into his hand containing only a date, 1940–a rebuke on behalf of the Canadians who had fought for the liberation of France. A media and diplomatic uproar ensued thereafter, which resulted in de Gaulle cutting his visit to Canada short. The day after the speech de Gaulle visited Expo 67, before flying back to Paris the following morning, instead of continuing his visit on to Ottawa where he was to have met with Prime Minister. Influential Canadian statesman Pierre Trudeau, publicly wondered what the French reaction would have been if a Canadian Prime Minister shouted “Brittany to the Bretons.”

As a bizarre footnote to history, de Gaulle instituted a series of crackdowns on Breton nationalism the very next year, and was accused of double standards for, on the one hand demanding a “free” Quebec because of its linguistic differences from English speaking Canada, while on the other oppressing the movement in Brittany.

]]> http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/02/the-olympic-bump/ Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:03:55 +0000 Aaron Wherry http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/02/the-olympic-bump/ http://canadianprimeministers.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/third-son-born-while-trudeau-is-still-pm/ Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:01:33 +0000 Gary Schlee http://canadianprimeministers.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/third-son-born-while-trudeau-is-still-pm/

1975 — Michel Charles-Émile Trudeau, the youngest son of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, is born in Ottawa. After graduating from Dalhousie University he becomes a microbiologist.

While skiing in Kokanee Glacier National Park in November 1998, Michel is caught in an avalanche which sweeps him into Kokanee Lake. His body is never recovered. Devastated by his son’s death, Trudeau himself dies two years later.

Thoughts:
- I welcome the comparison of Michael Ignatieff to Pierre Trudeau and Barack Obama. They are all inspiring leaders, all are public intellectuals, all represent/represented change and all upset the status quo to lead their country (that will be true for Mr. Ignatieff is the near future.)
- The problem with Stephen Harper is that his policies all have a “win votes now” philosophy behind them. Michael Ignatieff, as a historian, political philosopher and intellectual is able to grasp the bigger picture. Foreign policy affects economic policy, ecological policy can affect the economy, health care policy can affect crime; the leader of the government should be able to see how everything is connected. This is not possible when your policies have no depth like those of Prime Minister Harper.
- Michael Ignatieff’s family history is very epic and very Canadian.
- Ideally Canadian politics should be about public discourse, competition of ideas, thoughtful decisive action (all of this is was Mr. Ignatieff represents) and not the politics of fear, division and patronage (which Mr. Harper represents.)
- Stephen Harper is the Canadian equivalent of President George W. Bush. He has ruled with fear, took us from surplus to deficit, pursued regressive crime/drug policies, fought against scientific development, worked to subvert democracy by putting all the power in his hands, acted in a very cloistered and un-transparent manner, and pursued foreign policy that has worked to undo a lot of what the Liberal party has worked to achieve from the end of World War II. We need our own Obama to replace our Georoge Bush.
—————————————————————————————-
An atypical politician with a pen

There are many differences between Barack Obama and Michael Ignatieff, but one that struck me as I was reading Mr. Ignatieff’s True Patriot Love is that while Mr. Obama is a politician who can write, Mr. Ignatieff is a writer who can be a politician.

Both are men of ideas, but the true nature of the American President lies in his formidable political skills – the easy charm, the inspiring speeches, the soft diplomatic approach to problems, the (almost) flawless way he manages to diffuse controversies. The true nature of the new Liberal leader lies in his love of writing. He is part-novelist, part-historian, part-political philosopher. Mr. Obama knows how to tell a story (preferably his own) to his advantage. Mr. Ignatieff is simply, like all born writers, very good at telling a story – any kind of story, his own or that of others. For a politician, however, this gift can be a trap, since writers are independent minds who get carried away with words at the risk of forgetting words might have a political fallout.

The Russian Album, the epic tale of Mr. Ignatieff’s paternal ancestors, was a delightful read. This new book is about three generations of Grants, on his mother’s side. The subject is certainly not as exciting and romantic as the story of the Ignatieffs. The intellectual biography of austere Canadian Protestants of Scottish origin cannot be as gripping as the extraordinary lives of Russian aristocrats who played a prominent role in czarist Russia before taking the painful road of exile. Yet True Patriot Love is a lively, interesting, even entertaining book. I especially enjoyed the chapter about his great-grandfather’s exploration of the West. (George Monro Grant was part of the first expedition that mapped the course of the Canadian Pacific Railway and wrote a book about his journey.) Mr. Ignatieff, who retraced these steps in 2000, conveys the sense of wonder of his ancestor as he discovers the vast expanse of the Prairies, as well as his compassion at the sight of the misery of aboriginal Canadians.

Of course, one cannot help feeling the political manipulation. The story of the Grants – public intellectuals who in different eras and in different ways were obsessed with the destiny of Canada – is tailored for a politician who wants to be prime minister of Canada. Mr. Ignatieff wants to be seen as their inheritor, the one who will give Canada the prominent role his ancestors dreamed of.

This book is also, obviously, a way to show off his “roots” – a response to those who reproach him his 30-year absence from Canada. Mr. Ignatieff started the book six years before his jump into politics, but the introduction and the afterword, written recently, are filled with political clichés and sanctimonious pronouncements. (Granted, they are more readable than the usual political “manifesto.”)

Mr. Ignatieff is an atypical politician given that he lives in a country where politicians don’t write. This is a sharp contrast with France, where any respectable political figure feels obliged to publish more than one book. The rare books authored by our political leaders were written by professionals hired for the job. Either they were crude attempts at boosting a leader’s image before an election or, like the recent memoirs of Messrs. Mulroney and Chrétien, intended to provide a self-congratulatory interpretation of their years in power.

The only genuine intellectual to lead a political party in Canada was Pierre Trudeau, whose earlier political essays were masterworks that have indeed become classic reading for anyone interested in political philosophy. But Mr. Trudeau was a Cartesian thinker, with a dry, slightly cynical turn of mind. He could write splendid essays but he would never have thought of writing a novel, let alone a story about his family. Mr. Ignatieff is another sort of writer – more imaginative, more romantic. Perhaps too much for his own good, now that he’s left the world of ideas and emotions for the hard field of politics. We’ll see.