Canada is a country, Quebec pundit Alain Dubuc tells us, of losers and underdogs, of dominated peoples. It is doubtful that John Ralston Saul, noted Canadian historian and philosopher, had such a conception in mind when he established the LaFontaine-Baldwin lecture series three years ago. Yet their purpose is to encourage discussion about the composition and future of Canadian civic culture, and, in Canada it seems, this kind of observation unfailingly rears its head.

This volume collects the first three LaFontaine-Baldwin lectures interspersed with a philsophical dialogue between the authors. Opening on a sour note by dwelling on rampant homelessness in Toronto, the inaugural lecture by John Ralston Saul teems with centralist, liberal ideology. It is illustrated with exquisite historical references and superb quotations.

The following two lectures are delivered by Alain Dubuc and aboriginal leader George Erasmus respectively. Dubuc, a powerful voice in French-Canadian media, debates the merits of nationalism and decentralization. His lecture is by far the most provoking, challenging what he calls the “ideological orthodoxy” Canada has imposed upon itself. In direct opposition to Saul’s liberalism, Dubuc is harshly critical of widely accepted Canadian beliefs on issues like multiculturalism and health care.

George Erasmus, chair of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, concludes the formal lectures with a focus on native issues and the notion of confederation as a meeting of two nations, indigineous and European. Often dwelling upon the rocky past of the First Nations in Canada, he comes eventually to a positive, co-operative vision of our future. His voice is deliberate and resolute.

The brief dialogues feel subdued, even toothless, compared to the prepared lectures, with each author opting to concentrate on their own ideas rather than critique their peers. This is fitting, in a way. As significant as these lectures are now and should remain historically (further collections are planned), it is only appropriate that they betray some modesty, some passivity, some self-deprecation even. Whatever the state of Canada’s civil society, our national character is never in question, it seems, even among our brightest citizens.