YOUR VIEW

April 1 1972

YOUR VIEW

April 1 1972

YOUR VIEW

Your mention of Champ Clark’s statement to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1911 that he hoped to see the day when the Stars and Stripes would float over America right to the North Pole — All Canada Wants For Christmas Is Itself (December) — was very interesting. I remember the incident quite well as I was then 25. There was a sequel to it when, shortly after the end of the First World War, Clark again made a lurid statement to the effect that England could easily settle her war debt by handing Canada over to the U.S.

RAY DUVAL, KNOWLTON, QUE.

Thorns amid the laurels

You have given us a gem of a portrait of our Prime Minister — Trudeau Unveiled (February). How well you have summed up his character, also his characteristics! Time will tell how this has affected those from whom he will be expecting the best — for him.

MRS. MABEL SAUNDERS, OSHAWA, ONT.

* Despite the blue-eyed-babe Trudeau cover, I bought my first Maclean s in many years this past February. Oh, dear, oh. dear, I hope it is not now typical—all about banks and bankers, Trudeaus and Smallwoods and Mazos, and other now boring clichés. I found it about as exciting as Christmas Day in the workhouse.

Another point. Settling Up Sober is described as “12 typical reactions” to Trudeau. The 12 contributors are: four lawyers, three professors, one senator — need I go on? Typical, you say; but not of Canada. Typical of the Liberal elite or those surrounding it.

Despite some discreet criticism — notably Peter Newman’s on-the-noggin editorial — I sensed the February edition to be a deadly sober Liberal apologia, a preelection exercise. I’m not concerned with the state of Trudeau so much as the state of the country. And that, in many areas; is shocking. We do have battlers, homespun sages, butchers, bakers, shop girls, dead-broke poets, mavericks, Italian/

Limey/Polish, or what-have-you immigrants, Canadians all. It would be nice to hear from them. What say you? Or is Maclean s now by the bourgeois, for the bourgeois?

SID H. BRITTON, AURORA, ONT.

* Special congratulations on the February issue. The portraits of the Prime Minister and the opposition leader make me feel I know them intimately.

The presentation of how the bankers, the other half, live gives me courage to make finally a long planned visit to my bank manager.

ERICH ERDSTEIN, OTTAWA

* In the February issue, the people of Canada were subjected to gutless and irresponsible journalism. The threesection article on Trudeau was a joke, albeit a sad one, from beginning to end. Dragging up such faithful Trudeau fans as Merle Shain and AÍ Linden, we were told that not only has Trudeau done a good job as prime minister, but that he is in fact Canada’s last great hope to head off the American Grendel. Hugh MacLennan’s article strayed so far off the topic that he would have flunked any political science course at the University of Toronto had it been handed in as an essay. The whole article was designed to direct the wrath of the Canadian public away from Trudeau’s economic insanity and on down charisma lane again, pointing out that he is tremendously urbane, witty and charming. Do you really think people are that gullible twice in a row? JAMES D. MACLEAN, WESTON, ONT.

Settling Up Sober was not intended to be a cross section of Canadian opinion. It was tagged as a poll of prominent citizens who actively supported Trudeau in 1968. — The Editors

Love stories

Orchids on the new format and in particular on the survey of Canadian film-making .in the January issue, but a stink bomb for omitting us in the INPUT listing (page 29). We offer courses in both film-making and film aesthetics here. Larry Kent (Fleur Bleue, 1972) and Roger Racine

(Après Ski, 1970) cover cinematography, and the aesthetics are taught by Mairuth Hodge (The Owerri Game, 1971), Andre Theberge (Une Question de Vie, 1971, Canadian entry at Cannes) and Richard Spry.

GLAY SPERLING, CHAIRMAN, COMMUNICATIONS / CINEMA DEPARTMENT, DAWSON COLLEGE, WESTMOUNT, QUE.

* Your articles on Canada’s growing feature film industry (January) will do much to make Canadians aware that their support is vital to its survival and growth. Surely w'e are as concerned with fostering new cultural traditions as we are with preserving older ones.

The feature film industry should be of particular pride to Canadians as (unlike most of our industries) it is so greatly a homegrown and nurtured product. Since approximately 70% of all footage shot in Canada goes into commercial, educational, documentary and industrial films, we have been able to keep the Jutras, Kings, Almonds ^and Chapmans on this side of the border while they are developing their skills and dreaming of future Mon Oncle Antoines. My only disappointment with Hofsess’ fine article is that it omitted Quinn Laboratories under WHERE TO PROCESS. My clients, suppliers, family and banker have been under the impression that we process more 16-mm and 35-mm color film than any other independent laboratory in Canada.

F. J. QUINN, TORONTO

Within you, without you

I congratulate Professor McCourt on his exceptionally fine article, Ed McCourt’s Canada (February). He has condensed the feelings shared by many Canadians.

A steadily growing trend in recent years has been to shoulder many of our troubles onto our neighbors to the south. Inane name-calling has erupted; in particular, “Down with American imperialism.”

It is all too easy to condemn others, for what may be our own shortcomings. Let us not become anti-American but pro-Canadian. We must eradicate our fostered lethargic attitudes, salvage what we can of our inhabited regions and intelligently guide the vast portion of our country yet untouched. To echo a statement by Professor McCourt: All Canadians must “put their shoulder to the wheel and push.” Not only in matters of national unity must w'e do this but also in the rational management of our natural resources and the cleansing and restoration of our quickly deteriorating environment. It is not too late. Actions speak louder than name-calling. Let’s get it on!

JOHN G. BAILEY, LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY, THUNDER BAY, ONT.

A Your pious eulogies on “being Canadian” have found a dull climax in Ed McCourt’s Your View continued / Canada (February). To me all this chauvinistic mush smells an awful lot like good old red-herring stew.

continued on page 24

There is only one root issue: it is the colossal continental rip-off, in which the power freaks who run the U.S. and Canada are jointly engaged. And there are no signs whatever that average Joe Consumer is getting wise to the rip-off artists. On this side of the border any more than on the other side. Nor do we see evidence that any of Canada’s political establishments, of whatever shade, will soon blow the whistle on the institutionalized larceny which is peddled as free enterprise.

That’s the issue, gentlemen: not

the nationality of the rip-off artists, but their so far undisputed right to go on doing it.

MANFRED H. RUPP, DENMAN ISLAND, BC

Correction

Editor’s Note: In the table that accompanied the second part of The Bankers (March), Maclean’s committed two inadvertent errors: Neil McKinnon, Chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, was left off the list (even though his 10 directorships involving $13.2 billion should have earned him a prominent place on it) and J. P. R. Wadsworth’s main corporate interest was wrongly identified as Confederation Life, of which he is a director. His main corporate interest is the Bank of Commerce, of which he is president.

But she likes beer, too

I take considerable umbrage that your magazine, through the ridiculous ramblings of Heather Robertson, labels me a vulgar, beer-drinking, dressedonly-in-underwear slob. All this and more, because in her opinion l number among that despised proletariat, those mindless morons, who not only enjoy TV but actually like those programs she seeks to destroy.

Her February review — Good Guys, Bad Guys And Goon Shows — after the initial paragraph of insults turned into a foolish and immature harangue; phony as the proverbial three-dollar bill; full, in fact, of sound and fury signifying little. Par for the course on which the media seems to be presently set when it comes to writing about drama, movies, TV, etc.

What does she actually know I wonder, of fascism and the police state? Has she at any time lived under a fascist dictatorship? Or in Nazi Germany perhaps, so that she can

authoritatively liken those devastatingly wicked TV characters—Ironside, Cannon, and their ilk — most of them fictitious, to the infamous Gestapo?

She appears to generate that inverted type of snobbery, so commonplace with those who sneer perpetually at popular entertainment, and television in particular, whether they watch it or not. Such unholy humbug outdoes Archie Bunker — and at least Archie B. is funny. Perhaps Heather Robertson would prefer a series of shows glorifying anarchy?

(MRS.) RUTH POPE, OTTAWA

* Heather Robertson’s devastating criticism of our TV programs is a joy to read. How did my old hometown of Winnipeg produce anyone this smart?

Great power, unfortunately, produces great corruption and at the moment the U.S. seems rapidly going down the drain — and worse — dragging the rest of the world along with it. Protesting voices are still being raised but in the vast desert of the brainwashed majority they are given little heed. Love that gal Heather! EULA R. EDEN, MIAMI, FLORIDA

No more Newfie jokes

In his article, To Joseph Roberts Smallwood . . . (February), Bill Cameron has quoted me as making a strongly worded and somewhat silly statement. Since Bill is a friend of mine, 1 do not think that any malicious intent to distort is involved; I hope that it is merely a misunderstanding. Bill has made my job out as much more important than it is. I am part of the Atlantic Region Planning group in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, with special responsibilities for Newfoundland, i.e., I am a junior planner relating on the working level to the planners in Newfoundland.

In the interview, I pointed out the direction in which DREE saw possibilities for sustained economic growth in Newfoundland — a much expanded effort in the offshore fisheries, greatly increased fish-processing capacity to a more highly finished form (not one or two plants), adjustment of the inshore and mid-shore fishery, expansion of secondary manufacturing of goods presently imported to the island, and attraction of labor intensive, high-growth footloose industries, such as electronic component firms. When Bill asked about the Come By Chance oil refinery and the linerboard plant at Stephenville, I said that we were not involved in those projects. Given that they were going ahead, we

would want to ensure as far as possible that Newfoundland got the greatest benefit possible from them. I tried to stress the joint nature of the planning activity. I explained to Bill that DREE-assisted projects result from a planning process in which we and the province must agree that a given project will fit into an overall development scheme to which we both subscribe. It appears that he then drew the conclusion that, since it seems that Mr. Smallwood’s economic development priorities differed somewhat from ours, there was no agreement and no possibility of assistance. The case, rather, is that we concentrate on the areas of agreement.

BRIAN W. ROSS, OTTAWA

We’ll show ya!

John Gray’s attack on the Progressive Conservative Party’s parliamentary wing — The View From Ottawa (February) — cannot go unanswered. Even if it is true that the Progressive Conservative opposition has not provided the press with the blood-and-guts copy it evidently wishes, does it thereby follow that poor oppositions make poor ministers? In fact, the contrary seems true.

In any case, it is folly or malice or both to judge a Canadian political party by its parliamentary wing, something well known to political scientists, if not to the Ottawa Press Gallery. If Robert Stanfield forms the next government, he will have a greatly enlarged pool of Members of Parliament from which to draw cabinet colleagues. Were John Gray to study the roster of Progressive Conservative parliamentary candidates in the forthcoming election, he would have some much better clues to the composition of the Stanfield government.

MICHAEL PSELLUS, NEW WESTMINSTER, BC

Our hopes and prayers

In his sermon last Sunday our rector quoted from a Time magazine article in support of a point he wished to make. After church I jokingly suggested that he give equal pulpit time to our own Canadian magazine, Maclean’s, especially the very excellent February issue. He promised to do this after reading his copy.

It does attest, I submit, to the excellence of a publication when one finds its contents so interesting that it is difficult to put it down until it is read completely through, as was my experience with this issue.

ARTHUR WALLIS, TORONTO ■