An Exile's View of Canada

MR. GRIFFIN: Our speaker will be introduced by Rev. C. A. Lawson, who succeeded Dr. MacLennan as pastor of Timothy Eaton Memorial Church in Toronto. Since Mr. Lawson followed our speaker I think we may paraphrase scripture and say this is a case where the last shall be first although both were chosen.

MR. LAWSON: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you today the Reverend David A. MacLennan. It is a commonplace occurence for one to introduce his successor but it is a rare and unique experience for one to introduce his predecessor. In that position I find myself today, for Dr. MacLennan was for 13 years the distinguished and beloved minister of Timothy Eaton Memorial Church in this city, the church in which I now have the privilege of serving. It is a humbling experience to follow such an eminent preacher as he. Three years ago Dr. MacLennan was called to be the Professor of Preaching and Pastoral Care at Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Connecticut, a position which he now fills with great distinction. Dr. MacLennan is recognized as one of the leading preachers and lecturers in North America and it gives me great pleasure to introduce, my predecessor, the Reverend David A. MacLennan.

MR. MacLENNAN: Mr. President, members of The Empire Club of Canada, friends: when a Customs' official asked me the routine question, "Have you anything to declare?" I had a moment when I wondered if he knew the reason for my visit to Toronto and was solicitous for you. I had one article to declare, an article of faith in Canada and in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

One of my colleagues who knew the reason for my visit to Toronto made a not unexpected comment. "I suppose you will wave the flag". "Which flag?" I countered. "Both flags I would think," said he. It is a good and worthy exercise, although I am not an ambidextrous person. Listeners to some of my sermons have suspected that I can be ambiguous.

Shamelessly, Mr. President, I propose to wave the flag of Canada, not in any flamboyant, jingoistic manner, but with the enthusiasm of a returning exile. Two and a half years have passed since I moved from this fair and dynamic community to the haven of the Whiffenpoofs and "the place where Louie dwells." In two previous periods I had lived sixteen years in the republic. Two thirds of my life thus far have been spent in the Dominion, I beg pardon for this intentional error!--in this blessed realm of Canada. Hence I feel qualified to submit certain views which have become clarified from my observation post on a New England hilltop. Unkind critics of my present place of residence insinuate that my habitat is in an ivory tower, and an ivy-covered tower at that; hence my visibility must be limited. Certainly I may not evoke the response expected of those who contribute articles to a wellknown and universally popular magazine. One of the editors of this "little wonder" in the publishing field was asked if he and his associates had standards to which an author must conform if he hoped to have his writing accepted. "Yes," he said, "any article we publish must make the readers say one of three things: 'Oh, the beauty of it!' or 'Oh, the pity of it!' or, 'Oh!' "

Perspective on Canada gained from residence and work in both countries leads to one conviction: a singularly bright future belongs to Canada. To realistic patriots, as to some cynics, this is about as original a prophecy as to say unctuously that, saving a cosmic catastrophe, the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet even so, such a conviction bears reiteration, if only to induce more citizens to have a share in making it come true.

What are the reasons for this confidence?

(1) One is the obvious provision of abundant natural resources. This is part of the "given" in the common life. When nearly fifty years ago Sir Wilfrid Laurier asserted that the twentieth century would be Canada's it was a prophecy based on hope more than upon factual evidence. Today however, as D. M. LeBourdais has pointed out, such an assertion may be made on the strength of two factors alone: oil and iron ore. (See Canada's Century, published by the Methuen Co., Toronto, 1951). Within the past few years the iron-ore deposits surveyed in Ungava cover an area larger than the state of Connecticut in which I live. When to these are added Canada's gold, silver, copper, nickel, and other minerals including uranium; Canada's timber, water-power, wheat--is there any wonder that you are the envy of informed men everywhere? Mr. Churchill's superlative tribute in Ottawa last month is more than the rhetorical flight of a superb master of the arts of speech and diplomacy: "Upon the whole surface of the globe, there is no more spacious and splendid domain than Canada open to the activity and genius of free men." Such unequalled treasures in and beneath the Precambrian rocks, prairies, lakes and woodlands, judiciously developed and marketed make Canada's economic and industrial future unlimited. Already productivity has reached such proportions that among the world's free nations Canada's place is only second to that of Britain and the United States. Who that knows the facts can "sell Canada short" on this score? Indeed, the incurable moralist ever present in a man of my ancestry and profession rises to suggest that the chief danger arising from possession of such resources consists of spiritual pride. Canadians are particularly vulnerable because of their proximity to an enthusiastic people not noted for their reticence concerning their own capacity and achievements! In the records of the Connecticut town of Milford, for the year 1640, may be seen a copy of a delightful resolution passed by the town fathers of that colonial era:

"Resolved, that the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof;

"Resolved, secondly, that the Lord intends the earth for his saints;

"Resolved, thirdly, that we are the saints!"

Seriously, the vast resources and astonishing industrial development here will cause more of Canada's trained young men and women to reject alluring offices to work in the U.S.

(2) A second reason for confidence in the present and future progress of Canada relates to the political health of the nation. I would tread warily here; no one living in another place has the right to mix in the politics of even his former homeland. The political health of this nation derives from more than one party's programme; in a real sense it issues from bipartisan devotion to the best interests of the total community. It is the result of responsible citizenship on the part of members of all regional, racial, party groups. The sagacity of political leadership transcending all parties seems to be a blend of enlightened conservatism and sensible adventurousness. In a relatively short space of time Canada has resisted colonialism on one hand and absorption by the United States on the other. Certainly the record of the last dozen years supports the view that here ordered freedom has a local habitation and a name. Where else on this feverish planet do we find a better example of two major racial and religious groups living in such harmony as the French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians do? What other nation in the same length of time has made a fifty-percent advance in the standard of living? Until recently it has been well-nigh impossible to convince an American that his Canadian neighbor enjoys a higher average income than he. Within a few weeks of freedom from controls, Canadian money became the world's most desirable currency. There was a kind of rough justice in the swift elevation of the Canadian dollar. The only complaint I have heard is that it rose beyond the power of many to get hold of it in sufficient quantity.

Finances in "splendid solvency" are important. Stability and progress, however, must be explained by other factors. Let me remind you of one of these powerful factors. It is your unique status as a completely independent member of the British family of nations. Canada gladly acknowledges one supreme political loyalty only, allegiance to that "profound symbol of statehood, which transcends diversity within the nation and national divisions within the Commonwealth"--the Crown. Until recently, even thoughtful and educated members of your sister democracy of the United States were baffled by the stubborn way Canadians maintained linkage with the British throne. To not a few, and not all of them readers of a certain unmentionable newspaper in Chicago, the constitutional monarchy seemed an expensive anachronism. Of course, the more perceptive realized that true democracy can flourish under the kind of legitimacy the crown provides. Now, however, as I am sure all Canadians realize, the death of His late Majesty and the accession of Queen Elizabeth II have convinced ardent republicans (I use the term in its most inclusive sense) that the British monarchy is not only a source of immense political unity and strength, but an eminently desirable living symbol of stability and progress. Would anyone who knew the indifference to and ignorance of this venerable institution which prevailed outside of the Commonwealth a generation ago have dreamed that such genuine grief and affectionate respect would have been expressed? Around the earth, and most notably in the American republic, the sad and splendid events of the past month provided an extraordinary demonstration of what the editor of the New Haven daily paper called "the power of the Crown as an institution central to the British Commonwealth idea." In city and town one encountered genuine sympathy. To my wife a neighbor whose American background is rich and deep, came with the news "The king is dead! I am so sorry." The use of the article "the" is significant. In a world which T. S. Eliot describes as "this twittering world" it is profoundly reassuring to know that there is a continuing center of stability and character. Of course, a basic reason why King George VI commanded public loyalty and support that left the monarchy unchallenged in a swiftly changing Britain and world, lies in the character of the man. "He brought," said an American editor of a small city newspaper, "He brought a king's devotion to a king's duties, and the world will remember him for it." One of the finest tributes to him occurred in the leading article of last week's issue of Time magazine. (Feb. 18, 1952, page 29 U.S. edition). "King George's quiet courage, his unostentatious persistence in meeting the everyday duties of his job, personified to Britons their own stubborn refusal to be downed by adversity." Then follows this memorable sentence: "He made ordinariness to shine . . . he gave his people a standard of conduct to rally to."

(3) To speak of the political climate of the country brings us quickly to consider that which we call by the omnibus term culture. Canada's future would be pale indeed without the light of her men of letters, her artists and writers. It is to be hoped that more Canadians read, reflect and act on the Report of the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, 1949, 1951. Reflection and subsequent constructive action on the findings of this Commission should do much to let the light shine more widely. It is a truism to say that without the light of truth and beauty shed by the arts the most privileged people cannot know true maturity or the durable satisfactions of life. After careful study of the Report a distinguished scholar, and former Canadian, Professor F. B. Brebner of Columbia University concluded that "Stern wrestling with circumstances far less favorable than those of the United States has presented serious problems and kept Canadians tough and canny." Toughness and canniness are admirable qualities for creative work. Dr. Brebner regrets that the Report is so "ardently, persistently nationalistic," that Canadians concerned with growth into cultural nationhood are "obsessed by fear of engulfment by an imaginary monolithic American culture." Is this a survival of a once justified fear of political annexation? If it is all fears may be allayed. Despite the occasional irresponsible outburst of a Sinn Feiner representing a midwestern constituency in Congress, annexationism is as dead as a Dodo. Recalling the particular representative who so naively suggested Britain "sell" Canada to the United States and thereby wipe out any existing financial obligations, suggests a story attributed to the late William Jennings Bryan. During one of his campaigns, an elector said to him, "I wouldn't vote for you if you were St. Peter." To which the candidate retorted, "If I were St. Peter, you couldn't vote for me. You wouldn't be in my district."

Fear of annexationism in the political sense is absurd and groundless. Too many Americans take Canada for granted. Too many Canadians assume that the ill-considered opinions of a few vocal Americans represent the prevailing sentiments of the United States toward Canada. Twice in this century the great branches of the English-speaking peoples have fought side by side and have triumphed. The partnership is indeed more than military. It is a partnership of ideas, values, principles. As John Masefield said in his lines on the late John Winant:

"If yours and ours will but understand,
Earth's future children will not live in fear
Nor deed of spirit die in deed of hand."

But do Canadians fear intellectual and moral annexation? Be not afraid. Keep alert to the peril of adopting all that flows over the channels of mass communication. T.V. may produce a race with grapefruit eyes and peanut brains! Here the best defence is offence, in the sense of increasing the flow of your own best communication. There is no Iron Curtain which can be erected against the two-way traffic of ideas, of ideals, particularly when a common language is the medium.

But is it not true, as another has said, that neither American nor Canadian culture is or is likely to be monolithic? (I have looked up that word popular among the intelligentsia: Monolithic-single block of stone; it would have to be some block to impede Canadian artists and writers!). The secret of a vigorous truly Canadian culture may lie in the motto of the French-Canadians, "Soyons nous memes"--"Let us be ourselves." As Canadians know themselves, and live out that knowledge with all the vigor and insights which characterize Canadians at their best, Canadian culture will flourish. Let Canadian artists and writers, philosophers and scientists, take the open field and they will not be worsted by any adversary. Canadian painters, like Lauren Harris, A. Y. Jackson, Casson; poets like E. J. Pratt, novelists like Thomas Raddall, Morley Callaghan, Hugh MacLennan, and Gabrielle Roy, are read, appreciated and considered by discerning men on both sides of the border not only worthy representatives of Canadian culture but first-rate artists by any standard.

(4) A glorious future belongs to Canada and to Canadians, not only because of the provision of all needed physical resources, not only because of her evident political maturity in representative government, not only because she willingly gives her allegiance to the Crown as a sovereign, free member of the British equivalent of the United Nations organization. Her future will be increasingly secure culturally if contemporary production and concern are true indications. She is indeed "the indispensable ally" and partner of the American Republic and of all free nations, and need never fear any kind of engulfment because her population is relatively small.

I come now to what to me and to others who know Canada reasonably well, and love what they know, is the conclusive reason. It is suggested by one of the ancient titles assumed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, "defender of the faith." In acknowledging the Queen of Canada, Canadians join her in defence of the Faith. I use the term in its broad, non-sectarian, and positive meaning. Canadians without distinction of language and belief agree with the Prime Minister who said, if we cease to be Christians we are lost. Canada is a community where a vital religious culture is recognized as essential to survival and growth. Americans remark the widespread support of religious institutions and practices. One sociologist asked to comment on the way in which Canadians attend the church or synagogue of their choice said it represents "a cultural lag". "Given time", he said, "Canada would catch up to the American way in this as in other things". Whereupon I overheard an American parson whisper fervently, "Give us more of that cultural lag!" Attendance and material support of religious and philanthropic institutions are not lightly to be dismissed as insignificant. To be sure, external support may be patronage and largely a thing of custom. It is not of this aspect of Canadian life that I think, however. It is the deeply held reverence for the author and giver of life, the Lord of history; the concern for the spiritual and ethical development of children and young people; the incorporation into the so-called secular institutions of the essentials of the Judeo-Christian heritage. As far as reliable reports indicate there has been no abrogation of the ancient law that "righteousness exalteth a people." Not self-righteousness, to which as human beings in a favored position we are always tempted, but that basic unpurchasable goodness, honesty, and kindness which we believe are integral to the nature of reality.

Mr. President and gentlemen: if these things are surely believed among us, then Canadians need never pray for "a guid conceit o' theirselves". If, as I firmly believe, this is Canada's century and that a future of even greater usefulness, of health, of service to mankind lies before her, let every Canadian go forward with dignity, pride and thanksgiving that God has matched him with this hour not only to make Canada greater but to assist in the healing of the nations.

What does it mean to be a Canadian in this year of grace and of danger, of crisis and opportunity?

It means to be one who believes in the right of men and women of any creed, class, color, or ancestry to live as human beings with the dignity becoming children of God.

A Canadian is one who believes in the right to be free, free not only from crushing coercions, dictatorships and regimentation, but free for that way of life where men may think and speak as they choose and worship God as they are led to do.

A Canadian is one who believes both in the power of noble tradition, and in the duty of adventuring wisely into new ways of service within the spacious boundaries of ordered freedom.

A Canadian is one whose first loyalty, as the late Lord Tweedsmuir said, is to Canada and to Canada's Queen.

As such he is one who is a loyal member of his own national community and an active member of the community of nations united in the maintenance and extension of freedom, fraternity and just peace.

A Canadian is one who believes in democratic, responsible government for himself and for all his fellow-citizens. He is one who believes in the right of the majority and also in the rights of minorities, because the minorities are also human beings.

A Canadian is one who believes in the right and duty to vote, to work, to learn, to live, and the right to be different so long as the difference does not jeopardize the rights of others.

A Canadian acts from faith not from fear; from understanding, not prejudice; from goodwill, not hatred. To bigotry he gives no sanction; to intolerance no support.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Canon the Rev. G. H. Dowker.