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.

A world without friends?

Many Canadians have reveled in a feeling of schadenfreude when it comes to the recent debt ceiling debate in the United States. As a descendant of United Empire Loyalists writing within months of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, I understand the sentiment, even if it is somewhat unsightly and can easily venture into being undignified.

Much printer’s ink has been spilled over the economic – and political - fate of the US, with a smaller amount set aside for divining the impact on the loonie and our exports south. One can only venture that the prevailing attitude is some combination of fear for one’s self and the rather morbid curiosity of rubbernecking past the scene of a horrible car crash.

At present, the Congress has appeared to find enough of a lowest common denominator as to appease enough interests, and punch a breathing hole through the box they have placed themselves in. While many in the heartland are breathing a sigh of relief, wiser minds understand that this is not clemency, but a delay. When one has maxed out their credit card and cannot afford the monthly minimum payments, increasing their credit limit merely postpones the pain.

The prospects for Canada may be tenuous and challenging at first blush, but they foreshadow a debate that no-one has begun to initiate – one that will be as familiar to our children and grand-children as it is foreign to us.

From that moment in 1534 when Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspé and planted the French Royal Standard, Canada has always been connected, associated, or partnered with an empire or power. French seigneury ended in 1759, only to be replaced by British imperial rule. 1867 would bring a form of independence, but one that was still clearly within the confines of Empire. The Second World War destroyed fascism, but it also dealt a mortal blow to the British Empire. Almost seamlessly, however, Canada became part of a broader American led economic, political and military coalition of interests.

Canadian foreign policy has always reflected this reality, with initiatives designed either to buttress those relationships, or to assert some selective independence for national political expediency.

The shift in the global economy, and the recent financial turmoil spread through Europe, North America, and parts of Asia, reflect a change in power structures. In many respects, this is natural, and can be healthy. It is the result of more people entering the free market economy, and being lifted from relative levels of poverty.

It is also a shift into the unknown.

A major decline in US power would mean that for the first time in its history as a modern nation-state, Canada could find itself without a senior partner or discernable network of interests in the world. Economic, political, and demographic considerations will lead to both Europeans and Americans becoming more introverted, more concerned with domestic stability than international statecraft.
While predictions of the future are always problematic, it is fair to assume that American foreign policy will be far less interventionist, and may possibly be constrained by the need to maintain stability. A weaker United States combined with a stronger China would necessarily, for example, change the power relationship in South East Asia. The status of Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and China’s declared maritime ‘economic zone’ will garner more attention than it does today. Indeed, when one considers Beijing’s call to have observer status on the Arctic Council, and a ringside seat on matters relating to an area of the world where it has no territory, one can only surmise what the policy would be in areas closer to its borders.

It is important to appreciate that the rise of China relative to other nations is not a prima facie negative. Every nation has the right to work to improving the lives and conditions of its people. Also, it would be unfair to presume that China would be an aggressive and destabilizing force in the world. In addition, there is nothing inherent in the character of the Chinese people that would be anathema to the overall peace and security of the world.

Having said that, while governments to a one always purport to be a representation of the will of the people, they often follow paths that diverge. If, as former American politician Tip O’Neill once asserted, that “all politics is local,” then there is always an inherent bias of treating foreign policy as an extension of domestic prerogatives. If those prerogatives lend toward a heavy-handedness, and – arguably – a newfound haughtiness and conceit, then we can only presume that a nation of over 1 billion people, with a nuclear armed military that has more personnel than the population of North America, a thirst for more natural resources than it possesses, and a political system with a history of reprisals and retributions will have a particular style of dealing with others.

One can rightfully argue that power corrupts, and that the ‘unipolar moment’ for the United States has presented some regrettable excesses. Nevertheless, those excesses are mild compared to those of other nations who enjoyed an advantage over their peers. Replacing the primacy of Washington with that of Beijing only serves to trade one set of issues for another – and if those issues are connected to a nation that suppresses human rights and liberty at home, and is beginning to display a nascent amount in arrogance toward other states, we will not have improved our lot.

A weakened United States and a crippled Europe, combined with an ascending totalitarian regime is the future that we face. Canadians will enter this brave new world with the real possibility that no-one will have our backs.

A generation of Liberal politicians have knelt at the altar of multilateralism – chiefly through the United Nations. Regrettably, this has meant that policy by the lowest common denominator. When one considers that Iran can serve on a human rights committee, and North Korea can be entrusted to chair the group promoting disarmament, we can see that the protection that this type of policy offers is no protection at all.

While Canada should endeavor to be a good and trustworthy partner to all, we need to acknowledge that some nations work better together than others. With the possible decline of existing global relationships, we must be at the forefront of forming new alliances and new partnerships.

Canada should therefore commit itself to a retooling of its foreign policy.

First, we should place a clear bias toward those nations that embrace those values that we hold dear. That means working to develop deeper ties with countries that promote human rights and freedoms, free market economies, and respect for the rule of law.

Canada is an Anglophone nation, a Francophone nation, and a power in the Western Hemisphere. This means that our trade, human rights and development aid should be specifically targeted toward the nations of the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and the Organization of American States. Not only do these relationships tend to be the most successful and mutually-beneficial we have, but building on this approach – a “Three Sphere” strategy – we also fashion a system where we would serve as the nexus point between all three networks. Commonwealth nations wishing to tap into markets in la Francophonie and the Americas would use Canada as the trade and investment conduit, and so on.

The Prime Minister’s actions in this regard are encouraging, but may be too timid, given the rapidly changing complexion of the global economy and geopolitical structures. Stephen Harper is correct to pursue strategies to strengthen our military capabilities, develop our energy infrastructure, diversify our trade, and promote our values. What is needed, however, is the synthesis of a more holistic policy – one that specifically identifies what kind of international role Canada sees for itself, as well as the kind of international architecture it is keen to help develop.

The world is changing. In two decades, we will enter a world with multiple centres of power and influence, where no particular political philosophy is dominant, and where competition for resources and markets for a growing population will mark relations between states. Building deep and enduring alliances with the like-minded and similarly oriented is the only way that Canada will ensure its relevancy in the global community. More importantly, it is the only insurance policy for Canadians to live in a society influenced by its own values and prerogatives.

"Waiting for Trudeau"

In 1953, a new play by Samuel Beckett entitled “Waiting for Godot” was first performed in Paris. It is, without getting too involved in the plot, the story of Vladimir and Estragon who spend the entire two act performance sitting at a table and, as the story suggests, wait for the arrival of the title character. Of course, it never happens. They play is not really about Godot so much as it is about the reactions and behavior of Vladimir and Estragon as they wait. Boredom, frustration, and even suicide figure in the narrative.

This play comes to mind as I look out into the cool blue water of the lake. Here, art imitates life. Any picture or description of this land remains a true representation of its natural attributes – rocks, trees and grass. In the metaphysical world, however, life imitates art.  As yours truly believes in the Lockean precepts of freedom being endowed by one’s Creator, the practice of politics seems to belong properly to that world.

Before Monday, the questions being asked were whether the Tories would finally get their majority, and whether the NDP would get their breakthrough. Now, the question being asked is whether the venerable Liberal Party will survive? On this issue, there are as many opinions as there are people offering them.

The choice for Liberals is essentially that to either fight or to fold. There is no middle ground. Either you are committed to the organization’s survival, or you take your toys and go home. Assuming that it is the will of the Liberal Party’s supporters to fight on, then the bigger question must be “for what?”

Parties may be vehicles for the attainment of power, but ostensibly, they are vehicles to promote a vision and a comprehensive platform for a society. The problem with the Liberal Party of today has been its fixation with one to the detriment of the other.

More than any other party, the Liberal Party has been defined more by its leaders than by anything else.  When you are a centrist party, you will lean left or right on many occasions, so ideology is not so rigid, and therefore not a binding feature.

For over a decade, Pierre Elliott Trudeau cast a formidable presence in the party. In many ways, he and the Liberal Party became synonymous with one another. His departure from the stage was analogous to the death of Queen Victoria, when people who lived their entire lives under her reign wondered what came next.

Ideally, those at the top prepare for contingencies and change. They recognize that things must be different and we should all bloody well get on with it. Alas, that does not appear to have happened with the Liberal Party.

Like Vladimir and Estragon, they sit in solitude on an empty stage “Waiting For Trudeau.” They select leaders who ‘served under Trudeau’ or, in the case of Paul Martin, a man whose father ‘served with Trudeau.’

Time passes forward and they choose Stephane Dion, a francophone professor pulled into cabinet after a perfunctory byelection (just like Trudeau). He lacks Trudeau’s charisma, and so he his dropkicked in favor of Michael Ignatieff, whose career, writings, and entry into politics also mirrors that of Pierre Trudeau. Monday night’s result reflects the success of that choice.

Now, we hear people tout the possibility of a new leader in the MP for Papineau, who does not have the resume of a Pierre Trudeau, but has the surname and DNA of the great man.

Without disrespecting any of these men, and their talents, the problem is with a party that spends an inordinate amount of time asking “What would Pierre do?” Like religious sects, there is much handwringing and forelock tugging about the Trudeau legacy, and the best way to preserve the faith. And, like religious sects, there is always the ecclesiastic battle between choosing a leader either on merit, or by inheritance.

The Trudeau legacy, in truth, was a mixed bag, and for every Canadian that looks upon it with a warm and fuzzy feeling, there is at least one other who feel the bile rise with the mention of his name. Just take a trip to Alberta if you doubt this fact. Beyond that is the uncomfortable reality that no Canadian under the age of 45 was ever old enough to vote when the man was last on the ballot. To the greying zoomer crowd, he may have been the embodiment of an age, but to many others Pierre Trudeau is just a name in the history books, like Diefenbaker, Mackenzie King, Laurier and Macdonald.

Without sounding too mean-spirited, the real problem with the Liberal Party is that it was too good at selling its own hype. Unfortunately, it was its own major consumer of the mythology it crafted. In convincing Canadians that the Trudeau legacy was indispensible to the nation, it convinced itself of its own indispensible place. More than a party, it has seen itself as an institution.

But institutions change, as they must, to remain relevant to their purpose and to their constituency.

Politics offers no guarantees. The party I first became politically active with, technically, does not exist. On the other hand, I have never felt that my point of view or priorities were not well served within its successor.

The assumption that the Liberal Party defines Canada was hubristic and, as we have seen, self-destructive.

So, why care?

Well, despite the current situation, the Liberal Party does represent something unique in Canada. More important than the legacy is its talent and its potential. The Liberals I know feel passionate about their party, and proud of its accomplishments. They will argue that without the Liberal Party of Canada, they will not have a political home.

For those reasons alone, they have a purpose to go forward. All they need now it’s a reason for others to embrace that dream.

Fear v. Love

The air has a decidedly warmer feel to it, and despite the often heavy spring rains that April brings, one senses that summer is on its way.


One can smell change everywhere, and the current federal election is no exception.

Yours truly did scrutineer duties at a local advance poll, and even before the news media crowed about high turnout, the phenomenon was noticeable there. Some quipped that election day would be quiet as everyone had gone ahead and voted already.

High voter turnout. In an age of declining attendance, it does stick out like a sore thumb when it happens. The political scientists and aged campaign veterans will tell you that it means only one thing – a concerted will to turf the party in power.

In this world, anything is possible, but there is a difference between possibility and likelihood. Usually high turnout coincides with a series of polls over a period of time that telegraphs a spanking for the governing party. This time, however, the Tories have maintained an 8 to 14 point lead consistently during the campaign. Some polls are better than others (and yours truly follows one particular poll produced by a former colleague and personal friend) but even if the numbers are not identical, the relative position of each party and the overall trend appears to be consistent. The trend ceteris paribus leans to a particular scenario, of a Tory government straddling the 155 mark - a strong minority or a tenuous majority.

That, of course, fits with my earlier prognostication. What does not, however, is the recent positioning of Jack Layton’s New Democrats in the catbird seat.

Some random thoughts on the situation lend themselves to being teased out.

Conventional wisdom would contend that Jack Layton could become anything from Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to Prime Minister. Clearly the trend, at first blush, left unabated would deliver such results.

Being a natural contrarian, I believe that regardless of what drove the turnout at the advance polls, that surprising result will almost assuredly guarantee a high turnout on May 2nd. Tories are so close to a majority that they can smell it, the New Democrats smell blood in the water, and the Liberals can look to the old adage that “nothing sharpens the mind like a hanging in the morning.”

The NDP support should, however, be taken with an enormous grain of iodine. Overall popular vote does not equal seats. In 1993 the Progressive Conservatives received over 2.1 million votes and got two seats for their trouble. Conversely, the Bloc garnered 54 seats on nearly 400,000 fewer votes. Votes count, but where they lie is just as important. While the NDP is showing growth in all regions, the lion’s share of the phenomenon is in Quebec, and at the expense of the Bloc.

Outside Quebec is more interesting. First, while young voters are excited by Layton and his team, anyone in Ontario or BC over a certain age remembers NDP provincial governments – and not necessarily with great fondness. People in Ontario over 35, politically motivated or not, remember what “Rae Days” were. Secondly, Layton’s commitment to open the Constitution may have put his Quebec candidates in the driver’s seat, but it may have also served to throw Ontario, Western and BC candidates under the bus.

One also has to consider that, like in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Surging NDP poll numbers plus record turnout at the advance polls equals a full court press from both Tories and Liberals. The Conservative message is that only a strong majority will act as an insurance policy against an NDP coalition, while the Liberals will argue that upping the NDP vote does nothing but place ridings in the hands of Stephen Harper.

The Liberals are, by the situation, the most disadvantaged. While fighting head-on with the NDP for the liberal-left of the spectrum, they must also convince their right-wing to hold fast and not defect to the Tories in order to guarantee that Jack Layton gets nowhere near the front door of 24 Sussex.

In this instance, we will learn next week what is a stronger phenomenon – the passionate idealism of young NDP supporters disenchanted with the other parties, or the cold-blooded fear of those who lost four years of their lives and property the last time a New Democrat government held sway in their part of the country.

If you believe Machiavelli’s dictum that “it is better to be feared than to be loved,” and you recognize the demographic profile of the likely Canadian voter, then expect the over-35 crowd to line up around the block in order to nullify every ‘vote mob’ organized on every college and university campus in the Dominion.

From the shore of Cole Lake right this moment, it seems likely that the three opposition parties may end up with roughly the same number of seats, and the Tories somewhat short of their majority target.

So, we’ll have a coalition, right?

Uh, no.

The assumption with the coalition scenario was that the Liberals would be the senior partner. Any distribution that makes the Liberals co-captains or second fiddle to the NDP would be DOA – after all, the only thing more important than the temporary leadership of the government would be the permanent leadership of the centre-left. Add to that the fact that the Liberal and NDP caucuses may still not equal the Tory contingent.

Make nice with the Bloc? Not likely. Kiss of death for federalists, and the Bloc would be hard pressed to play nice with a party that had just dropkicked half their MP’s to the unemployment line.

So, while yours truly is feeling punchy, let’s throw out something really off the wall. Lets assume that the Tories are a half-dozen short of a majority, and the NDP have taken over the number two spot. The Liberals will no doubt be reduced in many ways – in representation in the House, in hard cash, and most likely a leader. What remains of the Liberal caucus may be caught in a squeeze. Some left-leaning Grit MP’s might consider a move to the NDP. Conversely, some “Paul Martin” Liberals may decide that crossing the floor to shake hands with Stephen Harper is a small price to pay to stop a socialist future. What if ten Liberal MPs – who may be fiscally conservative, or pro-life, or anti-gun registry – decide to make that trip? What starts out as a minority could very well become a majority before the House adjourns for the summer.

Life, by its very character, is unpredictable. As much as politics excites and motivates, your truly can only tolerate the sudden twists and turns knowing that some things never change – like the lapping waves and cooling breezes by the shore of the lake.

Strategic Voting, or chopping down trees to save a forest?

When you live in a rural area, there is much relief from the vicissitudes of modern life. It allows you, when the moment comes, to become reflective. Far too often, we are busy dealing with the vagaries of now to pay attention to the longer term.


As we enter the home stretch of the election season, we hear the word ‘strategy’ batted about, in all number of occasions. Of course, there is the general strategy of running campaigns – either in targeting particular ridings and polls, and the finer nuances of messaging and communicating to the public.

Inevitably, though, the word gets used in a particular context – that of voting intentions.

Strategic voting, for those not in the know, is the conscious decision among voters to cast their ballot for their second choice candidate and party, all in the attempt to block the party and candidate that they really do not want.

It come from a judgment that your preferred choice doesn’t stand a ghost of winning, and that by voting for a less palatable alternative, you can help prevent an even more objectionable candidate from winning. The old ‘lesser of two evils’ paradigm.

It is a tactic, and a tool that, under the right circumstances, can give the desired result. For example, a Tory wins a riding by only a handful of votes over their Liberal rival. A group of NDP supporters switch their support to the Grits, and said Tory gets unseated. In a controlled environment, this experiment works somewhat well.

The problem with strategic voting is that it is a strategy borne of desperation – much like the Muslim commander Tariq ibn Ziyad who, once his forces landed in Spain, promptly put the torch to his own boats. No way back – only forward. The British and American armies used this tactic in the War of 1812 with squads called “forlorn hope”. They were cautioned that the chances of returning alive were negligible, and that the desperation of the moment dictated the strategy.

In many ways, strategic voting is the political equivalent of this. It is a move of desperation that carries as much risk as it does reward. It is the “Hail Mary” pass of political campaigning.

First, it only works if the numbers are right. What if Liberal plus NDP cannot equal victory? The serene shores of Cole Lake reside in a riding where, for the last three elections, the constituency has been carried with more than half the total ballots cast. Adding independents and folks from the Marijuana Party ain’t gonna turn the tide on that one.

Second, how do you coordinate it? Party members and campaign staff aside, over 95% of voters do not belong to a political party. How do you tell them that you want to do a pile-on? Will enough of them do it to make a difference? Perhaps too many do it, and your campaign is not weakened but outright obliterated.

Thirdly, how do you put out the message that you are prepared to lose on purpose? If you thought enough to field a candidate, but literature and print signs, then why wouldn’t you care enough to win? Voters would be right to ask why you are wasting their time if you were not serious to begin with.

Beyond that, even if the strategy accomplishes its stated goals, it comes with a heavy price.

One, local campaigns get rebated the lion’s share of their campaign expenses if, and only if, they attain at least 15% of the popular vote. What if, in pursuit of hobbling a potential winner, you ‘lend’ enough votes to another challenger to place your own campaign below the threshhold. You, my friend, will then suffer the indignity of being the only one not getting a cheque from Elections Canada that has four zeroes on it. Rest assured, come the next election, when you decide to play for keeps, you will understand what you sacrificed in order to achieve a short-term result.

Beyond that, there is also the matter of the $2.00 per vote per year that a party gets as a result of the support you give. This is the money that goes to party headquarters, to buy commercials, to rent planes, busses and hotel rooms, to hire staffers and run the cross-Canada ground game. Assuming that 1000 NDP’ers have decided to hold their nose and vote Liberal to stymie the Tories, over a four-year period, that equates to a loss of $8000 to the Federal NDP to fight the next campaign. Worse still, it is $8000 that goes to a party you don’t support, and only voted for in order to put the kybosh on the neo-Cons – which may, or may not actually work…You’re welcome.

Having said all of that, strategic voting is, like any strategy, a perfectly valid tactic and, under the right circumstances and in the right measure, have an impact. It is, however, a very tricky piece of equipment to operate. Not enough and nothing happens, while too much is tantamount to political hiri-kiri. You are guaranteed a certain degree of loss, and it is not always clear that what you gain will be adequate compensation for what you sacrifice.

There is, of course, the question of how committed a person is to a party, a platform, and a leader if they are prepared to throw them under the bus just for one desperate chance to be the fly in the ointment, but je degress.

Life, and nature, are eternal. The trees that border the lake have many rings. Some are wide and mark years of growth, while others narrow and show lean and challenging times. Nevertheless, the tree continues to exist while it has life and a purpose for being. Maybe some politicians should stop staring at forests and look at the trees within them.

Irresistable Force? Meet Immovable Object...

The farm has been sans hot water for a couple of days, and yours truly has been busy trying to recify the problem. The situation occupied the time from stepping in the front door to about 30 minutes into the Leaders' Debate.

Luckily, five minutes into my television viewing, and I was relieved to see that nothing of major import happened in my absence. Of course, nothing of major import happened in my presence either.

In my previous submission, I observed that political campaigns are not won with the seminal knockout flourish that gets chronicled in the textbooks for years to come. Rather, it is about 'skating a clean program' and not letting your derriere hit the ice. Clearly, three of the men at the podiums last night took this to heart, while the fourth, sensing that le debat en francais was the bigger deal essentially acted like a black hole - consuming both space and time and leaving nothing in its stead but empty darkness.

Harper skated a clean program. So did Ignatieff, and so did Layton. All played it safe and to the chest because, despite what they needed to gain, all recognized their vulnerabilities and what they stood to lose. It was the rhetorical equivalent of a reflexive grabbing of the privates when one sees a low flying pitch in the basement of the strike zone.

Of course, this does not mean that there could have been a winner. Unfortunately, the recipe for winning a debate is to have someone lose. Again, you can't guarantee a win by skating clean - you have to skate clean and hope that your opponent's toe pick turns a graceful pirouette into a death spiral worthy of a dogfight scene in a World War II biopic. Winning is not about being the best. It is about being the least worst.

Consider, then, three skaters all doing a safe program, and nobody falling down. The irresistable object meets the immovable force. The smoke clears and nothing changes.

Michael Ignatieff did what he had to do, but to complete the deal he needed Stephen Harper to screw up. Didn't happen.

Harper was 'Prime Ministerial', but he needed to show up Ignatieff. Also didn't happen.

Jack Layton, despite his bravado about becoming Prime Minister, was out to best Michael Ignatieff. Here we have the closest to what would be considered a success. Two barbs - one on attendance, and the other about the Liberals being a figurative 'crutch' to the government, while brandishing his cane (a far better use of onstage props than the piece of paper Stockwell Day used back in the 1990's). Unfortunately, saving your ammo for the last five minutes of a two hour debate might leave some lasting impressions, but it came too late in the game to count substantively.

In the end, if this debate were a horserace, the folks at Woodbine would still be reviewing the finish line photo.

So, what's the result of this?

If you leaned Tory before the debate, you are probably ready to consumate the deal. Ditto if you leaned Liberal or NDP. I suspect that the poll numbers will not have changed much. Indeed, the consequence of this whole performance is that the three are largely locked in. They have entered a part of the track too narrow for anyone to pass.

Between now and election day, only two things can alter the trajectory of the race not finishing as it stands today - the french language debate, and the final week of the campaign when undecideds typically make a commitment to fish or cut bait.

The Holy Grail for the Tories is 155. I predicted either 3 over or 3 short of this number. Nothing thus far has changed my mind.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to boil some water.

The First Cole Lake Pre-Pre-Election Prognostication Pool

Live, from the serene shores of Cole Lake, comes the Chronicle’s very first “Election Prediction” post.

It seems inevitable that the federal budget, tabled Tuesday, will precipitate a vote of non-confidence on Friday, and a subsequent walk to Rideau Hall looking for a dissolution of Parliament. Before the snow has fully melted, crews of volunteers will be slapping up lawn signs here, there and everywhere, and for a 4 to 6 week period, tragedy in Japan and war in Libya will be crowded off the news channels – the Canadian ones, that is.

Leaders will tell you that they don’t want to do it. All they want is to work together for the public good. And yet, no election in the midpoint of a term ever happens unless one, or many, of them want it to.

If you are Gilles Duceppe, you sense an opportunity to wrest away a handful of Tory seats in and near Quebec City. 

If you are Jack Layton, you view the polls which put you within spitting distance of the Liberals, and you think that you might be able to snag an extra seat or two in B.C. 

If you are Michael Ignatieff, the recent miscues and embarrassments of the government show a rare moment of blood in the water, and the consequent feeding frenzy may be the best shot your party has had in months, if not years.

Then again, if you are Stephen Harper, you look at the polls, the party war chests, and the strength of your ground game, and reason that while you don’t want an election, you are not going to be heartbroken if you are forced into one.

So, to varying degrees, each party is spoiling for a fight. That is why you will be asked to cast a ballot before the crocuses bloom.

But what will this achieve? If you are the opposition, you see it as the end of Tory rule. If you are the government, you see it as a chance at that elusive prize of a majority government. That’s what you can hope for, but what you get may be quite different. I, for one, am a partisan. I have a horse in this race, and I know the outcome I would like. That, however, doesn’t mean I will get it.

The following is less about what I would like to see than what is likely.

First, though, consider the many variables that go into a victory – or a defeat:

1.     

      1. Opposition parties do not win elections – governing parties lose them. If Messrs. Ignatieff or Layton wish to become Prime Minister, it will be due to a lack of support for Mr. Harper, and not some groundswell for their policies and leadership acumen. Even Barack “Yes We Can” Obama needed the tailwind of an unpopular George W. Bush in order to get to the White House;

2.     

      2. The ground game – leadership counts, but the ground game in 308 ridings matters more in the tight races. Money, volunteers, quality candidates and good organization – if at a consistent level across the country – can translate in up to 25 seats easy. That’s less than what the Tories need for a majority, and close to enough for Michael Ignatieff to become Prime Minister.

3.     

      3. The defining moment / policy of this campaign is a mystery yet to be revealed – if you think it’s about Harper’s perceived ‘arrogance’ or Ignatieff’s perceived…’arrogance’, think again. Somewhere, somehow, a lone Canadian – a voter, a candidate, or a political staffer – will lob a grenade into the middle of the race. The media and blogosphere will examine and chronicle it closer than a Charlie Sheen blood test. Voters will then be encouraged to consider it as a wider metaphor for the relative worthiness – or unworthiness – of a given leader / party. It will account for about a five point swing in the polls and that’s enough to determine a winner. If you’re Kim Campbell watching clips of those infamous TV ads from 1993, or former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown listening to your own voice trashing a voter for being a racist / bigot, you know what I mean.

4.      

      4. Money talks – cash in the bank for parties matters. Ads, lawnsigns, and mailings aren’t free. Just as birds gotta fly and fish gotta swim, party leaders gotta charter buses and planes, and that costs serious dough.

So, what do I think?

The strengths:

1.     

      The Tories: A war chest that is massive compared to their rivals, a well-oiled machine, and experienced ground game, and a leader that never – ever – shoots from the hip. A successful economic record, and an exuding of confident leadership.

2.     

      The Liberals: A smart and erudite leader who is learning to become comfortable in his own skin, and a modest rebuilding of the party’s moribund finances, combined with a tailwind from recent Tory controversies. A recent theme to capitalize on embarrassing misdeeds and misdeals does speak to the integrity issue, which could yield dividends.

3.     

      The NDP: Jack Layton scores high on the leadership and integrity issue, and the party has closed the polling gap with the Liberals. Also, recent retirements among Tory MP’s in B.C.  give some cause for hope.

The weaknesses:

1.     

      The Tories: Perceptions of aloofness play into the narrative of a ‘hidden agenda’. Also, recent embarrassments hit at the issue of integrity and credibility. Despite good economic numbers, unemployment is still high, and issues surrounding the price of F-35 fighter jets could be a major irritant on the campaign trail.

2.     The Liberals: Stephen Harper might not be a warm and fuzzy fellow, but neither is Michael Ignatieff.  Unfortunately, an air of superiority is harder to overcome than an air of aloofness. Beyond that, the Grits have significantly less money than the Tories – both nationally and locally. In a countdown of the wealthiest partisan riding associations in Canada, the Liberals do not even crack the top 30. Party HQ does not rent campaign offices in small town Canada, nor does it recruit volunteers and purchase lawn signs.

3.     The NDP: Their weakness is their strength. Despite what many think of Tory and Liberal prospects, no party has its fate so closely tied to its leader than the New Democrats. Jack Layton’s recent health issues, and how they figure, will determine whether the NDP capitalizes on its recent poll strength.

The ‘Wild Cards’:

1.     Mid East turmoil: More trouble in the region could spike oil prices, leading to mid-campaign pain. If you are the government, it’s hard to sell your financial stewardship when Canadians are being given pink slips a couple of days after the writ has been dropped. Also, if  the mission in Libya takes a turn for the worse, there could be a price to be paid.

2.     Foot-In-mouth disease: No matter how experienced candidates are, and no matter how carefully vetted they are, stupid happens. Put a microphone in front of some candidates and they act like the garrulous uncle who has a few too many boilermakers at the last family reunion. A local meet and greet or town hall can get covered by Lloyd Robertson or Peter Mansbridge in the space of a 24 hour news cycle if there’s enough red meat.

3.     

      The Debate: Is there a defining soundbite? Is there not? Ever since John F. Kennedy’s ‘youthful’ presence upstaged Nixon’s pallid visage (ironically, Nixon was younger than Kennedy), televised debates have shifted ground. Brian Mulroney’s ‘you had a choice, sir’ charge to John Turner in 1984, and followed up by Turner’s counter-charge of signing the country away in 1988 each impacted the race. As a disclosure, on one of the two aforementioned examples, yours truly was in the company of one of these leaders less than 24 hours after the debate. Believe me when I say that debates matter. They won’t win or lose the election, but they can change the landscape nonetheless.

Now, after all of that, and taking into account as many things as I can, I predict that the Tories will win either a stronger minority, or a bare majority – maybe 3 or 4 seats beyond the threshold. Probably no more.

As it is, the Tories have tons of cash and a very disciplined team on the ground. The Liberals are getting some traction, but not enough, and a strong NDP showing will create enough splitting on the left to put about 30-35 ridings in play.

In the end, though, only a fool tries to predict the future. The only safe bet is to say that the winning party will be the one who screws up the least.

Bon chance from the bucolic shores of the Lake!

Grant me the serenity...

The sight of yet another cold and messy early Spring day makes a person wish that they could just have a hand and be done with it. The music of melting ice cracking on the lake cannot come too soon to my ears. Despite my eagerness (or impatience) for warmer weather, I must place my trust in higher powers - namely God, groundhogs, and the current Farmer's Almanac. Patience and serenity are hard to hold onto in early March, and yet...

There is a particular novena that is popular with many people, and I believe that members of Alcoholics Anonymous often cite it. It is the Serenity Prayer, attributed to theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in the early 20th century. Without getting into technical transcriptions, I offer the main gist of the text:

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.”

In a discussion of the current turmoil in the Middle East, I am reminded of this phrase. In particular, a conversation with my ten-year old brought out the near-futility of the current situation.

He asks me why we don’t intercede. I tell him that most of the people being turfed were people who, while we did not always support, were not necessarily in a big hurry to get rid of – stability and all that.

But whose side would we take? The people in power? History seems to bear out, whether it be Batista’s Cuba or South Vietnam, or a bunch of other regimes, you end up on the losing end anyway and have inherited a thoroughly hostile new government with ciitzens who take great joy in burning your flag in front of the news cameras.

The West did away with Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950’s, only to reap the bitter harvest in 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini stepped off the plane from Paris. Long memories – and fairly bitter ones too.

Okay, so help the other side, then. After all, they are fighting against oppression, right? Okay, so let’s look at an example of when we did just that, when we gave the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan tons of weapons and technical support in order to turf out the Soviets. Fast forward two decades and many of our ‘friends’ turned their attention to fighting their former benefactors, now under the monikers of ‘Taliban’ and ‘al-Qaeda.’

Libya presents an interesting example. As I write this, Dutch Marines are being held captive by the Qaddafi regime, while British paratroopers were captured by the forces trying to topple said regime. Both forces were in the country trying to help their nationals get out, but in such a part of the world, even one boot mark in the sand seems to be an act of provocation.

Human instinct, or human passions, urge us on to do something – anything – to either hasten, or prevent, revolutions. It seems, though, that these types of adventures never fail in blowing up in one’s face. Witness the example of the Bourbon monarchy in France. In its eagerness to give a bloody nose to its cross-channel rivals, it invested a great deal of blood and treasure helping the Americans shrug off British rule. Their reward? Virtual bankruptcy, leading to draconian taxation, and people like Jefferson and Paine who repaid the largesse of the Royal court with republican urgings to the French people. In many respects, French noblemen made their date with Monsieur Guillotine years before in their heady desire to challenge the British on the issue of America.

Even today, many commentators would have to admit that our dealings with the People’s Republic of China are somewhat influenced by attitudes about the West formed during the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion of the early 1900’s.

Our reliance on petroleum makes us highly sensitive to political events in the Middle East. Barring some technological breakthrough that allows us to fuel our cars with old tin cans and paper wrappings – like Doc. Brown’s DeLorean in the ‘Back to the Future” movies – we will continue to be interested parties to these types of situations.

Given the enormous supply of crude in the Alberta oil sands and the Bakken fields, as well as the significant amount of natural gas present in North America, our current vulnerabilities are a result more with our own attitudes and predilections than anything else.

When all is said and done, our gut reaction may be to do something, but possibly – maybe – we should take a lesson from Niebuhr and “change the things we can change, and learn to live with the rest – as unpleasant as that may be.

Nothing up my sleeve...

Magicians are the masters of diversion. Sleight of hand is, not to put too fine a point on it, their stock and trade. They will distract you with their left hand while their right one is busy palming the coin or card, or whatever there was on the table.


The point is that conjury is not about being able to alter the universe, but simply altering your perception of it.

Of course, you can always choose to look at the hand that’s not thrust in your face, or look to the side of the stage to see who is pulling the wires and harnesses.

On Monday, Prime Minister’s Harper’s office announced that he would be in Washington this Friday to meet with President Obama in the White House. Since then (3 to 4 short days) all of the talk has been about border security and immigration. Senator Joseph Lieberman’s comments about security have only what the appetite of those who believe that border security and preventing another 9/11 is code for surrendering Canadian sovereignty.

Most agree that nothing tangible will come from this meeting, except a photo op and the agreement to negotiate a bilateral agreement for sometime in the undetermined future.

Okay, that’s all well and good, and probably true – as far as it goes – but really?

In my humble observation, visits to Washington are usually announced weeks and months – not hours and days – before they actually happen. If you have to wait a couple of weeks to get an appointment with your dentist or GP, how can you get in to see the world’s most powerful, and well-guarded, human being in 72 hours?

I’m not cynical, but with the economy in the toilet, the Republicans in control of the House, revolutions in a bunch of Middle Eastern countries, and a baker’s dozen of state Attorneys-General trying to have courts overturn what would be your political ‘legacy’ of healthcare reform, would you not have more productive uses of your time than having a chinwag with Steve?

Border security and trade are, in essence, what’s contained in the magician’s left hand.

So, what’s in the right?

The answer to that will cost you about ten American dollars – literally.

On January 31st – the day that Harper’s visit was announced, the New York Times posted an article by Clifford Krause, which said, in part:

“In case you haven’t noticed, oil prices in the United States differ from those in the rest of the world. Usually the variance is just a few dollars, but over the last few weeks the difference between West Texas Intermediate prices and Brent crude, which is sourced in Europe’s North Sea, has widened to about $10.


“That means that while Americans are buying oil at just over $90 a barrel, the price Europeans and Asians are paying is already over $100. And if the turmoil in Egypt spreads to its oil fields and the Suez Canal, a major transit point for European supplies, that spread could expand even more.

“But so far the spread, which began widening before demonstrators took to the streets of Cairo, has little to do with the Middle East. It is mostly about a big buildup of crude in the Cushing, Okla., oil depot. Cushing is flush partly because demand in the United States is only slowly recovering. But most of all, it is a result of increasing imports of refined synthetic oil produced from Canadian oil sands, now the single most important source of imported oil.

“Canadian oil producers love the way that Americans are growing increasingly dependent on them as opposed to our trading partners in the Persian Gulf. It is no coincidence that while most of the world’s stock exchanges experienced declines on Friday related to the crisis in Egypt, the Canadian stock market rallied. Particularly strong were the oil sands company stocks.

“The shifting oil trade and the Egyptian crisis come as the controversy over the Keystone pipeline is heating up. The State Department needs to decide whether to grant approval to the pipeline, which is designed to substantially expand the flow of Canadian synthetic crude to the United States.”

The Americans, aware that the troubles in Egypt have a direct impact on the Suez Canal, and a more than indirect portent for Arab states that actually have oil reserves, realize that Canadian oil is the only thing preventing West Texas Intermediate from spiking by ten percent overnight. They also know that the discussions to expand the flow of that oil – through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline – hinge on a verdict by the US State Department.

Even beyond this, there are bigger issues, including the possibility of a Pacific Gateway pipeline to Prince Rupert, BC – one that would make this oil accessible to Japan, India, and the People’s Republic of China.

While I do not want to speculate as to what today’s visit will bring, here is a likely scenario:

1. A photo op where each leader expresses admiration for one another and their people, including the cursory history of friendship, values, fight against terror, yadda, yadda;

2. A commitment to work to negotiate and hammer out a trade deal that will be in the best interests of both nations;

3. A further commitment to have a frank, yet respectful dialogue about outstanding issues that, despite their visibility, should never detract from the larger, more positive relationship.

Then, in a week or two, the State Department will rubber stamp Keystone XL, and the White House will try to get people like Lieberman and the critics of the oil sands to put a sock in it for the greater good.

Green energy is all well and good, but Washington beltway jockeys know that those plans take years and decades, while the fecal matter hitting the oscillating device could take only days.

Then again, everything from the shore of this lake looks a bit different.