Wither Ford Nation?

It is safe to say that municipal politicians do not get bigger than Rob Ford (no pun intended). It is hard to pick up a newspaper or switch on a news broadcast in Canada and beyond and not be made privy to the comings and goings from Nathan Phillips Square. The City that the late actor Peter Ustinov once described as ‘New York run by the Swiss’ is now coping with reining in the power of a Mayor whose exploits have given the gag writers at Saturday Night Live a vein of comedic gold.

And yet…

Yet, there are a significant number of Torontonians who still consider themselves part of ‘Ford Nation’, and who would vote to re-elect the Mayor if a suitable alternative did not present itself. This, of course, causes people in certain quarters to risk an embolism at the very notion that Ford could survive this current situation. They are outraged that there are people who they feel are less than mentally capable for not seeing what they would argue is obvious.

Yours truly has spent three decades working the political circuit – dozens of campaigns and contests at all levels. Candidates and movements rise and fall, and each cycle brings with it a new generation of champions and causes.

There are very few ‘unifying theories’ in politics. What works in one election cycle will blow up horribly in the next, and vice versa. If you try to plot an election or a politician based on the issues, you will become lost very quickly. Brian Mulroney won a majority mandate on the issue of free trade with the US – something that his predecessor as party leader, Sir Robert Borden, won power by opposing. The same Liberal Party that ran on free trade with the US in 1911 vehemently opposed it in 1988, only to work to expand it to include Mexico in the 1990’s. Plus ca change…

Circumstances change, and positions change with them. The real answer is not found in policy, but philosophy, or – dare I say – attitude?

Let me paint a scenario.

Meet John Smith. John is a second-generation Torontonian who was able to achieve the upward mobility his parents desired for him and worked assiduously to attain. He has a decent income as a skilled professional, and lives with his spouse and kids in the eponymous 905 belt. They have a nice house, not fancy, but comfortable and with a small mortgage. He floats some modest debt, mostly to help put the kids through post-secondary studies. His car is a few years old, and he takes care of it to make it last. There’s possibly one night out for a private dinner and some alone time, but the Smiths are generally homebodies.

You would think that John Smith is a happy and contented fellow. To some extent, he is, but there is a great deal of displeasure and dissatisfaction lurking about.

John feels as though he has been taken advantage of. He has seen his property taxes rise faster than his income, cutting into his retirement savings and what he uses to help his kids. He also sees that his local government – and governments of all levels – increasingly passing rules and regulations that impact his behavior. For the good of the environment, he accepts that recycling and garbage sorting is the right thing, but it’s the dozens of other little things, ranging from the number of cars in his driveway, to the way he decorates his house for the holidays. He feels like he’s being treated like a child and being charged a great deal of precious income for the privilege.

He complains, but people infer that he’s not being a good citizen, that he hates the environment, or hates healthcare, or hates children, or the elderly, or the poor. There is an implication that if he argues to keep a larger share of his earnings, he is being anti-social, that he is selfish and self-absorbed.

He watches as municipal councilors and mayors earn generous stipends, seem to be invited to the best parties by the ‘best’ people. The Star and the Globe and Mail may mention how they had attended some downtown gala and were feted along with the megacity’s intelligentsia over fine wine at the Four Seasons.

John Smith quickly understands that he is subsidizing the ability of others to attend events and happenings that he would never be invited to, all the while wondering whether he and his spouse will have to delay their retirement and re-amortize their mortgage to get the kids through their studies.

John Smith is not a happy person. John Smith knows what he wants and is willing to give his backing to the person who not only represents his views, but is willing to fight for them. John Smith will back the man or woman who says ‘you’re being taken advantage of, and I’m going to work hard to stop it.’

John Smith is Richard M. Nixon’s ‘silent majority’. John Smith helped elect Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney, and Mike Harris. John Smith is America’s Tea Party movement. John Smith is Ford Nation.

It is movement politics in the guise of a personality. People are loyal to the individual not because they believe them to be some perfect savior, but because they carry the hopes and aspirations of the group. So long as they continue to be the means to the end, support is assured.

Critics are discounted because they represent the vested interest under threat, and are merely protecting their privilege. They don’t believe the downtown wine-tasting crowd respects them, and the feeling is mutual. They expect name-calling and questioning of their intelligence. They’ve heard it before, and they wear it as a badge of honour. Every ad hominem insult tells them that they got under the skin of an elitist and lowered them to playground name calling. When people with advanced degrees and prodigious vocabularies resort to using pejoratives not often heard outside a local tavern near closing time, the recipient of the vitriol feels nothing but the satisfaction of having found an Achilles heel.

Movements always hold against outside pressure. Whether it be left or right, people close ranks and fight shoulder to shoulder. They expect the external challenge, and gird for it. The only thing that can really destroy the movement is the threat from within – often from the person at the top.

The biggest threats to Rob Ford do not come from Toronto City Council or from the editorial pages of the various dailies. It won’t come from pundit panels or protest groups. The two biggest threats to Rob Ford lie within his own erratic and reckless behavior, and in the emergence of another standard-bearer who could offer the same policies, but without all the baggage and the drama.

Despite the theatre of the absurd, those who voted for Ford generally feel that he delivered on his promises. Personal behavior aside, he gave his supporters what they wanted, and that is why they have held as firmly as they have. Critics of Ford Nation who wonder how people can overlook the personal peccadillos of a politician just because they ‘did their job’ need only ask themselves what their view of impeaching President Bill Clinton was. Clinton’s defenders argued that his performance as President was distinct from his personal affairs. In that respect, true believers on both sides of the fence are not that different.

In the past couple of months, admissions of illegal drug use have come from both Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. A true political agnostic may say that an elected public official using narcotics is an elected public official using narcotics. That view would be hard to find – squeezed into obscurity by people on both sides arguing why one is so dramatically different than the other. To put it bluntly, people on the left will forgive Justin Trudeau almost everything and Rob Ford virtually nothing. People on the right will do the same thing, but only in reverse.

Political scientists call it ‘confirmation bias’.  It means that if someone tells you something bad about the person you like, you declare that the fix is in. If they say something bad about the person you dislike, you puff out your chest and smugly declare ‘See, I told you so.’ At no point in time do you actually change your mind. You simply act like a patient who didn’t like their doctor’s prognosis and went out looking for a second (or third, or fourth) opinion to back up what you thought all along.

Again – it is not about the person. They may very well be nice, and all that, but that is not why they get elected. They win because they tap into a ‘zeitgeist’ in the public arena. They channel hope, fear, anger, passion and everything else that the voter brings to the polling station.

Rob Ford, the man, is a sad figure whose personal affairs have subjected the City of Toronto to a great deal of controversy. Rob Ford, the political idea, however, is still intact. Ford’s admissions and behavior have not caused his supporters to embrace higher property taxes and increased bureaucracy. John Smith still dislikes what he disliked before Ford took office.

In the end, even the most die-hard supporters of a politician will wake up one day and declare that they cannot tolerate any more. Even John Smith will one day turn off his television with a mixture of regret and disgust. Quite possibly he will not vote for Rob Ford, but that does not mean that he is going to vote for someone who wants the opposite of what Ford attempted to do.

If Ford Nation is defeated in next year’s municipal elections, it will not be because it has disappeared. It will either have found another champion, or it will have decided to stay home and wait until 2018.

Free Trade, Partisanship, and Ping Pong Balls

Politics is always tricky to hammer down. Issues have a lot of moving parts, subtexts and implied motives. If you layer on a good slathering of partisan bias, then you could be forgiven for missing the real story. It’s the same technique used by an illusionist. Flap your right hand all about so people don’t watch you palm the ping pong ball with your left.

This week at the G8 Summit in Inniskillen, Northern Ireland, there was discussion on free trade. There was the triumphant announcement that the United States and the European Union are about to begin formal negotiations on a treaty. There was also the admonition that after four years of talk, a Canada-EU treaty was ‘really, really close.’

The usually suspects among the Canadian punditocracy have greeted this news with the predictable requisite amounts of fear, trepidation and angst. Oh no, they lament. What if the Yanks beat us to the punch? Still others display a surprising amount of mental gymnastics by suggesting that Ottawa should be faulted for not getting a deal by now AND that such a deal, when ratified, would result in too many compromises to the Europeans. In the world of political opinion, it is possible to such and blow simultaneously.

There is often a fine line between ignorance and hyperpartisanship. Most times, they succeed in co-existing quite comfortably (thank you very much!). Of course, in the political world, there are no shortage of axes, places to grind them, or targets to swing at.

I have always believed that untruths commit two egregious sins. First, and most obvious, is the damage done by the lie itself. On the other hand, what often galls me more is the lack of effort and sophistication behind them. It’s bad enough that you spin me, but do you have to insult my intelligence as well? Lying is bad enough, but assuming that the target of your lie is stupid as well is beyond the pale.

Pundits always equate their opinion with truth. They try to make the subjective into the objective. A dislike of the taste of liver becomes the equivalent of 1+1 equaling 2.

For the record, I have no eternal truth on this issue of free trade with the European Union. I have an opinion, based on observation, making it as valid as anything you’ll read in a newspaper or hear emanating from the well quaffed talking head on your television.

So, let’s begin…

A Canada-EU trade deal represents too much of a compromise

Perhaps it does. Maybe that’s why it’s taking so long. You might not have read it, but neither have the people who are telling you about it. They are doing the political equivalent of improv. They take suggestions from the audience (Give me a topic…Free Trade with the EU….Okay, now give me a position…I’m against it…Good! Now let’s begin!) then they write their columns and do their interviews.

Is it at all possible that the delay in ratification is a result of one, or both, parties not being satisfied that their national (or supranational) interests are not being met? If Ottawa agreed to everything Brussels wanted from the start, I suspect we’d already have inked the deal.

You can have speed, you can have caution – you can’t have both. People should know better than to suggest such a thing.

We have to hurry or the Yanks will beat us!

Really? Exactly how long do you think it’ll take for a US-EU deal to come into effect? Six months? Twelve? Twenty-four?

Ask yourself how long the Canada-US FTA took to get done. The Americans are desperate for our oil, but how long has the whole Keystone XL approval dragged out? Anybody remember how many years after Free Trade where we still had to deal with softwood lumber?

But let’s not be negative here. Let’s assume that this agreement has been ordained by the Gods and has redefined what Washington considers a ‘fast track.’ Let’s assume that this treaty’s negotiation is the fastest in the more than 200 years of the Republic’s history. Okay, the treaty goes to the Senate.
Huh?

Silly rabbit – everybody knows that for a treaty to become US law it has to be passed by the US Senate. It’s in their Constitution.

Okay – no prob. Obama’s a Democrat. The majority of Senators are Democrats. He’ll tell them how to vote, and it’s all over except for the crying.

Yes – and with a Democratic majority in the Senate, look how easy it was for the White House to ram through healthcare reform, gun control and that little ‘fiscal cliff’ thingy. Let’s not forget that one-third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years, and that US Presidents would rather get a root canal than introduce any controversial topic just before a mid-term.

Let’s harken back to those wild and heady days of 2004, and the Australia-US FTA. President George W. Bush wanted it. The man running to replace him, John Kerry, wanted it. The Aussies wanted it. Slam dunk, right?

On June 24th of that year, Tom Steever of the National Farm Broadcast Service reported the following:

“The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday dealt a setback to the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement and then held up final action on the deal. Key Committee Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota succeeded by a single vote in amending the agreement, further tightening beef import safeguards.”

Read that carefully, now – the last sentence. The Senate Finance Committee held up the ratification of a comprehensive free trade treaty between the United States and Australia ‘by a single vote’. Single. One. Solitary. Alone. Yes, it eventually passed, but you get the idea.

The truth is that Washington does not only play political hardball, they invented it and have turned it into a fine art form. If the negotiators  from Brussels succeed in not losing their shirts in the rough housing with Obama’s emissaries, they still have to run the gauntlet of 100 Senators – 33 up for re-election every two years and all ready to turn on their party and their President if their seat depended on it.

Beat Canada to a deal? Yeah…right.

We need this deal more than they do and they know it.

Sure about that? Take a look at the GDP figures for the EU, and then compare them to Canada. Look at what’s going on in Greece. Look at the number of European banks whose main shareholder is the government. Ask anyone holding a bank account in Cyprus how they felt about the recent ‘surcharge’. If you’re not convinced of the picture on the ground there, then fly to Madrid and ask anyone on the street if they are happy that the national unemployment rate is somewhere in the range of 25 percent.

Don’t kid yourself – they need a deal as badly as we do. Probably worse.

The Best Defence is a Good Offence

So far, it’s been looking at things from a different angle. Let’s go somewhere that the pundits haven’t ventured yet. Let’s go on an adventure!

The pundits do get one thing right,that weakness in the face of a negotiation is a monumental error. The question is 'whose weakness'?

In 2011, Statistics Canada reported that Canada's exports to the 27 member EU stood at C$42.29 billion. What you might not realize is that 46 percent of that, or C$19.37 billion, was with only one EU member - Britain. The 2011 figures for the United States are not as dramatic, but of the US$268.5 billion shipped to the EU, 20.8 percent, or US$55.87 found its way to Britain.

In many ways, for both the US and Canada, trade with the European Union is really trade with Britain. Bear in mind that this is the same UK where the majority of people are dissatisfied with EU membership and that there is good reason to believe they would vote to leave the EU in a referendum.

Ask yourself what the value of Canada-EU trade would be if Britain were out of the equation? Well, simple math says it would drop almost in half. Okay, under those conditions, what types of demands could Brussels make on Ottawa (or Washington) for that matter?

If the value of EU trade for Canada plunged overnight from C$42.29 billion to only C$22.92 billion while a trade deal was being finalized, would it not seem altogether reasonable to assume that Brussels might have to concede far more than it would have in the beginning? If the value of the European market to the US dropped by 20 percent in one day, exactly what kind of attitude shift would infect the American negotiators? Would they say that it makes no difference? Would they say, perhaps, that $213 billion doesn’t get the kind of compromises that $268 billion can expect?

A cynical person might suggest that with the possibility of a British withdrawal from the EU being more than a statistical rounding error, Brussels wants a deal sooner than later because a European Union without Britain is less of a draw and a player with fewer high cards to play with either Canada or the US. In geopolitics, as in life, people are not generally amenable to paying full price for half a loaf.

 

At the end of the day…

When all is said and done, trade treaties are all about the politics. If they were based solely on economics, we would have negotiated global free trade decades ago and the WTO mandarins would not be feverishly working to resurrect the Doha Round of talks like some latter day Lazarus.

Treaties are about politics, and politics is a lot like shopping at a yard sale – searching for bargains and haggling over what to pay. The seller wants a King’s Ransom while the buyer wants a freebee. Neither will get their way if a deal is desired. The buyer will pay more, and the seller will settle for less. Desire and desperation will determine where the two sides meet.

Whether you think Canada-EU free trade is a good thing or not is a debatable point. Whether or not you like Stephen Harper and his party is an equally valid discussion. Neither of these discussions, however, suggest the relative strengths and weaknesses of either side. A like of the Prime Minister doesn’t give Canada the upper hand. Conversely, a hatred of Harper doesn’t put Brussels in the driver’s seat. Both parties must contend with their advantages and vulnerabilities, and whatever does come about will reflect just that.

As for the optimistic assurance at the G8 that a Canada-EU deal was ‘really, really close?’ It was the British PM, David Cameron, who said it - not Stephen Harper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Unsolicited Advice from an Opinionated Foreigner

Sometimes it is very difficult to stick to one’s knitting, although as a matter of polite principle it is seldom borne as the wrong thing to do.

Not everyone shares this opinion, and a good number of them have been out in full force over the past couple of weeks. Talk of Britain reconsidering its membership in the European Union has elicited a great amount of comment. There are Belgians, Spaniards, Germans, French, Irish and even one erstwhile functionary of the US State Department who have all chimed in on the efficacy of such a move. Indeed, this veritable United Nations of punditry has dominated the UK press so thoroughly that it’s a wonder that anyone holding a British passport can get a word in edgewise.

From where I sit, this spate of clamoring is quite peculiar, as it comes almost on the eighth anniversary of keeping my own mouth shut – not an easy task, I assure you.

In late 2004, I was greeted with two happy occurrences. First and foremost was the birth of my lovely daughter. Around the same time, though, came the point where I had finished a manuscript. Within a couple of months, it would go to print with the rather ponderous, albeit self-evident, title “The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade.”

Within a short time of its publication, I had opportunity – and still do to this day – to meet and talk with a number of people in the UK. They inhabit a good portion of the political spectrum – UKIP, to Tory, to Labour – and they have always been very polite in their discourse and reasonable in their demeanor. I continue to value their friendship and their wise counsel.

It is no secret that the Commonwealth has often been cited as a possible alternative to membership in the European Union, and that many commentators in the British press and in political circles have made this argument. UKIP, in particular, has been explicit enough in this regard to have made it part of their policy manifesto, and campaigned on it in the last British general election.

Nevertheless, I have always tried to steer clear of the issue of a 'Brixit.' To be blunt, it is none of my business. I am a Canadian, born and raised, like successive generations of my family.  Ask me about NAFTA, about Quebec sovereignty, or the travails of politics in Ottawa, but Britain? Sorry, the most recent arrival of my ancestors to Canada left British shores almost 180 years ago. That's the moment when my family left their right to an opinion on British politics as well.

It is awkward, to be certain. I am, after all, a subject of Her Majesty, just like all of them. The coins in my pocket bear the Queen's likeness. I drive past a 'Prince Charles Public School' on my way to work each morning, and every Monday evening, I join all the other parents at standing straight while my 12 year old son's Navy Cadet corps wraps up their weekly parade with an a capella rendition of 'God Save The Queen.'

Nevertheless, the distance remains, and for all of the commonalities, I am a spectator.

Ask me if I'm pro-Commonwealth, and I will give you a resounding and unqualified yes. Ask me whether Britain should stay in the EU or vote to leave, and I'll be resigned to fidgeting through the quiet awkwardness of my own design. If pushed, I'll tell you that Canada should build up its Commonwealth connections - Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore to name a few. Prod me more, and I'll tell you that the people of Britain need to consider their own path, their own future.

That, of course, is the roundabout point to this piece. Britain's future belongs to its people - its many citizens who go about their business quietly building and renewing a great country, one with a storied past and a bright future. It does not belong to the chattering classes on the continent, and it certainly does not belong to an American diplomat. It does not even belong to a friendly cousin from the Dominions, no matter how well meaning they might be.

No one from beyond Britain's shores has anything to contribute to the EU membership debate - pro or con - even if they believe they do.

In the coming months, it is likely that the country will be facing an important decision on their future with Europe. It will be a tough discussion to have, but challenging situations have never been shied away from. They are the land of Elizabeth and Victoria, of Wellington and Nelson, of Churchill and Thatcher. They have always been at their best when things have been their trickiest.

Like any loyal friends, rather that lecture and cajole the British people on the future of their nation, I would offer the following:

We are your friends.

We have been your friends in good times and bad.
We trust you and respect you.
Make your choice and know that we will always be in your corner whatever you decide.

Good luck to you all.

Happy Earth Day...Week...?

Well, good Saturday morning to one and all, and a very joyous Earth Day to my environmentally conscious friends.

Earth Day, as my fellow Lakeside dwellers know it is the day each year when people from here:

Tell those of us who live here:

That we're destroying Mother Earth and need to reform our wicked, wicked ways.

Later, I plan on taking some sobriety lessons from an alcoholic. Toodles!

Planes, Trains and Migraines

Often in politics the only people who are sure of their position are the ones who have made up their minds before the facts are presented.  They don't change their minds, but simply spin their way to their desired conclusion. Cherry pick the juicy - and usually embarrassing - tidbits and bobs your uncle!

The F-35 'situation' (as I know of no other word to describe it without emoting a bias) is a clear example of a muddied issue. Those who listen to the verbal jousting, the dueling spreadsheets, and the gotcha banter between the floor of the Commons and the National Press Club, seek elucidation and get a migraine for their troubles.

So, at the risk of my own tenuous hold on sanity, let's deconstruct this a bit.

1. The F-35 is needed to replace the aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets.

Okay, that should make sense. People who will trade in a car half-way through their lease expect military pilots to go faster than the speed of sound in objects built before some politics professors in Canadian universities were conceived. Drydocked subs and Sea King helicopters that spent more time being rescued than actually doing rescues should have been a big ol' red flag for those whose safety and security depends on the operators of these machines.

2. The F-35 is the best plane for the job.

I am not an aerospace engineer - just a cranky farmer. I did do some rudimentary ground school type training in Air Cadets many moons ago, but that doesn't make me Billy Bishop or Chuck Yeager. I will let you in on a little secret, though. Fully 99.999 percent of the people foaming at the mouth on either side of this issue have no clue either. For all they know, magic pixie dust and the prayers of kindergarteners keep those things afloat. Maybe Tom Cruise used a little of L.Ron Hubbard's 'Dianetics' to get afloat in 'Top Gun'. Again - I don't know, and chances are you don't know either.

The opposition politicians and press believe that Peter MacKay should know. Well, he should probably know more than most, but really? Think about it - if Thomas Mulcair became Prime Minister, and he appointed a Minister of Health, would there be any expectation that said individual could walk into a hospital, scrub down, then remove someone's appendix? Let's face it - half the New Democrats who got elected in Quebec ridings only knew enough 'francais' to say hello, order a beer, or ask where the toilet was.

Ministers have advisors. These advisors have titles. Those titles are given to them because they have lots of letters after their names, or have written books on subjects, or taught on subjects, or all of the above. 

Ministers who don't know how aircraft work ask people who have Ph.D's in aeronautical engineering and pilot's licences. If they're smart, they'll follow the advice of those who spent a few years and many sleepless nights trying to sort these things out. If that advice is found lacking, is it the Minister's fault? I don't know. If you go to a doctor and they prescribe the wrong drug to you, is that your fault? Same principle, folks.

3. It's $16 billion...no, it's $25...no, it's $16 billion...no, it's nothing.

Okay, so from what I understand, MacKay's office says the cost of the planes will be $16 billion. Auditors and opposition politicians say it's more like $25 billion. The government counters that since no contract has been signed, no money has actually been spent yet.

Here goes. MacKay is right when he says that $16 billion is the cost. If the F-35 were a used car, that is the number that would be written on the big flourescent piece of cardboard shoved under the windshield. That would be the number on the cheque that DND would cut and give to Lockheed Martin.

So why $25 billion? Well, the astute auditors say that you have to take other things into account. How about maintenance, manpower and equipment over thirty years?

This is technically true, but also a bit of sophistry. Yes, the planes will cost money beyond the sticker price, but - newsflash - so does everything else. Things break and need to get fixed - cars, houses, computers, you name it. Just drive down a city street - look, there's a mechanics garage, and there's a Rona / Home Depot / Lowe's, and over there, there's a guy who can fix a tear in your chesterfield, or patch your driveway, or flat tire. Folks, things break down, and it costs to fix them.

If we are going to say that the government is 'lying by withholding the true cost of the planes', then every real estate agent lies about the cost of a listed property because they didn't include the cost of repairing the roof in 15 years, or replacing a burnt out lightbulb, or the cost of the electricity to run your kids XBox 360. Your car? Well, did they tell you how much the cost of gas, tires, fuel filters, and pinetree air fresheners will be.

If $25 billion is the true price of the F-35's, then the true value of a three bedroom bungalow in Canada is $1.5 million, and you can't buy a Chevy Cruze for less than $75,000. 

My confusion, however, is with the PBO - the Parliamentary Budget Office. On this matter, they feel that associated and related costs to the planes should be included. Okay, I'll go with it. If we are going to do that, though, why are we getting up on our hindlegs about moving the age for collecting Old Age Security to 67. The PBO says that OAS itself if financially stable, and that the move is unneccessary. Okay, but the cost of aging also covers healthcare, which is both tenuous and supported by federal dollars. If the cost of jet fuel and pilot's pay will have a knock-on effect on the F-35, wouldn't the ballooning costs of catheters and bedpans not have a similar effect on OAS? Just asking.

The only comment that is dubious is the one where the government says that no money was spent. That is not true. The original project to develop the F-35, then known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), involved seed investments from a number of countries. Canada's contribution to the effort was $200 million. That cheque, however, didn't get signed by Stephen Harper. 

That little expenditure was okayed Jean Chretien.

I'm going back to the lake. Life's simpler there, and I'm getting a headache.

I knew I hated phonecalls

The first rule for political staffers is never to make yourself part of the story. Conservative Michael Sona and Liberal Adam Carroll broke that rule. Whether they did more than that is a subject for thoughtful investigation rather than supposition. The actions of these individuals, and countless others across all party lines, have contributed to the theatre of the absurd that is taking place on Parliament Hill.

The people behind both "Robocalls" and "Vikileaks" have, at the very least, suffered from major lapses of judgment and character. In some instances, they may have done things that may need to be examined.

For me, the worst thing about 'robocalls' are their annoying tendency to wake up my children at stupid hours of the evening, or interrupt my television / writing / quality family bonding time with things that I neither care about nor intend to act upon. There's nothing like a phone solicitation for cash or votes when you're waiting for a call concerning a job interview or test results from an oncologist! But, once again, I digress...

The recent confession of Liberal MP Tony Valeriote that the party making the biggest noise about these calling practices engaged in it with equal relish has only served to make a broader point about the dysfunction and moral turpitude that has inflicted the body politic like poison ivy- but first, a prediction.

The political circus that is just beginning will stretch out for weeks and months. One group will clam up, retrench, and claim that the guilty parties have been dealt with in an expeditious manner. The other side will claim a conspiracy of monumental proportions that dwarf the allegations of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 subplots combined.

One cannot disprove a negative, so an argument will be made that every voter in Canada received a questionable call and that the results in all 308 ridings have been irrevocably tainted. In the other instance, the resolution of the dubious twitter account will be characterized as only the tip of the iceberg, and that within one party's research services office lies something no less nefarious than the group that smeared George McGovern and Daniel Ellsberg into oblivion. That is where the interests lie and that is where the narrative will go. After all, if every person who claimed to have been at Woodstock actually did roll around in the mud at Max Yeager's farm, an entire region of upstate New York would have been awash with VW Vans and tie-dyed T-shirts.

When vanity and self-interest are at stake, 1000 robocalls become 500,000, and one bone-headed online poster becomes a room-full of seedy operatives.

Given that both Liberals and Conservatives (so far) have been openly implicated in this practice, we are going to be treated to a level of sophistry that politicians often live down to.

If things are going to get better, people are going to have to get beyond both the actions and the hyperbole attaching itself to it. There is a greater problem, people, and these are but mere symptoms of this disease. The trick of the political operator, like that of the professional magician, is to distract your attention with one hand while the other performs the trick. If you follow the Robocall / Vikileaks soap opera, you will be duly distracted from the real issue.

Once upon a time, yours truly was a political wanna-be. I joined a party before I was old enough to drive, and went to conventions where free food and drink were available at fancy hotel hospitality suites. For a kid from a modest background, getting to dress up and be treated like a high-roller while talking to cabinet ministers was, and remains for some, quite the little ego trip. There were others in my midst, and not much older than me, who would dress the part, try to give the air of a 'serious young man / woman', eager to gain some currency - a summer job on the Hill, or maybe a reference letter for school.

Here's the type - a young person in their early twenties, most likely a political studies graduate, or still working on their degree. They are drawn to political activism for reasons that are unique to them, but they pursue it with all of the vigour and optimism they can muster. They get involved in local campaigns and are willing to do all of the thankless jobs, like stuffing envelopes, doing phonebanks and fetching coffee. They work long hours for no thanks, except maybe the appreciation of a candidate who may become an MP and offer them some sinecure in the local constituency office, or even a chance to walk around Parliament Hill flashing a Blackberry and looking all so formidable.

While it is never fair to generalize, it would also be a lie to say that campaigns and partisan life among the barely-legal set don't have the feel of an episode of 'Mad Men', with a soupcon of apprenticeship of Charlie Sheen's character to Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street". Political issues are often created or destroyed with all of the alacrity of a dice roll in a game of "Risk" or the summoning of a chaotic good half-elf in a marathon Dungeons and Dragons game played in a friend's basement on a ratty old chesterfield.

It is a natural match, however. Politicians and parties need smart, willing and enthusiastic people. They, in turn, are eager, willing to work dreadful hours for crappy pay, and have no life beyond 'the game.' Most people with marriages, families, homes and steady incomes would not want to contemplate the life of an MP. Certainly, taking a paycut and taking a wrecking ball to your personal life would not justify being an assistant to an MP. The only perk - that of being able to walk the hallways of the Centre Block - can easily be accommodated by signing on to one of the many public tours of the edifice.

Where do 'robocalls', anonymous hacks, and impromptu gate crashings / protests come from? Twenty years ago, I would have said a group of these people sitting in the back corner of a Byward market bar, chainsmoking Export 'A''s, quaffing pitchers of draft, and giggling like a bunch of ten year olds who snuck a naughty peek inside the girl's changeroom. Beyond the legal diktats concerning tobacco in public places with four walls and a roof, I doubt much has changed.

Politicians and partisans will wax on about the indignities and the disgust of this type of behaviour. Some will say it's a Tory thing, others will say it's 'American' influence. Some will say it's an orchestrated conspiracy, while others will say it's a rogue with a second hand Nokia and a $10 calling card.

All are right, and all are wrong.

It is a political system where parties have become reliant on a cadre of people who could use:

a) Some ethics training;

b) Some adult supervision;

c) Some real-world experience from the 'School of Hard Knocks';

d) A kick square in the ass; or,

e) All of the above

I vote for 'e'.

Readin', Writin', Arithmetic and what?

Some months ago, my 11 year old son asked me what I was - politically, that is.


It was a normal enough question, given that there were both federal and provincial elections in full swing, and that it was impossible to turn on the television without being inundated with campaign ads, news stories, and the ever present 30 second sound bite. My son also knows that his father is a politically active person, and follows current events regularly.

I told him that I was a Conservative. As I am a paid member of said party and sit on riding association boards, this can be considered a fair and accurate answer.

He, however, declared that he, too, was a Conservative.

For the typical father who wishes for their progeny to follow in their footsteps, this would seem like a point of paternal pride. I could have simply said "that's wonderful" and "I'm so proud of you" and left it at that.

But, I didn't.

I have worked campaigns for over thirty years, from all levels and angles. I've sat in University lecture halls and discussed the system inside and out. I've knocked on more doors than the average Fuller Brush man. All of this told me that this was not a gift.

"How do you know?" I asked.

His answer was to repeat that as I was a Tory, then he would be as well.

This, of course, would not do. I explained that a party affiliation was not a birthright. I gave the example that the late NDP Leader Jack Layton was the son of a Federal Conservative cabinet minister. I also explained that your party affiliation has to reflect how you see the world, what your priorities are and what your aspirations for the future may be. I added that when you join a party, you are actively supporting a set of policies and ideas, so you better be sure you agree with them.

I concluded by saying that I would rather he support another party than support the same one if it meant not being honest with himself. This I believe for both him and his sister - to one's self be true.

So, I drive to work and turn on CBC Radio. They tell about some schools that have organized fieldtrips to the Supreme Court in Ottawa in order to attend a court hearing on aboriginal education rights. The children were about my son's age, and seemed remarkably schooled in political issues. Mind you, one should never assume manipulation when ten and eleven year olds talk like third-year political studies majors. Then, of course, came the teachers, who defended that their choice of outing was not about political indoctrination - it was about combating racism.

So, let's dissect this.

Let's agree from the start that the state of aboriginal education is absolutely shameful. Let's also agree that racism still exists, and that we need to be vigilant about intolerance based on one's racial or ethnic background.

The question still remains whether it is the place of educators to impose their political point of view on their students.

Years ago, I attended a graduation ceremony for a local high school in order to present a bursary to one of the students. The valedictorian rose to deliver his address to the gathering, and while my expectation was for a thoughtful reminiscence of past years and enthusiastic hope for the future, it did not quite happen that way.

The time was when teachers unions in Ontario were at loggerheads with the PC government of Premier Mike Harris, and the valedictorian's address was one long manifesto of grievances against said government. It spoke of the cruel and vindictive nature of a government that made victims of Ontario students by going after their beloved teachers who only sought to do right by their charges.

As much as I admire anyone who has the courage of their convictions, and is willing to place their name and reputation against a cause, I have an immense amount of contempt for those who use their power and status in order to bend others to their cri de coeur. I worry about any group of people who enter into their responsibility as citizens and voters by simply parroting what someone told them to say. I refuse to believe that there are not young people who canvass for parties simply because some authority figure with an agenda abused their position.

It feels somewhat sordid to use young people as a proxy for advancing whatever political agenda you wish to advance. To convince students that they must embrace one particular point of view, and ignore the perspective of others - let alone their own gut instinct - does not reflect well on the person who does it.

My son and daughter are in the school system, and my obvious concern is that while I have made the conscious and - I believe, correct - decision not to force my political views on them, or convert them to a particular way of thought, I do not have the confidence that others will observe the same ethic.

I do not believe that either of my children should call themselves Conservatives because their father told them so. Conversely, I do not believe that an educator should presume to groom them for membership in the political party of their choosing.

The decision to call oneself a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat or whatever boils down to a complex set of decisions and choices. Everything you see and hear from your earliest memories, to the individual relationships and life experiences that guide your path are the forces that will guide you to the true path as you define it.

Hate big government or big business because you hate it - not because Miss. So-and-so told you in Grade 9 that it was the right thing to do. She can knock on doors and put up lawn signs on her own time if she feels that strongly about it.

And, if you are my children, don't do it because your father said so. It may be the only instance in your childhood where I don't want you to do what you're told.

Guidelines on bedtime and homework notwithstanding of course.

Finally – at long last!

When you start out doing something for the first time, you always have a certain mindset going forward. Once you are hip deep in it all, you realize just how right – and wrong – you were when you began.

Most Canadian kids, at some juncture, wish to be an astronaut, firefighter, or Prime Minister – or all three. Life and fate tend to weed out all but the most brave and committed of souls. For me, I had always wanted to write a book. I don’t necessarily understand why – it was just something that had always appealed to me.

For years, I wrote, but it never seemed to amount to much. Finally, about eight years ago, I resolved to stubbornly shepherd something as far as I could take it. That became my first book, “The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade,” published by Trafford in 2005.

Writing that book did three things for me. One, it allowed me to articulate many deeply held views. It also gave me an introduction to people and to circumstances I might not otherwise have had the chance to enjoy. Lastly, but just as important, it broke my internal resistance – the thing that made me start a writing project, then conveniently toss it aside before I took it to the end.

Two days ago, at about nine at night, I reached the point that, for better or worse, I could do no more. I don’t know if this is indicative of all writers, but I had a voice inside my head that said “It’s done – play with it anymore and you’ll just break it.”

And so, I have completed my first novel, entitled “Lulio”.

It has no sexually driven vampires, and no pre-pubescent wizards, so it is markedly different than 99 percent of what you’ll find in your local bookstore. It does, however, have the following:



• Wall Street corruption

• Seedy motivational speakers

• Cold War spying

• Prostitution (and yet with no sex?)

• Mistaken identity

• 1980’s karaoke performed with a very thick Cuban accent

• …and a large fiberglass hotdog

You will have surmised that this is not high literature, and if it were a movie, it would be a cross between a film adaptation of Voltaire’s “Candide” and the Farrelly brothers’ “Dumb and Dumber”.

It may not get me invited to have drinks in the lobby of the Algonquin with John Irving, but it was fun to imagine and to scribe. It’s fiction, and it’s supposed to be fun. I don’t want to change the world, or buy it a Coke, or anything. I would, however, like to know that somewhere, someone reading it is laughing at its rather rude and naughty bits.

It is published through Smashwords as an e-book, and in the coming days will (hopefully) be available through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple and other online retailers.

Enjoy!

PS. No-one I know, or have ever been within twenty feet of, is a character in this book. Besides, I don’t think that you would really want to be!

Problems with Pugnacious Partisans

It is an enduring paradox of the human condition that we tend to apply labels to things that have no correlation to their attributes.


Think back to the days of the Cold War and the existence of two German states. One was called the Federal Republic of Germany, while the other was called the German Democratic Republic. Now, take a wild guess as to which one allowed free movement of its citizens and which one erected razor wire and routinely incarcerated its citizens?

There are very few times when the farm kid and the political science grad in me actually have a meeting of the minds, but this is really one of those moments. The bigger the sales job, the more underwhelming the product. In politics, as with many other things, there is an inverse relationship betwixt sizzle and steak.

In our local newspaper, there has been a long running verbal joust between an ardent supporter of the Liberal party, and the two gentlemen who represent the constituency at the federal and provincial levels.

The gentleman spares no opportunity to complain about what he sees are demonstrated behaviours unworthy of an elected official and representative of the people.

The record, of course, is that the one gentleman has never publicly uttered an aggressive or ill-tempered word in over a decade of public service. The other gentleman did, on one occasion prior to his election, post a photograph that was, admittedly, in poor taste. Nevertheless, in the four years he has held his seat, nary an intemperate word has left his lips.

In contrast, his accuser is someone familiar to yours truly as he often provides the most colourful displays of pantomime and histrionics during all candidates debates in order to make his point. He is usually brandishing a notebook or some visual prop and with all of the alacrity (and ascerbity) of a Crown prosecutor, he presents his ‘j’accuse’ in a voice that would drown out rusted car mufflers, fighter aircraft, and air conditioning units about to eject their fan blades into the machine housing.

The local debate during the last federal election was particularly poignant, and I cannot help but to share some aspects of it.

The crowd was visibly partisan, and clearly incensed, for all number of policies of the government of the day. When the local member, Scott Reid, attempted to open his mouth – if even to clear his throat – he was quickly seized upon by a gaggle of heckler whose boos and hisses made the sound of my own breath inaudible to me. He could not, in effect, get a word out edgewise.

What was more curious was that these rude and aggressive interruptions had a theme. They were always prefaced, or concluded, with the allegation that the government ‘silenced’ its opponents. Yes, people concerned about Canadians being able to speak at liberty fought for that right by not allowing a candidate to so much as cough without an interruption.

One older lady who sat beside me proceeded to heckle and hiss throughout Mr. Reid’s opening statement. She wore a button for an opposing candidate, and did not stop the hectoring until I politely promised her that if she immediately stop the catcalling, I would guarantee that I would not try to shout her candidate down in a similar fashion.

It has been my contention for a long while that political ideas are very much like songs. A bad song on the radio does not improve its melody when you turn up the volume. Similarly, bad policies and ill conceived debating points do not mysteriously become elegant and mesmerizing if they are presented at such a decibel level as to induce hoarseness and protruding veins in one’s forehead.

In many ways, the ‘bully pulpit’ has become the ‘bullying pulpit’, with members of the congregation displaying all of the characteristics of a lynch mob that has not quite built up the naus to go all of the way.

What may be more unconscionable than the boorishness is the blatant hypocrisy of it all. Just to clarify, I understand that inconsistency, like sin, is an element of the human condition. Those who understand this spend a great deal of time and effort trying to overcome it, and atone for it. There are, however, those who have the mental acuity to know that they are hypocrites, and will nevertheless revel in it. They not only celebrate the double standard, they worship at its altar.

Years ago, I was a Grade 5 student who was, by any measure, awkward both physically and socially. Like most boys of that general description, I was the object of bullying and haranguing. On one particular occasion, two older – and physically more dominating – boys decided to prey upon their favourite target at recess. I was tossed and jostled around, kicked and shoved. No matter what, I could not extricate myself.

Past the shoulder of one of the bullies, I caught eye contact with the teacher supervising the playground – my teacher, in fact. He watched the proceedings with a cool detachment, and did not intercede.

Out of frustration, I finally yelled “Why don’t you two just f--- off!”

Within a split second, my teacher – the one who watched me get roughed up for five minutes – finally sprung into action. He came over, grabbed me by the collar and frog-marched me up to the Principal’s Office because of my filthy mouth.

Why do I tell this particular story? Two reasons.

It was because of episodes like this that I developed a strong distaste for bullying, incompetence, and hypocrisy. The second, and more direct, reason is that one of the loud and boorish hecklers who shouted down the podium at this particular debate was none other than that teacher – thankfully retired so as to not impair the minds of another generation of public school students.

I am not so doctrinaire as to see only virtue in my own party of choice, and only vice everywhere else. I also hold that the choice of a political party is one of perspective and of reasoned consideration – not a reflection of one’s character or moral compass. I also believe that people of differing political views can find some pretext for being kind and respectful to one another.

The recently concluded Ontario provincial election provides a good illustration for me. The Tory incumbent in my riding, Randy Hillier, is someone whom I have had a good and respectful working relationship. Indeed, I serve as the Past President of his constituency association, and was proud to have voted for him.

The Liberal candidate, Bill MacDonald is well known in the area, and happens to be a “Brother” in the sense that we belong to the same fraternal organization, and have crossed paths in it.

The NDP candidate, Dave Parkhill, is someone who I used to spend Tuesday evenings with, as we were part of a gang that would gather at a Kingston eatery and quaff drinks and eat wings while we played a networked online trivia game against other places across the continent.

Having a positive close personal association with three of the provincial candidates in my riding may have made it difficult to be ravenously partisan, but it certainly made me sensitive to the fact that politics is not, in fact, life and death. Although I did not cast a ballot for either Bill or Dave, I know them outside the partisan arena, and know them to be good men, and good neighbours. Nothing that has transpired in the last six weeks alters my view, and I certainly look forward to seeing any of them again, now that the dust is mercifully settling.

There are those, of course, who I have crossed paths with who sincerely believe that holding a membership in a particular party is akin to living a life of depravity and perversion. It is though a group of people are prepared to argue publicly that the act of signing a form and paying ten dollars is tantamount to committing an act of such debauchery, you should be shamed much like a latter-day Hester Prynne, wearing a large blue C in place of the famed ‘Scarlet Letter.’ Possibly these individuals believe that those of us who hold such affiliations should have our computers examined for crude material, or have our children put into protective custody?

It is the most lamentable of situations, as I have often benefitted greatly from my associations with those who had different party colours. Our debates and conversations were not simply about muttering ‘Amen, brother’ back and forth. They were about challenging each other’s views, as well as the logic we used to develop them.

I have always been a fan of Sir Karl Popper, the German-British philosopher who developed the “Theory of Falsification”. In short, it holds that you cannot know the value of a theory until you know the point where it breaks down. A hammer is a good and useful tool, but you can’t saw a piece of wood with it – that is its limit.

Those who respectfully – and kindly – disagree with you force you to acknowledge the limits of your beliefs – where they work and where they let you down. In doing so, they pay you the greatest of services.

Those disagreements, however, never come in anger, and certainly never in an angry scream.

We should all bear this in mind – most especially those who say they want a more civilized discourse.

Pipe Dreams and Nightmares

Right now, there appears to be a furious battle over the laying of a large pipe to connect Cushing, Oklahoma with the gulf coast of the United States. There have been, in the past, many heated arguments with reference to the transport of crude oil to parts here and there. Like air travel, it is a relatively benign process until something happens, and that something is of such import as to throw groups and communities – nay, nations – into complete and utter turmoil.


Never in my years on this planet have I heard the kind of anger, vitriol, and discontent over a particular oil pipeline project as that currently being directed toward the Keystone XL scheme. Everyone from the usual groups of activists to Hollywood (former) A-listers have sounded off on this subject.

Of course, a protest – or an argument – is never about what is being debated. It is what lies behind the argument that is the most interesting, and truest, factor.

Keystone XL is not about Keystone XL – it is about the oil sands. Full stop.

I need not belabor the point on the global oil industry, and its various interests, sub-interests and machinations. They are far too numerous to mention and to keep track of. To offer context, however, I offer the following thumbnail.

You have oil production and distribution companies, which are often figured among the largest corporate entities on the face of the earth. You have nations who have vast petroleum resources who, by and large, are economically a one-trick pony. You have a cartel of these nations that seeks to control the levels of production in order to maximize their revenue. You also have the developed, and developing, worlds that - by and large – use more of the stuff than they own, and are as dependent on the stuff as a heroin addict. No oil, no industry, no modern civilization.

For many OPEC countries, oil revenue is much more than income. It is survival. It is the means of maintaining control, and so long as the world beats a path to their door and is willing to pay large sums for the product, they will have the wherewithal to do as they please. In the case of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and some members of the House of Saud, this means clamping down on the home population, while lending support to activities that, to say the least, are not always simpatico with those in countries like the United States, Canada, and others.

It is not an ideal situation – and many developed democracies are left to choose between their ethics and their interests, between justice and jobs.

The accident of geology, geography, and other factors led to northern Alberta playing host to the world’s largest dinosaur graveyard. Once scientists figured out how to pull sand out of the liquid on an industrial scale, and do it for a relatively modest price, the world began to take notice. Success breeds success, and as companies and scientists worked to improve extraction from the Athabasca oil sands, the stuff has gotten cheaper and more plentiful.

The headline in the last few years has been for the US government to declare Canada second only to Saudi Arabia in oil reserves. Those in the know, however, are aware of the real story.

The 175 billion barrels attributed to Canada, as opposed to the 275 billion held by the Saudis, are to be taken, no pun intended, with a grain of salt. The number is based on what is technically and financially possible to extract here and now.

The cost of something, as well as its technical feasibility, is not immutable. Events and circumstances can often make yesterday’s improbability today’s commonplace occurrence – like air travel and telecommunications.

The Athabasca oil sands, in fact, do not contain 175 billion barrels of oil. This is a number produced with the caveats of “based on current production technology” and “economically feasible at these prices.” Change the technology, or the economics, and the numbers change.

So, exactly how much is in the oil sands? The best estimates state that if one were to extract every drop of crude from the deposits, you would have a number closer to 1.5 trillion barrels. To put this into context, that is an amount equal to half of the world’s known deposits of conventional oil (the stuff that gushes out of the ground like Jed Clampett’s ‘Texas tea’).

The accurate picture of Athabasca is that of almost 200 billion barrels you can lay your hands on right now, with the potential of quadruple that with the right technology and investment.

If you are the United States, heavily dependent on the stuff, with a weary population wishing to extricate itself from Middle Eastern politics and the need to make nice to people of dubious motives, you would clearly see the benefit of having your closest neighbor and ally possess more oil than all of OPEC, and be willing to ship enough of it to you to do as your heart may conceive.

To a certain extent, this is happening already. London Brent Crude trades at nearly $110 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate is selling for almost $30 less. Many, including commentators at CNBC, have asserted that the deep discount for WTI is almost solely due to the flow of Athabasca oil down the pipe from Hardisty, Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma.

Unfortunately, this is of little consequence to the people of North America, let alone to the world writ large.

Oil needs refining in order to be useful to the average consumer, and as circumstance would have it, the lion’s share of North America’s refineries are along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and not in Oklahoma. What is on the gulf coast, however, are ports – ports that accommodate big tankers, tankers that transport that $110 barrel oil that OPEC sells.

As you pay a King’s ransom to fill up your car, you say “That’s crazy! Why don’t we refine the cheap stuff instead?!” Well, that’s a splendid idea – provided that you can get the cheap stuff to the gulf coast refineries.

Now we come to Keystone XL – either praised or vilified depending on your position.

From a technical standpoint, the proposed pipeline would do two things. First, it would double the amount of oily liquid travelling from Alberta to the States. Second, and probably of more import, it would continue the trip straight to the Gulf of Mexico, and the refineries in question – refineries that produce the majority of the gasoline used in both the United States and Canada. As the pipeline passes relatively close to the Bakken shale formations straddling Montana and Saskatchewan, there is potentially even more fuel that can head that way.

If you are a consumer of gasoline, which - in essence – is anyone reading this piece, you may have cause for comfort. You may see a chance for it to become cheaper to fill your car, to take a trip, to buy fresh produce at your local supermarket, or to buy anything make with any percentage of plastic. As virtually every global recession for the last four decades has been (coincidentally) preceded by a nasty spike in the price of oil, you might also feel that your home and your family’s income would be more secure.

Ahh – what’s not to love?

Well, if you are a Prince in the House of Saud, you are looking at a bunch of Canucks who are prepared to undercut your price on the one thing that pays the freight for your government and society. Lose your biggest customer, and you’ll be scrambling. But hey, what’s to worry with hundreds of radicalized Wahbbists who want to do away with anyone but a true believer. I mean, can the people who produced the likes of Osama bin Laden really be that bad?

Among the more pure of heart and thought, however, this is not good news either. If you are someone who strongly feels that the burning of fossil fuels is forcing the planet into an irreversible apocalypse, the notion of making oil cheaper and more plentiful is not good either. After all, how can you convince people to convert their energy consumption to ‘renewables’ when oil is selling at a heavy discount? It means that getting anyone other than the keenest and most avant-garde research establishments to invest in building a better, greener, mouse trap will be an increasingly difficult task. There are, of course, the running concerns surrounding the impact of oil sands extraction, as well as the safety of the pipelines in question.

Recently, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia took the unprecedented step of hiring legal representatives to ask the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to prevent ads from the group “Ethical Oil” from airing ads on various networks. Granted, they were none to flattering from the Saudi perspective, but they did not actually state anything that could not be demonstrably verified. Are women allowed to drive cars in Riyadh? No. Might not reflect well to a middle class Canadian audience, but it actually is true.

CTV made the move to not run the ads, but Sun News Network is, so the battle was half won by both sides.

Another salvo has been the running protests in Washington by groups concerned about the environmental impact of the Keystone XL project. Aboriginal groups, celebrities like Daryl Hannah, and the like, have been trying to assert pressure on the White House not to proceed with the project. Given the State Department’s endorsement of the plan, as well as the still undetermined impact of the “Arab Spring” on OPEC oil, the odds of an approval are probably better than 50/50.

To show the scope of the issue, groups in the UK were publicly calling on Prime Minister David Cameron to take a tough stand on his current visit to Ottawa. They know that if Athabasca crude can reach the gulf coast, it can get on a boat, and it can go anywhere in the world with a shoreline and a pier.

The Canadian government, of course, is not a dispassionate bystander in all of that. Recent pronouncements by Ministers such as John Baird have made the policy quite clear – the world wants Canadian oil. We can approve a pipeline and sell it to the States, or we can lay pipe to Prince Rupert and sell it to China, India and Japan. Your call.

A pipeline measures only about so much in diameter. You can’t see it from space, let alone from a half-mile away in most cases. Unless they fail structurally, they receive little or no notice. And yet, in this particular instance, there is the real possibility that a strand of pipe can change geopolitical and economic fortunes worldwide.

When so much of the world’s strategic relationships are now determined by where T-Rex and Brontosaurus chose to drop dead millions of years ago, are we really surprised that a prefabricated piece of tubing would do any less?

Whether one supports or opposes the plan, all can agree on one thing - it's a game changer.

Jack Layton, Canadian

It was announced that Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton succumbed to cancer this morning

It is not the intention of yours truly to eulogize this man. That task will be done by those better suited to the task, and far more worthy of the responsibility.

We can recount his achievement of taking Canada’s social democratic party and giving it two historical distinctions – a rout of the Bloc Quebecois on its home turf, and the mantle of becoming the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. What may be all the more remarkable is that these victories were – arguably – secured largely on his personal charisma and energy, despite being wracked with the illness that has now claimed his life.

The temptation of modern politics is often to be either cantankerous or Machiavellian, but Layton strongly - and stubbornly - held to the persona of the “happy warrior.” That he succeeded to the extent he did with this approach says just as much as his stoicism.

For some flawed reason, those of us who do not support a politician or their politics are not allowed to respect them for their basic humanity. In the end, all of the ill that I can say of Jack Layton is that he promoted misguided policies for reasons that were undoubtably noble and well-intentioned.

I never cast a vote toward Layton or his party, but his love of Canada was as genuine as mine and that of my ilk.

One can only hope that his family find strength and peace at this time, that his friends and colleagues are comforted by his legacy and achievements, and that we all learn that despite our partisan allegiances, we are all proud citizens of this great nation, struggling to do what is right and just to the best of our abilities.

Know thyself - if you dare

A few days ago, on the drive home – back from the city grind to rolling pastureland and trees – your truly was greeted by the dulcive tones of a CBC radio reporter declaring that the Federal government has reintroduced the title “Royal” with reference to Canada’s naval and air services. To those unaware, this obstensibly completes the reversal of a policy decision in 1968 – that of “unification” of the nation’s armed services.

Under the direction of then Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Canadian Army were melded into a polyglot ‘Canadian Forces’ with the branches given such inspiring names as ‘Land Command’, ‘Air Command’, and ‘Maritime Command.’

All military personnel were issued new cap badges that were an amalgam of all three services emblems, and were outfitted in stylish dark green polyester jumpers.

Unlike most bad fashion choices of the late 1960’s and 1970’s, these lovely vestments continued until the years of Brian Mulroney, when Air Command and Maritime Command could once again dress like sailors and pilots.

Given the overwhelming support for the move within the military ranks, and the general support outside, it has always seemed like unfinished business – that one would roll back part of a clearly unpopular policy without even considering the possibility of finishing the task. While some can remark on the relative speed of the decision to take this step, it comes twenty years after a partial reversal of a forty year old decision.

While the proponents of the move, by any objective measure, outnumber its critics by a mammoth margin, there are those who still wish to take task with the decision to ‘restore the royal honour.’

Like any good sailor who senses that the winds are blowing in the opposite direction, they have changed tack and changed the terms of the debate. Their strategy now is to cast the whole debate in terms of the question of Canada’s status as a constitutional monarchy. Rather than restoring a proud tradition to our military, Canada is self-imposing some form of subservience to Britain – that we are, in essence, promoting ‘colonialism.’

Yours truly has read online posts from dyspeptic pundits and everyday citizens who exhort that “We are Canadian – Not British” and that “The Queen is a foreigner”, et cetera and ad infinitum.

This debate, to my mind, raises two fundamental issues. First, it calls into question the understanding that individual Canadians have of their own history, which appears to be woefully inadequate bordering on shameful. Just as important, albeit more esoteric, is the question of nationalism and national identity itself. That is, what makes us who we are, as opposed to any other people in the world.

What critics of this move seem to lack appreciation of is the role that the Crown has had in defining the existence and the purpose of this nation from the beginning. Despite the Hollywood glamour machine’s ability to disseminate and promote the idea that the American Revolution was universal in its appeal, and that British forces were as evil as Nazi stormtroopers, not everyone embraced their ‘liberty’.

The recent Canadian broadcast of the HBO miniseries “John Adams” is a good illustration. Based on the book by acclaimed historian David McCullough, the story begins with the title character (played very well by Paul Giamatti) taking on the defence of individuals involved in the Boston Massacre, where many near riotous citizens were shot by British troops – some being killed. Yet, the people that this future signer of the Declaration of Independence and President of the United States (and father of a future President) was defending were the British troops themselves. There is also the scene where the title character makes clear his disgust of the tarring and feathering of a local customs official by the mob assembled. Even during the scenes taking place at the introductory Continental Congress, where Adams has now become adamant about a break with Britain, there still remained delegates from New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina who argued for negotiating a better relationship within the Empire. One might speculate whether Dominion status, had it existed, would have been the popular option.

Not only was society split, but so too were families. My mother’s family, the Peters of Hebron, Connecticut, were staunch Loyalists and paid the price of that loyalty. One Peters daughter was the wife of Samuel Jarvis, who was deputy to Upper Canada’s first Governor-General John Graves Simcoe. That family had also produced one General in Washington’s Army, as well as a future Governor of Connecticut, and a Supreme Court Justice in that state.

The central point, of course, is that English-speaking Canada exists solely due to the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, and their sole reason for leaving the future United States was a loyalty to the very same Crown that some people believe we should shelve because it isn’t ‘Canadian’.

Another charge is that promotion of the Crown is an insult to Quebec. This, too, is predicated on a selective ignorance of history. While the fixation is on 1759 and the Plains of Abraham, people conveniently ignore what took place next. They ignore the Royal Proclamation and the Quebec Act where Quebecois were given protection by the British Crown to remain French and Catholic. They also ignore the fact that the fledgling United States was so hostile to this accommodation of les Quebecois, Thomas Jefferson took the time to use his pen to embed this displeasure in the Declaration of Independence. That is, the United States was willing to put in writing the idea that allowing Quebeckers the right to remain a ‘distinct society’ was a partial excuse for revolution and war. Support among French Canadians for the Crown in 1776 and 1812 might seem a mystery to their descendants, but it was abundantly clear in their minds.

But all of that is history –they argue. We cannot live in the past, they retort.

And yet, this attitude begs its own questions. First, exactly what is outdated and foreign about our system? First, when compared to the vagaries of American election campaigns, and the recent histrionics that were the debt-ceiling debate, do we honestly believe we would have fared better as a republic with a partisan head of state. Secondly, on the foreign point, we are not ruled by the Queen of England. She is the Queen of Canada. One could ask these learned critics as to whether we would automatically lose our head of state should Britain choose to be a republic? The answer, of course, is no – that her role here is distinct and separate. Just read the oath that she, and her successors, must take at their coronation for proof of this fact.

Nowhere in this lengthy post have I answered the real raison d’etre for this move – or at least the one that supercedes the addressing of a failed policy. I will not recount the various points I made in the essay on this blog entitled “A world without friends”, but if one wishes to understand the prescience of reminding Canadians of their justification for existing as a unique nation, I commend them to give it a cursory view.

The only coda I may add to that, and to the final question – the nature of nationalism – is that for the first time since the 1960’s, there is a tacit realization that nationalism is an organic thing. The era of prefabricated Canadian-ness, ushered in by Pierre Trudeau, was a failure. It held such contempt for people that it thought that long standing loyalties and affections could easily be replaced by invented customs and practices. It was the height of hubris that they assumed that Canadians would forsake the symbols and customs that brought them together and helped them endure war and privation in favour of some generic lowest common denominator sales pitch contrived by bureaucrats and advertising executives.

Those who have criticized the government’s restoration of the royal honour are severely vehement in their criticism not just because of their fundamental opposition – of which they have the right to express – but likely due to the shock from the realization that after four decades of spoonfeeding Canadians an artificial version of their country, we seem to prefer the real thing, and by a wide margin.

As I have said previously, the world is changing. In the next couple of decades, we shall exist in an international system that, on the surface, seems to favour those whose fundamental values and beliefs differ from our own. Our allies and friends, by contrast, will appear lethargic and weakened.

Just as in any time of change and upheaval – in the life of an individual, or a society - the only defence against the coming storm is to know oneself. This recent, seemingly symbolic, act is an acknowledgment of this truth, and a step along the road of rediscovering who we truly are.

Like the lake, the trees, and the landscape of this humble home, the eternal and true defy the machinations of mortal hands.

A trivial people are we

The serene shores of the lake seem a world away from the bustle of foggy London town, but – alas – the world now possesses the technological ability to see all and hear all from every corner of the globe. Even in the midst of nature’s calm presence, one knows that the thick pall that hangs over that majestic city is not fog, but the acrid smoke of tear gas and lit fires.

Yours truly has great affection for that city, and its people. I was last there in 2005, and have missed it ever since. It is a place that manages, with great alacrity, to combine a proud history with a promising future.

The scenes of devastation and depravity are hard to watch, and even harder to understand. For some reason, thousands of people have been driven to wanton destruction and physical violence over the shooting death of an individual who, by some accounts, was part of the criminal element and had himself fired some rounds in the direction of the police.

Rioting has always been an element of societies, and any student of history can find ample examples of same. Indeed, most revolutions begin with these more radicalized acts of civil disobedience.

As a student of politics and history – and as someone who has had some front-row exposure to anger at government policy – I fully appreciate that on matters of principle and security of one’s person, there can be instances where one’s sympathies are with the crowd. The recent actions of individuals in Syria and Libya stand out as such.

In history, and in some cases today, people violently riot in the name of civil liberty, of freedom from oppression and hunger, from persecution and death. Unfortunately, they also riot because they do not get what they feel they are owed. Today, people are as likely to burn buildings and overturn cars for a raise in their cheques or the repeal of a piece of legislation as they might have been to protect their constitutional rights.

Years ago, as a high-school student in British Columbia, I had seen public service workers engage in full-scale strikes to shut down the province. They were opposed to layoffs and caps on their salaries. On these points, I did not mind what they did (and not just because it gave me a week off school). They had a right to strike, to collective bargaining, and to argue for what they felt to be legitimate concerns over the fate of public services in BC.

I did, however, have one big problem with their campaign.

It was the early 1980’s, and in Poland, Lech Walesa was under house arrest, and the Communist regime was putting tanks in the street – all to shut down the first truly free and independent trade union in the Soviet bloc, Solidarity. Anyone who caught a glimpse of the news would have seen the distinct banner of the organization. It was, by most people’s judgment, a representation of the struggle for democracy in a police state.

The trade unions in British Columbia seemed to draw a moral equivalency between pay raises and job security with the freedom not to be thrown in a gulag or marched in front of a firing squad. They, too, called their campaign ‘Solidarity’, but they went much further. The banners they displayed in the streets of Vancouver were visually identical to those of the Polish trade movement, with the exception of the spelling of the name in English, as opposed to the Polish ‘Solidarnosc’.

I had no fixed opinion on the merits of the public service workers’ grievances, but I was deeply offended that they would compare their ‘plight’ to that of Walesa and his supporters. This was my first recognizable experience with the trivialization of society, and it has not been the last.

And really – how trivial have we become?

People are more likely to vote for a contestant on a reality show than the people who administer their government and protect their freedoms. We will attempt to re-enact the storming of the Bastille all for the cause of a couple of dollars a month, or the opening of a bike lane, or the re-zoning of a city lot.

London, and other British cities, have been scarred and assaulted by mobs, and for what? For food? For freedom? To oppose brutality and abuse? So far, it appears that thousands of young people have desecrated their communities to honour the memory of a man who allegedly engaged in gang crime, and in the name of scoring some kick-butt consumer electronics. If you are looking for a latter-day Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry, you will certainly not find them there.

Listening to the BBC World Service, I heard one young woman being interviewed who said that the rioters were showing that “they weren’t afraid of the police.” I find this to be a problematic comment. First, most people would not naturally be ‘afraid’ of the police. I see them every day – patrolling roads, frequenting local establishments, interacting with the public. Indeed, the only time I would conceivably be ‘afraid’ of them would be when I am driving a little too fast. Having said that, this ‘fear’ comes from not wanting to be caught doing something that I know is wrong.

Let us be clear – there are places in the world where a genuine fear of police can be warranted, where human rights abuses are commonplace. In those particular jurisdictions, one can rightly feel a cool chill and a panic at the sight of someone in uniform. Those places, however, are well known and enormously documented – by the media, by international organizations, and by human rights groups.

Unfortunately, due to either boredom or ulterior motivations, there are those in our midst who want to take the friendly constable who spends most of his or her day ‘walking the beat’, talking to local shopkeepers, or teaching safety seminars to grade school children as part of the cadre of a police state.

They act like a dystopic Walter Mitty, where their imaginations take the everyday and transform it into something dark and sinister. They purposely misappropriate the language of the dramatic in order to justify the pedantic.

Not only is it an insult to those who suffer genuine abuses, but it is an insult to the intelligence of people who see no moral equivalency between being tortured in a gulag and being told that your welfare cheque is being docked five quid.

I, like many, will often engage in the thought exercise of considering what I would do in a given set of circumstances. What would I do if I were a protester in Hama, Syria, with government troops on the move? What would I do if I had been a ‘freedom rider’, heading to Birmingham, Alabama in the early 1960’s? What would I have done if I were a young man in Soweto in the latter days of apartheid? What would I do if I have been a young Zimbabwean in Robert Mugabe’s inflation and violence wracked dystopia.

Humour has always been the best way of illustrating the absurdity of modern life. From the days of Aristophanes, to Voltaire, to Noel Coward, to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, many astute commentators find that the only effective way to communicate the problems of society is to demonstrate how ridiculous we can be.

American comedian Larry David, in his show “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, demonstrated what I would consider to be a propos to what we have witnessed as of late. The scene is a dinner party where two men vehemently argue as to who can lay claim to being the real ‘survivor’ – one is an elderly Jewish gentleman who endured the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz during World War II, while the other was Colby Donaldson, erstwhile contestant on “Survivor: Australia” and “Survivor: All Stars”.

The only conclusion that I can draw is that, in the absence of real threats to our liberty and the safety to our person, many in western liberal democracies have become a truly frivolous lot.

The causes for this malaise are far too numerous to count. Maybe we suffer from some form of narcissism. Maybe we are afflicted by the paradox of being interconnected with the ebbs and flows of Planet Earth, yet are completely cut off from the human beings in our immediate midst. Maybe we are bored. Maybe we are overwhelmed and are trying to push our modest understanding of the world. Maybe it’s a combination of all of these things.

I have learned enough in my life to know what knowledge I still lack. The lake gives no answers- no matter how hard you listen. It only asks more questions.

With some luck, however, we will stumble across the means to survive this regrettable turn that society has been intent on making.